Jodi Jones murder re-examined

[haveyouheard1874]

3 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

So are you Lukes mum or the roaster pal?

What a bore are you Finn.. but fill yer boots and slaver away,, soon be 15k son

Edited February 27, 2021 by haveyouheard1874

[Finbar Saunders]

5 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

What a bore you Finn.. but fill yer boots and slaver away,, soon be 15k son

 

Never answered my question?

[haveyouheard1874]

You are the latter for sure ..15k in running 

 

 

Slaughter & The Dogs - You're a Bore - YouTube

[Finbar Saunders]

3 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Never answered my question?

ARE YOU LUKES MUM OR THE ROASTER PAL?

[Finbar Saunders]

4 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

ARE YOU LUKES MUM OR THE ROASTER PAL?

Can you not Understand "have you heard£

[haveyouheard1874]

8 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

ARE YOU LUKES MUM OR THE ROASTER PAL?

Na\w just a poster who  can see  some serious doubts in the case and conviction .. but crack on Findlay nearly there for 15k 

Edited February 27, 2021 by haveyouheard1874

[Finbar Saunders]

17 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

What a bore you Finn.. but fill yer boots and slaver away,, soon be 15k son

 

Could you answer my question, are you Lukes mum or the roaster pal?

[Finbar Saunders]

5 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

Na\w just a poster who  can some serious doubts in the case and conviction .. but crack on Findlay nearly there for 15k 

 

Who the hell is Finlay?

[iantjambo]

For her to be at the otherside of that wall. Jodi obviously knew her attacker. She wouldn’t have went over it for a stranger.

[McGlynn The Money]

5 hours ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

You are the latter for sure ..15k in running 

 

 

Slaughter & The Dogs - You're a Bore - YouTube

 

Please answer the question.

[Maroon Sailor]

5 hours ago, iantjambo said:

For her to be at the otherside of that wall. Jodi obviously knew her attacker. She wouldn’t have went over it for a stranger.

 

Yeah - I have never thought of this murder as some random attack by a stranger. She arranged to meet with Mitchell near where her body was found.

 

His alibi is pretty circumstantial, nobody can really prove where Mitchell was at the time.

[graygo]

9 hours ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

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.

 

 

Google is your friend.

 

 

John Sallens and Michael Neil

 

Who mentioned money problems and why is that relevant?

 

I have googled it, obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have said "Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence."

[McGlynn The Money]

7 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Who mentioned money problems and why is that relevant?

 

I have googled it, obviously you haven't or you wouldn't have said "Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence."

 

Pleading poverty and playing the victim. A wee look at what happened in her caravan business would say otherwise.

 

OK, one trial and countless appeals. Is that better? Happy now?

 

 

[andrewjambo]

9 hours ago, McGlynn The Money said:

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. 

If we are to believe that twitter account Luke's DNA was found on Jodi's bra and also Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers but it was agreed this would not be admissable in court as Luke's defense successfully argued that it shouldn't be used by prosecution due to the physical nature of the victim and the accused's relationship.  

[graygo]

8 hours 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"?

 

Popular misconception that it has been back to court on appeal 4 times and after hearing all the evidence the same guilty verdict has been reached. 

 

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Pleading poverty and playing the victim. A wee look at what happened in her caravan business would say otherwise.

 

OK, one trial and countless appeals. Is that better? Happy now?

 

 

 

If you can't count to 3 then I suppose it's better.

[McGlynn The Money]

3 minutes ago, andrewjambo said:

If we are to believe that twitter account Luke's DNA was found on Jodi's bra and also Jodi's DNA was found on Luke's trousers but it was agreed this would not be admissable in court as Luke's defense successfully argued that it shouldn't be used by prosecution due to the physical nature of the victim and the accused's relationship.  

 

Fair point. However, it was the same with Jodi's sister's boyfriend's DNA being found on the t-shirt she was wearing. That didn't stop that nutter, who spent half the programme speaking out of her car for some reason, bringing it up.

[McGlynn The Money]

Just now, graygo said:

 

If you can't count to 3 then I suppose it's better.

 

How many appeals and retrials would you like? Money no object, the feelings of the family of the victim that he murdered irrelevant?

[John Findlay]

Just now, graygo said:

 

If you can't count to 3 then I suppose it's better.

It's two high court appeals, a high court judgement to say it cannot go to the supreme court. One miscarriage of justice Scotland appeal. They've all failed so there are alot of learned people a lot thicker than the Kickback Poirots

[graygo]

1 minute ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

How many appeals and retrials would you like? Money no object, the feelings of the family of the victim that he murdered irrelevant?

 

As many appeals as are required if there is still doubt, you can't put a price on justice 

[graygo]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

It's two high court appeals, a high court judgement to say it cannot go to the supreme court. One miscarriage of justice Scotland appeal. They've all failed so there are alot of learned people a lot thicker than the Kickback Poirots

 

So how many of those "countless" appeals heard all the evidence? Maybe you could let @McGlynn The Money know, he can't count to big numbers.

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

So how many of those "countless" appeals heard all the evidence? Maybe you could let @McGlynn The Money know, he can't count to big numbers.

I should imagine they heard all available evidence. I will trust their judgement, better than two iffy ex detectives and a woman author off the telly.

[Tommy Brown]

6 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

How many appeals and retrials would you like? Money no object, the feelings of the family of the victim that he murdered irrelevant?

Has there ever been a re-trial?

I don't believe so. Entirely different thing.

[andrewjambo]

10 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said:

 

Fair point. However, it was the same with Jodi's sister's boyfriend's DNA being found on the t-shirt she was wearing. That didn't stop that nutter, who spent half the programme speaking out of her car for some reason, bringing it up.

It puts a massive hole in the Corinne Mitchell/Sandra Lean position that no DNA of Luke's was found at the scene.  

[graygo]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

I should imagine they heard all available evidence. I will trust their judgement, better than two iffy ex detectives and a woman author off the telly.

 

You would imagine wrong then. A procedural appeal doesn't hear evidence.

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Has there ever been a re-trial?

I don't believe so. Entirely different thing.

 

No there hasn't, that would require a new jury to hear all the evidence.

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

You would imagine wrong then. A procedural appeal doesn't hear evidence.

So all the appeals have been procedural is what you are saying?

[Tommy Brown]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

No there hasn't, that would require a new jury to hear all the evidence.

Exactly 

Appeals just look at the process, was it followed correctly. 

Re-trual I assume would need fresh evidence to prove an unsafe conviction.

[graygo]

9 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

So all the appeals have been procedural is what you are saying?

 

No, that's not what I'm saying, it's never been what I said. I've not even hinted at it. All I said was that the opposite wasn't the case.

Edited February 27, 2021 by graygo

[Guest]

Just to add to the count.....the original trial was abandoned and they had to start again

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

No, that's not what I'm saying, it's never been what I said. I've not even hinted at it. All I said was that the opposite wasn't the case.

Sp the appeals that have failed so far, the evidence was heard and gone over?

 

[andrewjambo]

10 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Exactly 

Appeals just look at the process, was it followed correctly. 

Re-trual I assume would need fresh evidence to prove an unsafe conviction.

I don't think that's correct as the 2008 appeal looked at both evidence and procedure/process

Edited February 27, 2021 by andrewjambo

[graygo]

Just now, John Findlay said:

Sp the appeals that have failed so far, the evidence was heard and gone over?

 

 

I give up.

[John Findlay]

Just now, graygo said:

 

I give up.

Good.

[graygo]

Just now, andrewjambo said:

I don't think that's correct as the 2008 appeal looked at both evidence and procedure.

 

Correct, it was the only one. 3 judges looked at the evidence and agreed there was enough evidence for a jury to return s verdict.

[graygo]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Good.

 

Good for my sanity. 

[John Findlay]

Just now, graygo said:

 

Good for my sanity. 

Yes I agree.

[andrewjambo]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Correct, it was the only one. 3 judges looked at the evidence and agreed there was enough evidence for a jury to return s verdict.

 

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded in 2014 that there was no grounds to challenge the appeal. 

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Yes I agree.

 

Well it's not difficult to grasp, someone claimed all the appeals heard all the evidence, I said that not all the appeals heard all the evidence some were procedural. For some reason you ask if I'm saying all the appeals were procedural and when I say no not all of them you then ask if all the evidence was heard at all the appeals.

 

I'm away to explain quantum mechanics to my 9 year old, it'll be easier.

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, andrewjambo said:

 

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded in 2014 that there was no grounds to challenge the appeal. 

 

Not sure what point you're making there. 

[John Findlay]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Well it's not difficult to grasp, someone claimed all the appeals heard all the evidence, I said that not all the appeals heard all the evidence some were procedural. For some reason you ask if I'm saying all the appeals were procedural and when I say no not all of them you then ask if all the evidence was heard at all the appeals.

 

I'm away to explain quantum mechanics to my 9 year old, it'll be easier.

Yes be better for your sanity too.

[andrewjambo]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Not sure what point you're making there. 

Simply that on three occasions - original trial, 2008 appeal and 2014 SCCRC review - the evidence for and against Luke Mitchell has been considered.  Does that count as numerous?

[graygo]

10 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Yes be better for your sanity too.

 

Yes, I said that already. Did you forget because you've said it twice since I did?

[graygo]

10 minutes ago, andrewjambo said:

Simply that on three occasions - original trial, 2008 appeal and 2014 SCCRC review - the evidence for and against Luke Mitchell has been considered.  Does that count as numerous?

 

Whether the number 3 is "numerous" or not is subjective. I would say it isn't.

The 2014 SCCRC review was just that, a review. It wasn't an appeal and in fact decided that there were no grounds to go to appeal.

[Peakybunnet]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Whether the number 3 is "numerous" or not is subjective. I would say it isn't.

The 2014 SCCRC review was just that, a review. It wasn't an appeal and in fact decided that there were no grounds to go to appeal.

 

You are scraping the barrel here, its embarrassing. 

[John Findlay]

18 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Yes, I said that already. Did you forget because you've said it twice since I did?

Yes i must be going as insane as yourself.

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said:

 

You are scraping the barrel here, its embarrassing. 

What part? All of it?

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Yes i must be going as insane as yourself.

 

You're way past that pal.

[¼½¾]

1 hour ago, Candy said:

Just to add to the count.....the original trial was abandoned and they had to start again

That doesn't count. The trial had to be restarted as it turned out that one of the jurors knew one of the witnesses against Mitchell. Which only reinforces Mitchell's defences claim that the trial should not have been held in Edinburgh.

[felix]

7 minutes ago, Lemongrab said:

That doesn't count. The trial had to be restarted as it turned out that one of the jurors knew one of the witnesses against Mitchell. Which only reinforces Mitchell's defences claim that the trial should not have been held in Edinburgh.

Correct. 

Don't think the trial should have been anywhere near Edinburgh. Having said that, the months of press coverage before the trial, would surely have made it difficult for anyone in Scotland not to have some view on the accused.