Jodi Jones murder re-examined

[trotter]

1 minute ago, Candy said:

 

What on earth are you on about? Its well known that it was decided on circumstantial evidence. 

 

Trotter, jesus your earlier post said it was decided on forensic evidence so clearly  you have no clue what you are on about.

 

Graygo. I like your previous posts even though I disagree with you here

Yes, I was mistaken and I acknowledged that. 

 

Your post said, "Maybe it's the knife carrying, piss collecting, clothes burning boyfriend who happened to find the body?" seemed that you were implying that you think that is sufficient grounds for a conviction? Did I misinterpret that one and you were just using it to (rightfully) take the piss out of C5? If so, I apologize. 👍

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, trotter said:

Yes, I was mistaken and I acknowledged that. 

 

Your post said, "Maybe it's the knife carrying, piss collecting, clothes burning boyfriend who happened to find the body?" seemed that you were implying that you think that is sufficient grounds for a conviction? Did I misinterpret that one and you were just using it to (rightfully) take the piss out of C5? If so, I apologize. 👍

 

I'm not judge Candy of kickbackland or c5 but piss collecting aside the other areas lend themselves to more to guilty than  not

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Candy said:

I'm not judge Candy of kickbackland or c5 but piss collecting aside the other areas lend themselves to more to guilty than  not

 

No they don't, not beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

No they don't, not beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

The jury disagree with you

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, Candy said:

The jury disagree with you

 

I know. Mental eh?

[theshed]

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

How long did he get cause if it was 15 years ago will he not be due for release in coming years? 
 

Just googled it and he got min 20 years so 4 years to go but it did say that he wouldn’t leave prison till he was found innocent 

Edited February 20, 2021 by theshed

[Shanks said no]

6 minutes ago, theshed said:

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

How long did he get cause if it was 15 years ago will he not be due for release in coming years? 

 

Classification: Homicide

Characteristics: Juvenile (14)

Number of victims: 1

Date of murder: June 30, 2003

Date of arrest: April 14, 2004

Date of birth: July 24, 1988

Victim profile: His girlfriend, Jodi Jones, 14

Method of murder: Stabbing with knife

Location: Dalkeith, Scotland, United Kingdom

Status: Sentenced to life in prison (minimum 20 years)on February 11, 2005

[William H. Bonney]

My dad reported this case for a national newspaper and I remember he told me the police felt like Mitchell was guilty based on an interview he did with james Matthew’s on sky news. 
 

[felix]

1 hour ago, theshed said:

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Furious Styles said:

My dad reported this case for a national newspaper and I remember he told me the police felt like Mitchell was guilty based on an interview he did with james Matthew’s on sky news. 
 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

[Siphiwe Tshabalala]

4 minutes ago, felix said:

 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

Totally agree.

[William H. Bonney]

10 minutes ago, felix said:

 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

Like the jury for example? 

[andrewjambo]

3 minutes ago, Furious Styles said:

Like the jury for example? 

And the three judges in Mitchell's 2008 appeal 

[AlimOzturk]

7 hours ago, Candy said:

The jury disagree with you

 

The vast majority of people probably do as well.

 

Having read a bit on this case, based on the evidence presented to the Jury I wouldn't have convicted the Luke Mitchel. Doesn't mean I don't think he did it but don't think there is enough evidence there to convict someone.

Edited February 20, 2021 by AlimOzturk

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, theshed said:

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

How long did he get cause if it was 15 years ago will he not be due for release in coming years? 
 

Just googled it and he got min 20 years so 4 years to go but it did say that he wouldn’t leave prison till he was found innocent 

He will only be considered for parole after 20 years.

Not guaranteed it.

[felix]

1 hour ago, Furious Styles said:

Like the jury for example? 

 

Indeed.  I wonder if anyone on the jury heard rumours, or knew someone who knew someone else, who knew he was just evil, or there was a barbeque clothes burning sesh, right after the murder !   Lots of rumours surrounding the case from the off. Very little evidence.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

He will only be considered for parole after 20 years.

Not guaranteed it.

I think that's because he wont admit he's guilty. Sure I read if you admit your wrongdoings, parole time's shorter ?

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, felix said:

 

Indeed.  I wonder if anyone on the jury heard rumours, or knew someone who knew someone else, who knew he was just evil, or there was a barbeque clothes burning sesh, right after the murder !   Lots of rumours surrounding the case from the off. Very little evidence.

 

 

I think that's because he wont admit he's guilty. Sure I read if you admit your wrongdoings, parole time's shorter ?

It does help to a point but there are a whole lot of other factors when the parole board consider parole. 

[JackLadd]

10 hours ago, theshed said:

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

How long did he get cause if it was 15 years ago will he not be due for release in coming years? 
 

Just googled it and he got min 20 years so 4 years to go but it did say that he wouldn’t leave prison till he was found innocent 

 

That's what I heard from a mate in the know in Midlothian Council. I won't repeat the story but if true Mitchell was a ticking time bomb. No doubt he is guilty and would be a threat outside again.

[Peebo]

Guilty as ****.

[felix]

6 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

It does help to a point but there are a whole lot of other factors when the parole board consider parole. 

Indeed - parole won't happen for another 2/3 yrs anyhow, when min term is up. I'd get with the programme if I were him.

 

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

 

That's what I heard from a mate in the know in Midlothian Council. I won't repeat the story but if true Mitchell was a ticking time bomb. No doubt he is guilty and would be a threat outside again.

 

 No doubt 

 

48 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Guilty as ****.

 

..charged ? 

[Malinga the Swinga]

Regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent and atm he is guilty, my main problem with this sort of TV programme is it puts all attention on accused and treats victim as afterthought. 

The poor lass deserves better than that, a whole lot better. 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

12 hours ago, theshed said:

I know nothing about this case but let’s just say a very good friend of mine probably knows more about it than anyone on here and he said the boy was evil and guilty as sin 

 

How long did he get cause if it was 15 years ago will he not be due for release in coming years? 
 

Just googled it and he got min 20 years so 4 years to go but it did say that he wouldn’t leave prison till he was found innocent 

 

A mate of mine has a niece who went out with him before Jody came along, the family helped split them up when he got abusive and controlling and at their ages 20 miles between them most likely made it easy.

Never met the lassie myself but I've seen her pic, mirror image to Jody!

[JackLadd]

1 hour ago, felix said:

 

 

 No doubt 

 

 

 

 

I'd rephrase that to minimal doubt. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by JackLadd

[AlphonseCapone]

I've no real idea about this case so will likely watch the documentary. However, this thread is a good argument against the jury system. 

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

I've no real idea about this case so will likely watch the documentary. However, this thread is a good argument against the jury system. 

 

It's a better argument for being present for the full trial to know what the decision was based on. 

[JimmyCant]

16 hours ago, felix said:

 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You can be convicted quite properly if the circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact same standard of proof required if there is eye witness evidence and forensic evidence. A jury are not permitted to return a verdict arrived at on the balance of probabilities. Aside from which, this has been appealed at least once I know of and the conviction stood. Also often overlooked, his mother was convicted of perverting the course of justice. Protecting her son by tampering with and concealing evidence and lying. Understandable actions of a parent you might well say but only if she actually believed he had done it and was going to be convicted. Her conviction was not appealed as far as I am aware.

 

Without having heard the evidence in entirety it is impossible to pass a valid judgement as to his true guilt or innocence. We have to trust that justice has been served and a big part of that is making sure that all possible avenues pointing to innocence are fully explored.

 

The remaining doubt in this case surrounds other possible explanations, all of which have been investigated and none of which so far have led to further grounds for appeal. To appeal successfully now there would have to be definite exculpatory evidence that he DID NOT do it.

Edited February 21, 2021 by JimmyCant

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It's a better argument for being present for the full trial to know what the decision was based on. 

 

Does it matter what happened at the full trial when some members of the general public think things like "liking piss" is an obvious sign of a murderer?

 

Having served on a jury, too many folk use the, "looks guilty" mantra. 

 

Just want to add this is all in a general sense and not specific to this case, obviously no idea what happened at this trial. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by AlphonseCapone

[Guest]

6 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Does it matter what happened at the full trial when some members of the general public think things like "liking piss" is an obvious sign of a murderer?

 

Having served on a jury, too many folk use the, "looks guilty" mantra. 

 

Just want to add this is all in a general sense and not specific to this case, obviously no idea what happened at this trial. 

Nobody thinks liking piss is a sign of a  murderer.

 

Liking knives and finding a dead body is.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Candy

[felix]

7 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You can be convicted quite properly if the circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact same standard of proof required if there is eye witness evidence and forensic evidence. A jury are not permitted to return a verdict arrived at on the balance of probabilities. Aside from which, this has been appealed at least once I know of and the conviction stood. Also often overlooked, his mother was convicted of perverting the course of justice. Protecting her son by tampering with and concealing evidence and lying. Understandable actions of a parent you might well say but only if she actually believed he had done it and was going to be convicted. Her conviction was not appealed as far as I am aware.

 

Without having heard the evidence in entirety it is impossible to pass a valid judgement as to his true guilt or innocence. We have to trust that justice has been served and a big part of that is making sure that all possible avenues pointing to innocence are fully explored.

 

The remaining doubt in this case surrounds other possible explanations, all of which have been investigated and none of which so far have led to further grounds for appeal. To appeal successfully now there would have to be definite exculpatory evidence that he DID NOT do it.

 

 I'd never heard of his mums conviction for perverting the course of justice either -  have you got a link ? 

 

45 minutes ago, Candy said:

Nobody thinks liking piss is a sign of a  murderer.

 

Liking knives and finding a dead body is.

No, it's not.

[Norm]

8 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Does it matter what happened at the full trial when some members of the general public think things like "liking piss" is an obvious sign of a murderer?

 

Having served on a jury, too many folk use the, "looks guilty" mantra. 

 

Just want to add this is all in a general sense and not specific to this case, obviously no idea what happened at this trial. 

Also in a general sense, while there may be a few "looks guilty" types on juries, there's also a few who equate "reasonable doubt" with "if there's an actual possibility they didn't do it, no matter how unlikely it is, then we can't convict."

Edited February 21, 2021 by Norm

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, jonnothejambo said:

The mother is a bizarre character, for sure. 

I mind when she got interviewed. 

A weirdo. 

[Byyy The Light]

Was he not the chap that broke in to the Greyfrairs tomb and cut the head off the body too? 

[Bindy Badgy]

On 20/02/2021 at 09:22, Furious Styles said:

My dad reported this case for a national newspaper and I remember he told me the police felt like Mitchell was guilty based on an interview he did with james Matthew’s on sky news. 
 

 

You can extend this lecture to apply to the press.

 

 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

16 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

Was he not the chap that broke in to the Greyfrairs tomb and cut the head off the body too? 

 

Don't know to be sure, think that could be well before his time though.

[felix]

48 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

Was he not the chap that broke in to the Greyfrairs tomb and cut the head off the body too? 

 

Liked knives right enough, so could well have been. 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/24/ukcrime.scotland

 

Does he fit into the age group of the "unamed" teenager? 

[¼½¾]

9 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/24/ukcrime.scotland

 

Does he fit into the age group of the "unamed" teenager? 

Says here that one of his friends was put on probation for it.

 

https://www.religionnewsblog.com/10008/the-disturbing-obsessions-of-a-teenage-killer

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, felix said:

 

Liked knives right enough, so could well have been. 

Grow up. You're talking about someone who was convicted by a jury of a brutal murder.

 

Have some respect.

[Doctor FinnBarr]

13 minutes ago, Lemongrab said:

Says here that one of his friends was put on probation for it.

 

https://www.religionnewsblog.com/10008/the-disturbing-obsessions-of-a-teenage-killer

 

Ah, so same age group but not him.

[Weakened Offender]

On 20/02/2021 at 10:10, felix said:

 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

26 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 

 "Bloody McKenzie" will catch up later.

[AlphonseCapone]

31 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 

 

Sorry but they couldn't have all known. Heavily suspected maybe, or convinced, but unless they were there, they can't have known. 

[Weakened Offender]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Sorry but they couldn't have all known. Heavily suspected maybe, or convinced, but unless they were there, they can't have known. 

 

Fair do's. 

 

[Weakened Offender]

On 20/02/2021 at 01:24, Candy said:

If it wasnt by him, has the random frenzied knife murderer just disappeared? Not a trace in the last 17/18 years?

 

What's a lot more likely to is that the the guy who liked knives, who was her boyfriend, whose family had a bbq the night she died, who found her body was guilty

 

He didn't just find her body. He picked it up and hugged her. 

[luckyBatistuta]

On 20/02/2021 at 10:10, felix said:

 

 

It's incredible the number of people who know a policeman , or who know someone who knows someone else, that are absolutely sure this person is guilty, without any actual evidence, other than circumstantial of course.

 

I know someone too, my wife was in the force then. I’ve still no idea if he did it. 

On 20/02/2021 at 10:42, AlimOzturk said:

 

The vast majority of people probably do as well.

 

Having read a bit on this case, based on the evidence presented to the Jury I wouldn't have convicted the Luke Mitchel. Doesn't mean I don't think he did it but don't think there is enough evidence there to convict someone.

I was on the jury for a pretty horrendous court case many years ago. The folk involved were seriously bad eggs and I would have been quite happy to see them taken off the streets. However, I was there to determine whether they were guilty of that said crime and not what I thought of them. We all agreed on that apart from one guy who just kept arguing that they were scum. He just couldn’t get it in to his head what we were actually there for. 
 

I’m just glad I wasn’t on the jury for this, as I think he was guilty.

[Zico]

A mate of mine was on the jury - as intelligent, sensible and level-headed as anyone I know. Without revealing anything of the case, he said he had absolutely no doubt he was guilty. I trust his judgement. 

[felix]

1 hour ago, Candy said:

Grow up. You're talking about someone who was convicted by a jury of a brutal murder.

 

Have some respect.

Respect ?..Like saying having a passion for knives and locating a dead body means you're a murderer ?

 

59 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 

Jake, you're right, Midlothian's not that big. They were goths.The police thought this. People were itk.  What more do you need ?

1 minute ago, Zico said:

A mate of mine was on the jury - as intelligent, sensible and level-headed as anyone I know. Without revealing anything of the case, he said he had absolutely no doubt he was guilty. I trust his judgement. 

Case closed.

[Weakened Offender]

2 minutes ago, felix said:

 

Jake, you're right, Midlothian's not that big. They were goths.The police thought this. People were itk.  What more do you need ?

 

 

A c5 documentary and a bunch of YouTube clips? 

[Stu_HMFC]

I worked with Jodi’s sister for a short spell a few years ago I had no idea who she was until I asked about where she was from and if she lived with family etc and she told me who her sister was . I can remember being a bit shocked and taken back not sure what to say to her .
 

Since then I have worked with people who know her. I don’t know if this is 100% true or not but the sister used to be married or still is to a cousin or sibling to Mitchell.

 

I won’t be watching this next week 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Stu_HMFC

[EH11_2NL]

21 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You can be convicted quite properly if the circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact same standard of proof required if there is eye witness evidence and forensic evidence. A jury are not permitted to return a verdict arrived at on the balance of probabilities. Aside from which, this has been appealed at least once I know of and the conviction stood. Also often overlooked, his mother was convicted of perverting the course of justice. Protecting her son by tampering with and concealing evidence and lying. Understandable actions of a parent you might well say but only if she actually believed he had done it and was going to be convicted. Her conviction was not appealed as far as I am aware.

 

Without having heard the evidence in entirety it is impossible to pass a valid judgement as to his true guilt or innocence. We have to trust that justice has been served and a big part of that is making sure that all possible avenues pointing to innocence are fully explored.

 

The remaining doubt in this case surrounds other possible explanations, all of which have been investigated and none of which so far have led to further grounds for appeal. To appeal successfully now there would have to be definite exculpatory evidence that he DID NOT do it.

I want your babies

[Shanks said no]

12 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 

It does seem extraordinary to an outsider like me that a group of friends will carry out 2 horrendous crimes on the same day and there is no connection?

 

What the hell happened on the 30th June 2003 for this to take place?