Luke Mitchell

[Sten Guns]

This is like having an argument with a child. How old are you out of interest? You're an incredibly immature individual. I haven't ran out of ideas Sten, that's why I'm replying. It's you that's chosen now to avoid any sort of confrontation and purely troll this thread for whatever reason you've got. Telling me I'm struggling is not a retort, that's you struggling. Please tell me, as I'm really interested to know, what have I gotten wrong here? What have I said that is false? What do you believe that you are right about that I am not? Please tell.

 

What was my earlier claim that I've backed away from? I can't think of anything that I've claimed, never mind a claim I've chosen to now ignore.

 

I have no interest in this case. I think you'll find that the majority of my posts, including this one, aren't about the specific case, but more to do with the ignorant and ill-informed (mainly you) that think they know everything about it when it's clear as day that they (you) don't.

 

Now, even though I might not 100% agree with AllanM in regards to Luke being innocent, he definitely appears a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than you. Granted, that's not hard, but if he says that Corinne wasn't burning anything and that her burning anything wasn't used as evidence against Luke then I'll believe him. In such a case, your persistence of using this as part of your evidence for Luke being guilty is entirely unfounded. I think you know less about this case than you think you do Sten.

 

You claimed i had stated the burning alone was proof of guilt.

 

You were wrong.

 

Then wouldn't shut up about it despite being put in your place.

 

Then you kept going, embarrassingly quoting me to prove me correct.

 

Wrong again, Walter.

 

You then claim I don't know anything about the case.

 

Guess what Walter, very very wrong. Again.

 

Your frequent contributions seem to be on my intelligence, my age, my apparent low depth of knowledge on the case and the calling of another poster, borderline retarded and pathetic. SMASHING MATE.

 

Look big boy, got a game to go to at Tynecastle.

 

Look forward to post 29 on a case you have no interest in.

 

 

P.s im 12 and a half.

 

P.p.s Luke and his mum had a sexual relationship. (allegedly)

[BoJack Horseman]

You claimed i had stated the burning alone was proof of guilt.

 

You were wrong.

 

The way in which you presented the burning was such that you believed it had enough weight as evidence on it's own. I wasn't wrong about that. I'm still not.

 

Then wouldn't shut up about it despite being put in your place.

 

If anything, it is you that's been put in his place.

 

Then you kept going, embarrassingly quoting me to prove me correct.

 

Wrong again, Walter.

 

I proved myself right actually. There's been many mention of you having a mare on this thread Sten, you've made a fair tit of yourself and you can't even see it. I'm far from embarrassed.

 

You then claim I don't know anything about the case.

 

Guess what Walter, very very wrong. Again.

 

You clearly know nothing more than the average punter who picks up the paper. Your opinions are that of the journalist who's writing whatever article you're reading in the Star. My opinions are all my own.

Your frequent contributions seem to be on my intelligence, my age, my apparent low depth of knowledge on the case and the calling of another poster, borderline retarded and pathetic. SMASHING MATE.

 

The fact that all you've taken from my posts is the above shows the absurdity of you as an individual. You're so caught up in your own inflated ego you genuinely think everything's about you.

 

Look big boy, got a game to go to at Tynecastle.

 

Not sure why you keep calling me big boy. :bitgay:

 

Look forward to post 29 on a case you have no interest in.

 

I'll carry on posting on this thread Sten, as I find the conversation interesting, despite your incessant dribble.

 

 

P.s im 12 and a half.

 

P.p.s Luke and his mum had a sexual relationship. (allegedly)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

The Dunning?Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

 

Educate yourself.

[Johanes de Silentio]

I still do not believe that the Wrongly Accused website, or any other website, would block you personally, unless you had already proven yourself to be a trouble-maker, because anyone can join and post and there are no blocks to posting. How would they know your IP address, for a start, in order to block you? You need to learn a bit more about technology, my friend, before you make claims like this.

 

No - all I need to know is that I tried to join that horrendously one-sided forum, and was not allowed to do so.

 

Now, have you read my posts?

 

Are you ready to apologise?

 

For being wrong.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Perhaps Paranoid Android has been wrongly accused of being someone else?

 

Nope.

[Denny Crane]

Can we assume then AllanM that by your non-response to my initial question that your comment about the media coverage of this case (as queried earlier by myself on post 150 of this thread) was based on nothing factual and was a throwaway comment designed to misinform others and deflect others from closely examining your line of argument?

[AllanM]

 

So miraculously his mother claims the missing knife was incorrect. Smashing argument!

 

The point which I feel is more pertinent is that it doesn't matter if there was a "missing knife". It proves nothing, as many people can mislay small objects, and it is easy to leave things behind in long grass when fishing or camping, which as I explained was the purpose of the knife in question.

 

There was no evidence it was burnt clothes, but likewise there was no evidence it wasn't burnt clothes. They don't know what it was!

 

Actually, as I have explained, the ash evidence was not presented in court, presumably because it disproved the theory that Mrs. Mitchell destroyed clothing in the burner.

 

Why on earth was she burning stuff the night Jodi was murdered! Have a word with yourself man!

 

Well, as I have explained, it was high summer, so she might have been having a barbecue.. however, she wasn't burning anything that night. No evidence was presented at the trial to prove that she was burning something. The only "evidence" the police could come up with, in spite of interviewing all the neighbours is that someone smelt burning from somewhere, but they did not know where the smell was coming from - i.e. the smell could have been coming from any garden in the vicinity.

 

It's blindingly obvious what happened, just difficult to prove. But the jury got there, thankfully!

 

No - the jury were misled and hoodwinked.

 

Links to proof of other mens DNA / seamen on the body please? Would like to read them.

 

There is information spread across the internet in various places, however, the most reliable source of information is the Wrongly Accused Person forum, because Sandra Lean has access to many of the forensic reports, all the court documents and other information - more information than she can disclose for a variety of reasons.

 

The information is spread throughout Luke Mitchell's thread on the Wrongly Accused Person forum, but there is a concentration of information before and after this point.

 

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/1110/'>http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/1110/

 

To put the information into context, it is helpful to read the entire thread, although Luke has some very loyal supporters, so there are now over 800 pages, of varied interest and value. As far as the information Sandra posts, it is all carefully collated or quoted verbitim from the forensic tests and the legal documents, which include all the trial documents and full trial transcript. Sandra has given a personal guarantee that all the information which appears on the forum is correct, and if it was incorrect, it would be removed very quickly by the "powers that be".

 

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/1110/

[AllanM]

Gilroy's conviction was a lot more convincing than this, I think. There was a motive and physical evidence.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I am not saying that he was guilty, because I know nothing about the case, but at least the circumstantial evidence related to the crime.

[HMFC 1874]

For someone to say that they know for certain that Luke Mitchell is innocent is absolutely ridiculous.

[AllanM]

I agree that there is not much in the way of evidence, and no actual proof that Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones.

 

(that doesn't mean he didn't do it, of course)

 

I don't buy the 'trial by media' thing, though - the jury members will have been told to disregard anything they had heard or read prior to the trial.

 

Jury members should know that that can only base their decisions on the evidence presented in court.

 

Well, just read over this forum thread, and revise your attitudes. Look at the comments and attitudes which were posted here in this thread. They prove that the majority of people cannot be objective and change their minds, even if they are given quite a lot of new information which should, if they were in any way fair, cause them to pause and rethink. The jury was comprised of the type of people who have been posting in this thread. It is very apparent to me that the prejudice caused by the media and the police prior to the trial led to the jury and the judge being unable to separate the known facts from the total fiction they were fed. Having said that, the jury were not given all the information in the court, and I agree with your last point that they can only base their decisions on the evidence. Luke Mitchell's lawyer let him down, and failed to even procure funding to get independent forensic testing carried out, then failed to bring up many issues which should have been brought up in court. Sadly, and tragically, none of that evidence can be used in any appeal, because the law states that only new evidence can be presented, so failure by the defence team to present the evidence is not seen as grounds for an appeal.

[jim747]

For someone to say that they know for certain that Luke Mitchell is innocent is absolutely ridiculous.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if LukeM has internet access in his cell

[AllanM]

Just a wee bit of input from myself here. Assuming all this chat about him being innocent is true, where is the killer? Because I'm willing to wager that this killer would have killed again by now if they were out and about.

 

There's little doubt in my mind that Mitchell is guilty, the lack of evidence may well be a bit questionable but I'm fairly confident that the right person is behind bars.

 

There have been quite a number of murders around Dalkeith in the years since Jodi died, plus a vicious rape which involved a knife. Many, many people go missing ever year, and we never really hear about it, unless the family keep pushing, or a body is found. There was a body found in a bin not so long ago - no-one had heard of that girl till her body was found. Betty Brown's body was found in woodland, and only then did Crimewatch cover her story. She was last seen on a bus traveling down to the borders from Edinburgh. One of the stops en route is right beside the path where Jodi was killed. This is probably a coincidence, of course, but who knows. For sure, Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones, so her murderer could still be at large.

[desmondo]

luke and his family did little to endear themselves after the murder if I remember correctly

 

It was only after the conviction when they really wanted to speak out and scream fowl

 

As I asked Al why did the over protective Mummy wait till the day of the poor girls funeral to give there/her first interview ??

 

Why don't Legal experts jump in and offer help at this alleged miscarriage of justice ??

 

Why don't the press do similar ??

 

The only one person of note that has come to the fore in support is a local nonentity, maybe with a tad of self interest

 

 

Where are all these people now adults who might offer a different take on this case as the Yrs have passed anyway or is that just sh ite

[AllanM]

I tend to agree.

 

In the case of Jodi Jones's murder, I don't think motive comes into it at all - that murder was the work of a depraved psychotic lunatic, imo - there can be no rational motive for what Jodi Jones's murderer did to her.

 

This is an interesting point, because Luke was put through psychological tests which state that he is entirely sane, with no psychological or mental illness, and furthermore he shows no tendency towards sexual deviance. In other words, he does not fit the profile of the murderer of Jodi Jones.

[The Real Maroonblood]

There have been quite a number of murders around Dalkeith in the years since Jodi died, plus a vicious rape which involved a knife. Many, many people go missing ever year, and we never really hear about it, unless the family keep pushing, or a body is found. There was a body found in a bin not so long ago - no-one had heard of that girl till her body was found. Betty Brown's body was found in woodland, and only then did Crimewatch cover her story. She was last seen on a bus traveling down to the borders from Edinburgh. One of the stops en route is right beside the path where Jodi was killed. This is probably a coincidence, of course, but who knows. For sure, Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jones, so her murderer could still be at large.

Yes he did.Fact

[The Brow]

For someone to say that they know for certain that Luke Mitchell is innocent is absolutely ridiculous.

 

This whole thread is pretty ridiculous. How anyone can state that they are correct one way or the other is ludicrous.

 

There are only 3 people (if you believe Luke is innocent) that know if Luke Mitchell committed the murder, and one is dead.

 

Still, the bun fight is fairly funny. Does everyone read Sten Guns posts in a stereotypical 'roid rage' voice in their head?

[AllanM]

The latest appeal is based on the similarities between Jodi Jones's murder and Robert Greens's brutal attack on a Dutch girl at Roslyn.

 

(I'd hope that the cops had looked into that)

 

Corrine Mitchell has been saying for ages that they know who killed Jodi Jones - now they're saying Robert Greens did it!

 

Which is it, Corrine?

 

These are the kind of questions I'd ask if I was allowed on Sandra Lean's forum!

 

I am not aware of the police investigating Robert Greens in relation to this crime. They were fixated on Luke the whole time.

 

I don't remember reading that Corinne Mitchell knew who killed Jodi Jones. I could be wrong.. but I don't remember reading that. What she has said very frequently is that she believes that the killer is being protected by others who might suspect or know about his guilt. The Robert Greens possibility has also been raised.

[desmondo]

This is an interesting point, because Luke was put through psychological tests which state that he is entirely sane, with no psychological or mental illness, and furthermore he shows no tendency towards sexual deviance. In other words, he does not fit the profile of the murderer of Jodi Jones.

 

 

I think word 'Profile' is used far to much

 

The OB would have jailed that lad from the Wimbledon Common Murder on the strength of that tripe

 

Watched a bow tied plum in the mouth dislikeable clown on the telly once telling all that he could pretty much narrow down a killer with the basics when profiling

 

They makers of the TV documentary then gave him a case to work on, he failed miserably, getting most of the culprits stuff well wrong,yet told Uni students at an introduction shown on the Doc to call him God

 

He was then told, the Police would use Crimewatch as an option, which he scoffed at,basically dismissed it, when told a month later they had apprehended and a charged a Man through the programme, he then called the programme Potent, unparalleled arrogance

 

I think if you use enough resources you will get near the criminal if not get him, this idea about Profiling is only an opinion and should only be used as a train of thought IMO

[AllanM]

The main plank of the prosecution case was "guilty knowledge"; in finding the body quickly despite poor conditions, Mitchell demonstrated that he already knew where it was. In his defence, Mitchell claimed that he went through a distinctive "V"-shaped hole in one part of the wall to find the body, because a family dog had alerted him to something suspicious. The prosecution stated that only the killer could have known the exact location of Jodi's body. To allow the jury to explore the plausibility of these claims, a mock-up wall was erected in the Laigh Hall, below Parliament Hall within Parliament House, across the road from the High Court of Justiciary building in Edinburgh's Old Town, where the trial was being heard. A visit by the entire jury to the actual murder scene was also arranged.

 

I assume AlanM has some theory for this?

 

I don't need a theory. The early search party statements described the dog pulling Luke back to the gap in the wall and standing up on it's hind legs so its head was level with the crack. As a result of this Luke went over the wall, to take a look around, using a high powered torch. After a short time, he called back to say that he could see something. Two other people joined him, and they also saw what he saw. Together, they went closer to discover the body, half-hidden in the vegetation. They all saw something, just as Luke did, from the same point he was standing. Those search party statements were taken shortly after the discovery of the body. In the ensuing months, these witnesses changed their stories, identically, to a denial that the dog had alerted them to the whereabouts of the body. This was never made clear in court, and the people whose stories all changed were never asked to give an explanation for the reason their accounts had been changed.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Well, just read over this forum thread, and revise your attitudes. Look at the comments and attitudes which were posted here in this thread. They prove that the majority of people cannot be objective and change their minds, even if they are given quite a lot of new information which should, if they were in any way fair, cause them to pause and rethink. The jury was comprised of the type of people who have been posting in this thread. It is very apparent to me that the prejudice caused by the media and the police prior to the trial led to the jury and the judge being unable to separate the known facts from the total fiction they were fed. Having said that, the jury were not given all the information in the court, and I agree with your last point that they can only base their decisions on the evidence. Luke Mitchell's lawyer let him down, and failed to even procure funding to get independent forensic testing carried out, then failed to bring up many issues which should have been brought up in court. Sadly, and tragically, none of that evidence can be used in any appeal, because the law states that only new evidence can be presented, so failure by the defence team to present the evidence is not seen as grounds for an appeal.

 

Right - I've come to the conclusion that you're a brainless idiot who is reciting from Sandra Lean's prayer book.

 

At no point have I posted that Luke Mitchell is guilty.

 

You would know that, had you taken the trouble to read and digest my ******* posts.

[Johanes de Silentio]

For someone to say that they know for certain that Luke Mitchell is innocent is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[HMFC 1874]

Allan M, can I ask how you know these search party witnesses changed their statements?

[Johanes de Silentio]

I am not aware of the police investigating Robert Greens in relation to this crime. They were fixated on Luke the whole time.

 

I don't remember reading that Corinne Mitchell knew who killed Jodi Jones. I could be wrong. but I don't remember reading that. What she has said very frequently is that she believes that the killer is being protected by others who might suspect or know about his guilt. The Robert Greens possibility has also been raised.

 

1 - The Robert Greens citation is a matter of public record - it has also been mentioned on Sandra Lean's forum.

 

2 - The Greens link is/was being used as a reason for appeal.

 

3 - Corinne Mitchell has stated several times on Sandra Lean's forum that she knows who murdered Jodi Jones, and that he is being protected.

 

3 - you are a brainless autodidact.

[ellie0028]

I dont even think Robert Greens should be brought into this,he raped a woman beat her up and left her for dead, Jodie Jones was brutally murdered,throat slit,carvings made on her body and no sign of a sexual assault,two different crimes all together....The mother is clutching a straws with that one!

[Johanes de Silentio]

This is an interesting point, because Luke was put through psychological tests which state that he is entirely sane, with no psychological or mental illness, and furthermore he shows no tendency towards sexual deviance. In other words, he does not fit the profile of the murderer of Jodi Jones.

 

There is no such thing as a profile of/for a warp - they are all unique - unique inasmuch as they are warps.

[Johanes de Silentio]

I dont even think Robert Greens should be brought into this, he raped a woman beat her up and left her for dead, Jodie Jones was brutally murdered, throat slit, carvings made on her body and no sign of a sexual assault, to different crimes all together....The mother is clutching a straws with that one!

 

It was Luke Mitchell's supporters that brought Greens into it.

 

Are you sure that there wasn't a sexual element to Jodi's murder?

[AllanM]

 

 

I think it's blindingly obvious to judge and jury what she was burning.

 

I make no apologies if you don't have the intelligence to understand my point.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

She was not burning anything. No-one presented proof of anything burned. The contents of the garden stove were tested with zero proof of clothing being burned. I have already stated this several times in this thread. You could apologise for continuing to repeat a mantra which has been raised already, rather than read my previous posts with regard to this.

[Johanes de Silentio]

She was not burning anything. No-one presented proof of anything burned. The contents of the garden stove were tested with zero proof of clothing being burned. I have already stated this several times in this thread. You could apologise for continuing to repeat a mantra which has been raised already, rather than read my previous posts with regard to this.

 

Who are you, really?

[AllanM]

Shares a bedroom with his mother, has a penchant for Satan and has a collection of knives :interesting:

 

Nah, clearly not attributes a deranged killer would have.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to buy a DVD of a murder to watch the day after her body was found anaw.

 

 

 

 

This is a truly despicable and thoughtless post. Luke did not share a bedroom with his mother. He did not have a collection of knives. Otherwise, there would not have been such an issue of a "missing" knife. The police could have presented his collection in court as possible murder weapons.

 

I personally do not find it so unreasonable for him to have taken an interest in violent crime after his girlfriend was a victim of one. However, I do not know the date of the purchase. I'd be surprised if it was the day after the murder, as he was up most of the might at the police station, so I imagine he'd have been asleep most of the following day. Where did you get your information from?

[desmondo]

Who are you, really?

 

 

As you pointed out PA, Al only spouts from a Paralegals bible after that he has nothing to bring to the table

 

Al is also selective when responding, when he is asked certain question he blanks them, does himself no favours

 

Anyway Al do you know why the Mitchel's refused to speak out until the day of the poor girls funeral mm ??

[ellie0028]

It was Luke Mitchell's supporters that brought Greens into it.

 

Are you sure that there wasn't a sexual element to Jodi's murder?

 

 

Yeah I read the report and said there was no signs of anything sexual,no assualt,now if I were on the jury I would have believed that..

 

But again isnt it the case if its a serial killer/crime the pattern tends to be the same..

[The Real Maroonblood]

This is a truly despicable and thoughtless post. Luke did not share a bedro.om with his mother He did not have a collection of knives. Otherwise, there would not have been such an issue of a "missing" knife. The police could have presented his collection in court as possible murder weapons.

 

I personally do not find it so unreasonable for him to have taken an interest in violent crime after his girlfriend was a victim of one. However, I do not know the date of the purchase. I'd be surprised if it was the day after the murder, as he was up most of the might at the police station, so I imagine he'd have been asleep most of the following day. Where did you get your information from?

Do you know this for sure?

[AllanM]

He is a piece of dirt that should be wiped off the face of this earth. He loves what hes done and hes not afraid to hide it. I think im gona burst with range in a minute!

 

Henry, you are obviously another who has been influenced by the media. Is it any wonder he was found guilty with this amount of prejudice and hatred? Please take the time to read my posts, and by all means ask questions, or bring up any fair points for discussion. This senseless attack of a young man whom I believe has been wrongly convicted is extremely sad. It worries me that people can have such entrenched views based on nothing tangible, which they are unable to revise when presented with new information.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Al is also selective when responding, when he is asked certain question he blanks them, does himself no favours

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Henry, you are obviously another who has been influenced by the media. Is it any wonder he was found guilty with this amount of prejudice and hatred? Please take the time to read my posts, and by all means ask questions, or bring up any fair points for discussion. This senseless attack of a young man whom I believe has been wrongly convicted is extremely sad. It worries me that people can have such entrenched views based on nothing tangible, which they are unable to revise when presented with new information.

Imagine if we had capital punishment and he had been executed.

[ellie0028]

Im not looking to get into any argument here,im just a nobody that believe Luke Mitchell is guilty..

 

The argument about statements being changed later,now weren't they changed by those that were at the scene when her body was found,again just my view but dont people go into shock when they see someone the know and cared for being found murdered?

 

Now my mum became the main witness in a murder case a about 5/6 years ago,even though she didnt see what happened...she was interviewed a few hours after the murder,then again a week later,and she remembered more the second time.

Now I know how that effect my mum and she never saw anything she just heard it but thankfully the man pleaded guilty and my mum never had to go to court. Im just saying that shock effect people,maybe thats why the statements were changed

[Johanes de Silentio]

Yeah I read the report and said there was no signs of anything sexual, no assualt, now if I were on the jury I would have believed that..

 

But again isnt it the case if its a serial killer/crime the pattern tends to be the same..

 

Sandra Lean claims that the modus operandi in the Greens incident is very similar to Jodi Jones's murder.

[AllanM]

 

 

Again, it's tough to say for sure because I don't know the full details but the jury do and deemed it to be convincing enough to find him guilty, they don't have any reason to stitch him up or anything. like AlanM has suggested the police have done.

 

The jury was comprised of ordinary people like the ones who are posting here on the forum. If the majority of posters in this thread represent the attitudes of the average man/woman who might have been asked to do jury duty, then it is obvious that no matter what was said at the trial, Luke Mitchell did not stand a chance.

[fabienleclerq]

Yeah I read the report and said there was no signs of anything sexual,no assualt,now if I were on the jury I would have believed that..

 

But again isnt it the case if its a serial killer/crime the pattern tends to be the same..

Did he/whoever not cut parts of her body off, parts that could be sexual?

[AllanM]

You don't know that.

 

I do know that. Between the time of the murder and the time when Luke Mitchell was seen by three of his schoolfriends sitting on a wall waiting for Jodi there was not time to go home, change and clean himself up. After that, he met up with other friends and spent the evening out playing with them.

[HMFC 1874]

The jury was comprised of ordinary people like the ones who are posting here on the forum. If the majority of posters in this thread represent the attitudes of the average man/woman who might have been asked to do jury duty, then it is obvious that no matter what was said at the trial, Luke Mitchell did not stand a chance.

 

In a previous post, you said that search party witnesses changed their statements, how do you know this?

[AllanM]

Your no the brightest Walter eh?

 

Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence, no?

 

Of course all the small points raised aren't irrefutable proof. But added together they paint a clear picture, in the jury's eyes, that Luke Mitchell killed her.

 

David Gilroy had cuts on his hand. If I was to act like Walter White I would be saying;

 

THATS NOT PROOF LIKESAY. HAVE YOU NEVUR CUT YOOR HANDS?!

 

Your just no getting it eh? Bless.

 

You going to give an opinion on whether he done it or not? Go on, I dare u! Be brave!!

 

Let me guess, you will dodge the question. Zzzzz

 

Sten, Walter seems to be one of the few people on this forum who can read, spell and use logic.

 

Please read my previous post which explains the difference between circumstantial evidence and character defamation.

[ellie0028]

Sandra Lean claims that the modus operandi in the Greens incident is very similar to Jodi Jones's murder.

 

 

That's her opinion,mines is there are two different cases,I would have to read into both crimes in great detail to say if I would agree with her or not..The only thing know is they both tried to blame other people and they both were found guilty! Lame argument I know lol

[AllanM]

Having a penchant for Satan? I'm pretty sure he has no belief in a made up person but was more just a sad teenage boy trying to be controversial.

 

My wife's family slept in the same room as each other until she was five. Should I be worried about her?

 

Hiring a DVD about a murder? So if he watched Taggart or Crimewatch on TV, he'd also be guilty?

 

Luke was a weird, dark little kid like thousands of weird, dark little kids across the country. I don't however see a murder epidemic of teenagers.

 

Great post, Normthebarman.

[desmondo]

The jury was comprised of ordinary people like the ones who are posting here on the forum. If the majority of posters in this thread represent the attitudes of the average man/woman who might have been asked to do jury duty, then it is obvious that no matter what was said at the trial, Luke Mitchell did not stand a chance.

 

 

TBH your obsession on this tragic case is a worry, now the Jury are guilty

 

Its patently obvious you feel luke is wholeheartedly innocent, fair enough but expect others see it different

 

And why did the Mitchells leave it so late to speak out when by there own account they are totally innocent of all accusations

 

What is your connection to those involved if any

 

As for the lottery of the Jury thats a factof life, wouldny like you to be on one as rationality seems to be a non event when you express an opinion

[ellie0028]

Did he/whoever not cut parts of her body off, parts that could be sexual?

 

 

You would have to ask the killer that,no me lol

[Johanes de Silentio]

I do know that. Between the time of the murder and the time when Luke Mitchell was seen by three of his schoolfriends sitting on a wall waiting for Jodi there was not time to go home, change and clean himself up. After that, he met up with other friends and spent the evening out playing with them.

 

You're relying on that information being correct - it might not be - you don't know.

 

You're all over the place.

[ellie0028]

here what I read

 

'Professor Anthony Busuttil, who has performed homicide post mortem examinations all over the world, said he had rarely seen such extensive mutilation injuries as those inflicted on Jodi.

 

Asked whether he saw any likeness between the injuries to Jodi and the pictures of Short, the professor said: "In terms of the location and the type of injuries there is a similarity. The same variety of cutting and slashing injuries."

 

Prof Busuttil, 59, of Edinburgh University, carried out a post mortem examination on Jodi the day after she died. And he said she was horribly mutiliated after her death.

 

The professor told the High Court in Edinburgh there was no evidence of recent sexual abuse and no signs of sexual attack.

 

There were indications Jodi had been smothered with a ligature and may have been unconscious when the fatal throat wound was inflicted.

 

She had sustained slashing-type cuts over both eyelids and a similar wound across her cheek.

 

Referring to the injury which ran right across her throat and through the jugular vein, the professor said: "That would be fatal almost immediately."

 

The jury were shown a mortuary picture of Jodi with neck, cheek, stomach and arm wounds.

 

A knife had also been pushed through her mouth, piercing her tonsils.'

 

And I read it here

 

my link

[Tazio]

After that, he met up with other friends and spent the evening out playing with them.

 

What did they play? Hide and seek? Cowboys and indians?

 

You seem to spend a lot of time talking about him as if he was a little child, he wasn't. He was a young adult who on occasion took drugs and behaved like a normal small-town teenager. Not a child who went out playing with his pals.

[Johanes de Silentio]

That's her opinion

 

Exactly - it's her opinion - the same opinion that is being repeated by her supporters, who hang on her every word - people like AllanM.

[Johanes de Silentio]

here what I read

 

'Professor Anthony Busuttil, who has performed homicide post mortem examinations all over the world, said he had rarely seen such extensive mutilation injuries as those inflicted on Jodi.

 

Asked whether he saw any likeness between the injuries to Jodi and the pictures of Short, the professor said: "In terms of the location and the type of injuries there is a similarity. The same variety of cutting and slashing injuries."

 

Prof Busuttil, 59, of Edinburgh University, carried out a post mortem examination on Jodi the day after she died. And he said she was horribly mutiliated after her death.

 

The professor told the High Court in Edinburgh there was no evidence of recent sexual abuse and no signs of sexual attack.

 

There were indications Jodi had been smothered with a ligature and may have been unconscious when the fatal throat wound was inflicted.

 

She had sustained slashing-type cuts over both eyelids and a similar wound across her cheek.

 

Referring to the injury which ran right across her throat and through the jugular vein, the professor said: "That would be fatal almost immediately."

 

The jury were shown a mortuary picture of Jodi with neck, cheek, stomach and arm wounds.

 

A knife had also been pushed through her mouth, piercing her tonsils.'

 

And I read it here

 

my link

 

Citing actual evidence - as it should be - AllanM could learn a lot from you.