Jump to content

Jodi Jones murder re-examined


Sten Guns

Recommended Posts

 

 

Was this before or after she was killed? Genuine question.

 

After.

 

Hardly the actions of an upset boyfriend.

 

More like the actions of a twisted killer.

 

Why would an innocent man do that after his girlfriend died the way she did......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • graygo

    18

  • Candy

    15

  • ToYouToMe

    14

  • Dusk_Till_Dawn

    13

Dusk_Till_Dawn

 

 

 

That's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence to be fair. Especially the knives.

 

 

Odds of someone else committing the murder must be very high.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

Yeah, maybe his mum was actually burning their clothes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After.

 

Hardly the actions of an upset boyfriend.

 

More like the actions of a twisted killer.

 

Why would an innocent man do that after his girlfriend died the way she did......

 

Definitely the actions of a weirdo but being a weirdo doesn't make you a killer.

 

The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Definitely the actions of a weirdo but being a weirdo doesn't make you a killer.

 

The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack.

 

Or very little give L&B very poor handling of the crime scene and the supposed burning in Corrine Mitchell's back garden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

The evidence seems to point towards Mitchell but the complete lack of any forensic evidence whatsoever will always leave a nagging doubt. You would think there would be some giving the ferocity of the attack.

 

Only amongst those whose views of the judicial process are conditioned by CSI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if he was innocent why lie about being in the house with his mum, his brother states he wasnt in.

 

The clothes being burned.

 

The way he 'found jodie'

 

Actions of a guilty man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is uncomfortable stuff in that blog but remember what it is, who writes it and what it's designed to do. There is no "he did do it" blog to balance it out, probably because that would create legal issues all of its own. I wouldn't place too much trust in anything but the court records tbh and even then...

 

It's a funny one. The opinions on this are so very polarised. This isn't intended as a red flag for those who like some conspiracy (or defamation) but I'm told those in the "Luke is innocent" camp are all pretty convinced they know who did do it. Not just his family either. I'm not local so couldn't say one way or another but heard there's a name commonly mentioned in connection. Whether or not there's anything more to that than trying to divert attention, I don't know.

 

Strange one. There's no doubt the circumstantial stuff was fairly convincing though. A lot of people doing very strange things doesn't help.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Only amongst those whose views of the judicial process are conditioned by CSI.

 

There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF.

 

Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction.

 

What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."?

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF.

 

Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction.

 

What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."?

 

I think you'd struggle to find a motive for anyone murdering a 14(?) year old girl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think you'd struggle to find a motive for anyone murdering a 14(?) year old girl.

 

There's plenty of possible motives.

 

I mean, his motive could have been "She liked Guns & Roses and I hate people who like Guns & Roses".

 

A motive doesn't need to be excusable. In fact they rarely if ever are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were 100 pieces of forensic evidence according to the news report. None of them tested. You have to admit that seems unusual surely? Why not test them? A positive match for Mitchell and it's game set and match for the PF.

 

Not testing them just leaves it open for people to question the conviction.

 

What was the prosecutions reason for motive incidentally? I honestly can't remember. Was there one or was it just "He's a weirdo. Weirdo's don't need one."?

 

That's not what the article says though. It mentions re testing, re checking and new tests which indicates that there were tests done.

 

The person in the free Mitchell camp then says ?There was no testing of the DNA and forensic results for the defence". From reading the article at face value it would appear that some tests were done but that none were done by the defence.

 

Why would the prosecution bother with some spurious notion of what his motive may have been when it's likely that only the killer would know what the motive was?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main evidence seems to be "aye he defo dun it coz he's a bit o' a weirdo, ken, likesay?".

 

The entire case was a bodge, from the crime scene being contaminated to the court case taking place in Edinburgh. It was all done wrong and it's highly unlikely that the full truth will ever be found out now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know someone who was on the jury. He didn't talk about the details of the case, other than to say the photos were the most horrible thing he'd ever seen. He's a decent, intelligent, honest person and he had no doubt whatsoever that Mitchell was guilty. I trust his judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think stuff wasn't tested rather that advances in testing mean that stuff could be found now that wasn't found then. I think he's guilty but just on what I've read rather than any insider knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is uncomfortable stuff in that blog but remember what it is, who writes it and what it's designed to do. There is no "he did do it" blog to balance it out, probably because that would create legal issues all of its own. I wouldn't place too much trust in anything but the court records tbh and even then...

 

It's a funny one. The opinions on this are so very polarised. This isn't intended as a red flag for those who like some conspiracy (or defamation) but I'm told those in the "Luke is innocent" camp are all pretty convinced they know who did do it. Not just his family either. I'm not local so couldn't say one way or another but heard there's a name commonly mentioned in connection. Whether or not there's anything more to that than trying to divert attention, I don't know.

 

Strange one. There's no doubt the circumstantial stuff was fairly convincing though. A lot of people doing very strange things doesn't help.

 

 

Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main evidence seems to be "aye he defo dun it coz he's a bit o' a weirdo, ken, likesay?".

 

Incorrect.

 

The entire case was a bodge, from the crime scene being contaminated to the court case taking place in Edinburgh. It was all done wrong and it's highly unlikely that the full truth will ever be found out now.

 

The truth is known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder.

 

Years ago, when i used to muck around with a mate from Southouse. We bumped into this guy now and again. He was always very aggressive in manner, even though we were all around 13-14 year old. Hated bumping into him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty innocent people been sent to prison. No saying Luke is but he's still screaming his innocence so give him every chance in the court I say.Feel sorry for Jodi's family thou they must be going through he ll

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Plenty innocent people been sent to prison. No saying Luke is but he's still screaming his innocence so give him every chance in the court I say.Feel sorry for Jodi's family thou they must be going through he ll

 

Why? Guilty people scream their innocence all the time, why should he get special treatment and a second trial?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Guilty people scream their innocence all the time, why should he get special treatment and a second trial?

Is he getting special treatment ?? in what way ??
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is he getting special treatment ?? in what way ??

 

You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another?

 

Thats sounds like you are saying no one should get a retrial, even if new evidence comes to light to show innocence, because they've already had a trial and been found guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thats sounds like you are saying no one should get a retrial, even if new evidence comes to light to show innocence, because they've already had a trial and been found guilty.

 

Not at all, as far as I was aware there hasn't been any new evidence in this case though. All that people seem to go on with Luke Mitchell is that he keeps saying he's innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, as far as I was aware there hasn't been any new evidence in this case though. All that people seem to go on with Luke Mitchell is that he keeps saying he's innocent.

 

Indeed. Though the fact thats its being reviewed would indicate that the SCCRC think there is something unsafe about the conviction and are doing this, to make sure. They dont review cases willy nilly nor do it because one side screams louder than another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a retrial necessarily

 

The case (as in any case) does deserve to be looked at and then a decision is made as to whether it needs to be taken to the next level.

 

Unless you have access to the trial papers and any new evidence then the verdict stands in my mind.............if new light is shed on the matter then of course we have to consider the verdict.

 

We all have our own views on the matter (much of it based on what we learned in the media).

 

There should always be a right of appeal in the first instance and (as we have now) a body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice......there have been cases which clearly show this has happened in the past and would you like to be the man or woman imprisoned for a crime you did not commit ?

Edited by CJGJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're saying he should get his chance in court because he's screaming his innocence, he's already had one trial and found guilty. Why should he get another?

Yes I do think he should get another chance, its the same for everyone else why not him ??, its not t special treatment as you say and he will get another chance like most who continue to appeal, well until he exhausts all avenues and that could take a while as that's the law.Jeremy Bamber is still protesting his innocence nearly 30yr on could be a long haul for those involved in this tragic case

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory House M.D.

It's a weird one this.

For some reason I'm not entirely convinced that Mitchell was guilty.

 

The evidence was overwhelming I've heard.

 

The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent.

Edited by Jay Gatsby
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's plenty of possible motives.

 

I mean, his motive could have been "She liked Guns & Roses and I hate people who like Guns & Roses".

 

A motive doesn't need to be excusable. In fact they rarely if ever are.

 

I dare say that any prosecution would be better placed going to a jury with no motive than with something as trivial as what you have put forward.

Edited by Sooperstar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

 

 

The evidence was overwhelming I've heard.

 

The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent.

 

I do like the idea that the jury said 'this kid looks weird' and convicted him there and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The evidence was overwhelming I've heard.

 

The boy is as guilty as sin. Even though the evidence is circumstantial it's the biggest set of coincidences of all time. You've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than that boy being innocent.

 

I have to agree. The odds of being murdered by a stranger are very small.

 

Add to that the fact Mitchell found the body, what are the chances of that especially where it was located?

 

 

But if there is even the smallest chance the boy is innocent, he must be given the chance to prove it.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Something in the record this morning saying some people believe that the de venci rapist robert green (think thats his name) is responsible for jodi jones murder.

 

Not impossible. According to the Daily Record earlier this year, he often visited a relative in the area.

 

But I just don't believe it. Usually frenzied knife attacks are committed by someone known to the victim. It is a very personal method of attack.

 

 

Yes there are exceptions, the horrific Rachel Nickell murder for example, but generally the rule holds true.

 

If it wasn't Mitchell he was the victim of an extraordinary series of coincidences.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible.

 

We'll see I guess.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Usually frenzied knife attacks are committed by someone known to the victim. It is a very personal method of attack.

 

The Jodi Jones wasn't frenzied, quite the opposite based on at least one of the more horrific pieces of evidence that came out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like most of the posters on this thread haven't bothered to read what the latest developments actually are. It would appear that DNA technology has advanced sufficiently since the trial that previously tested samples which were not large enough to take DNA from are now considered to be large enough. Will be interesting to see what the results are. If they get decent DNA samples which do not belong to Mitchell but are not found in the National Database then this case is going to get even more bizarre, if that is possible.

GTF with your DNA hocus pocus. He pished in a jar and someone smelt burning that night. What more do you want !?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced he acted alone if guilty.

 

Suprised this view isn't considered more.

 

The defence seems to be that the inconclusive evidence points to someone else. yet it seems there are just way too many coincidences and circumstantial evidence for him to be innocent (As someone else said, what are the odds on that?)

 

Perhaps there was more than one person involved?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always, for no real reason, been convinced it wasn't him. Will be quite a smug moment for me when he's found innocent.

And me
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've always, for no real reason, been convinced it wasn't him. Will be quite a smug moment for me when he's found innocent.

 

How come ?

 

Wee lassie butchered

 

He's a freak

 

What's to be smug about ?

Link to post
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...