Jump to content

Jodi Jones murder re-examined


Sten Guns

Recommended Posts

²Watched 2nd episode. 

 

That drive by was utter nonsense as already been said on this thread. Former detectives pushing that as potentially casting doubt is just bullshit.

 

Private Investigators? No...more Inspector Clueless. That duo really appeared as if proving a miscarriage of justice is for their notability rather than Luke Mitchells innocence.

 

2nd episode didn't offer anything damning on either side.

The guy who says his flatmate had scratches on his face would suggest his DNA would be found under Jodies fingernails?

 

Lie detector devices....proven unreliable and also fallible. 

(Aside....Do you normally get made aware of the questions that will be asked beforehand in a lie detector test?)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 832
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • graygo

    63

  • McGlynn The Money

    40

  • Tommy Brown

    27

  • haveyouheard1874

    27

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
3 hours ago, Furious Styles said:


Did his brother not fail to corroborate his alibi? 
Perhaps as a family they no longer speak to each other. 

My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time?

That definitely rings a bell.

Edited by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
38 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time?

That definitely rings a bell.

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William H. Bonney
47 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time?

That definitely rings a bell.


maybe he’s the mysterious condom man? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tazio said:

A bit awkward if every time he has a wank it rings a bell.  Not a lot of privacy there. 

 

My mind would be scrambled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
2 hours ago, jonnothejambo said:

 

A wank ?

 

At the time of what ? 

At the same the time his brother was murdering Jodi Jones. Hence why he couldn't corroborate Luke Mitchell's alibi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
2 hours ago, Furious Styles said:


maybe he’s the mysterious condom man? 

I'm not sure if he admitted to a posh wank, or not.  They're a really strange family.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime?

 

2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental....

 

Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children.

 

Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago?

If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing.  Also what about the moped boys?  its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
22 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing.  Also what about the moped boys?  its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. 

We should maybe be careful of the "facts" that were given on programme, given that it really amounted to a case for the defence. Not much balance in there. Not much about Luke Mitchell other than he was a bit strange. His wee gesture, shown on the film, towards the press, didn't suggest that he was some kind of shy boy. Nothing about his liking of knives or that he couldn't explain them missing after the murder. I'm not saying that he did it or not, just that any 14 year old boy who likes knives just may not be a normal boy.

As far as the chap Kerr is concerned, it's very convenient that he isn't around to give his side of the story. He was mentioned as living within Newbattle Abbey. Unless he was living there alone, which is unlikely, who is to say that he wouldn't have been seen going around the Abbey grounds covered in blood? In the summer, there are many people who go walking around there, well into the evening. 

Whoever did this seems to have planned it very well. No dna or other clues left behind doesn't sound like a random, opportunistic attack. Whover did this either knew that Jodie would walking along the path, which her mother had seemingly implored her not to do alone, or it could have been anyone unlucky enough to be there at the wrong time. As said before, that path is too well used to carry out the attack, which is presumably why the crime was carried out over the wall.

My question would be why Jodie went over the wall. Was there someone she knew either already over there, or going over into there with her? Forcing her to go over would be very risky due to the public area involved. The cover of trees and bushes is not that thick on many parts of that path.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
11 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

We should maybe be careful of the "facts" that were given on programme, given that it really amounted to a case for the defence. Not much balance in there. Not much about Luke Mitchell other than he was a bit strange. His wee gesture, shown on the film, towards the press, didn't suggest that he was some kind of shy boy. Nothing about his liking of knives or that he couldn't explain them missing after the murder. I'm not saying that he did it or not, just that any 14 year old boy who likes knives just may not be a normal boy.

As far as the chap Kerr is concerned, it's very convenient that he isn't around to give his side of the story. He was mentioned as living within Newbattle Abbey. Unless he was living there alone, which is unlikely, who is to say that he wouldn't have been seen going around the Abbey grounds covered in blood? In the summer, there are many people who go walking around there, well into the evening. 

Whoever did this seems to have planned it very well. No dna or other clues left behind doesn't sound like a random, opportunistic attack. Whover did this either knew that Jodie would walking along the path, which her mother had seemingly implored her not to do alone, or it could have been anyone unlucky enough to be there at the wrong time. As said before, that path is too well used to carry out the attack, which is presumably why the crime was carried out over the wall.

My question would be why Jodie went over the wall. Was there someone she knew either already over there, or going over into there with her? Forcing her to go over would be very risky due to the public area involved. The cover of trees and bushes is not that thick on many parts of that path.

 


It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing.  Also what about the moped boys?  its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. 

I don't know the area in the slightest, but is there another route avoiding people that Mitchell could have taken home? To me that's the only way it could have been him. As others have said, if he walked the normal route home from the murder scene, someone would have noticed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going.

That was my impression. 
Very one sided and some of the scenes used for comment were very strange and looked to be people trying to look interesting.

Like those strange shots of the woman who appeared many times sitting in a car, with the door open, to give us her revelations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing.  Also what about the moped boys?  its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. 

 

He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good".  No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough.

27 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going.

FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ?

Edited by felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, felix said:

 

He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good".  No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough.

FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ?

👍👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, felix said:

 

He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good".  No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough.

FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ?

It wouldn’t surprise me if he is guilty . Just seems odd they managed a conviction from the evidence and why did that eye witness not identify him in court ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing.  Also what about the moped boys?  its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. 

 

I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag.

 

Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc

 I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple.

A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag.

 

Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc

 I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple.

A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her.

 

 

All good points 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag.

 

Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc

 I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple.

A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her.

 

 

 

He was seen around one hour after the murder, by two people - it's in the court appeal docs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, felix said:

 

He was seen around one hour after the murder, by two people - it's in the court appeal docs. 

 

 

Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime.

 

'An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003. Two other female witnesses identified the appellant as the young man they had seen at the Newbattle end of the Path about 50 minutes later.'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

Was there any suggestion of what the motive was? 

 

Liking knives and hiding bottles of pish notwithstanding, it was a brutal murder and they were obviously couple, wasn't some random person to satisfy blood lust.

 

Disclaimer: no judgement either way on guilt intended from this post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime.

 

".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June.

There's a lot that's odd in his case, all  giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, andrewjambo said:

 

'An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003. Two other female witnesses identified the appellant as the young man they had seen at the Newbattle end of the Path about 50 minutes later.'

 

Didn't A Brson fail  to pick out the accused in court ?

Edited by felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, felix said:

 

".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June.

There's a lot that's odd in his case, all  giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done.

 

You missed part of that sentence - 'at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".'

 

 

Didn't A Brson fail  to pick out the accused in court ?

Yes she didn't identify him - 'Asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: "I don't know".

Asked whether anyone in court was "similar" to the person she identified, she replied: "I can't say".'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
39 minutes ago, felix said:

 

".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June.

There's a lot that's odd in his case, all  giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done.

 

 

 

Didn't A Brson fail  to pick out the accused in court ?

Yes

Judging by the way she entered into court, it didn’t look like she wanted to be there.

Seemingly two other witnesses are supposed to have seen him alone at the other end of the path. No mention of them being in court though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never watched this but hearing what people had to say about it in the work they are all under an impression Mitchell is innocent after two channel 5 docs 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money

It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events.

Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up.

It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either.

One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money
1 hour ago, Stu_HMFC said:

Never watched this but hearing what people had to say about it in the work they are all under an impression Mitchell is innocent after two channel 5 docs 🙄

 

Scary how gullible some folk are. Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence. A couple of very biased programmes full of demented ramblings can prove otherwise though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events.

Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up.

It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either.

One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. 

 

The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that.

Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off?

The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events.

Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up.

It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either.

One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. 

 

I forget the PI's names. What's online about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Scary how gullible some folk are. Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence. A couple of very biased programmes full of demented ramblings can prove otherwise though.

 

Can you put a number on these "numerous trials, appeals etc"? The ones that looked at all the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Sounds like a big number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money
14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that.

Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off?

The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference.

 

You seem to know a lot about it. I take it you know the real reason she had money problems, nothing to do with Luke?

 

Convenient that he's not around to defend himself, as I said in my post.

 

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Can you put a number on these "numerous trials, appeals etc"? The ones that looked at all the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Sounds like a big number.

 

Google is your friend.

 

13 minutes ago, Homme said:

 

I forget the PI's names. What's online about them?

 

John Sallens and Michael Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wee aside, I was driving through Dalkeith one pouring wet summer night about ten years ago and was confronted by Mitchell's ma walking alone in the middle of the road. Nobody else was about, was quite weird. She could rent out her face to haunt hooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money

The HiddenInjustice Twitter page is worth a read for anyone looking for more info on the case. Debunks the absolute nonsense from the Channel 5 programme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the very professional second episode has been pulled already for naming someone :rofl:

 

Utter amateur hour.

 

And just read about the PI's. They seem like two really upstanding blokes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McGlynn The Money
Just now, Homme said:

I see the very professional second episode has been pulled already for naming someone :rofl:

 

Utter amateur hour.

 

And just read about the PI's. They seem like two really upstanding blokes.

 

 

 

 

What a shambles! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SectionDJambo
57 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that.

Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off?

The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference.

The boy they named, then discovered was now dead, in complete surprise, was, according to the informant, living at Newbattle Abbey, along with other people. Are we to suppose that he could have sneaked home whilst high on drugs, as they stated, without anyone seeing him covered in blood? Would he have been coherent enough to successfully end his evening of murder without encountering anyone else on the way to his room?

Or is he being offered up as a convenient distraction from the evidence that various legal obstacles have agreed with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
9 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

Certainly plenty doubt in the case,,, go back to court me thinks, see what pans out 

 

Its been to court several times, how many times do you want it to go back to see "how it pans out"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haveyouheard1874
2 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Its been to court several times, how many times do you want it to go back to see "how it pans out"?

As many as it takes ..  as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
31 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

As many as it takes ..  as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ??

 

Nowt, how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
34 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

As many as it takes ..  as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ??

 

Got to ask now, is that you Luke? Do you have a phone stuffed up yer arse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haveyouheard1874
2 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Got to ask now, is that you Luke? Do you have a phone stuffed up yer arse?

Canny wait till you hit 15k posts .. everyone a gem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
14 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

Canny wait till you hit 15k posts .. everyone a gem 

 

He

rers another petal, are you Lukes mum or that Zoomer thats trying to defend him?

Edited by FinnBarr Saunders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haveyouheard1874
1 minute ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Hears another petal, are you Lukes mum or that Zoomer thats trying to defend him?

Phone up the jacksy.. petal.. only ever suggested from the off that there was some  doubt 

 

I can only imagine the likes of you on a jury, god forbid that  ,but post away ,,  nearly 15k of shite to look back on  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor FinnBarr
2 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

Phone up the jacksy.. petal.. only ever suggested from the off that there was some  doubt 

 

I can only imagine the likes of you on a jury, god forbid that  ,but post away ,,  nearly 15k of shite to look back on  

 

So are you Lukes mum or the roaster pal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...