Jump to content

Jodi Jones murder re-examined


Sten Guns

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 562
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • graygo

    27

  • FinnBarr Saunders

    17

  • Dusk_Till_Dawn

    15

  • The Frenchman Returns

    15

Mauricio Pinilla

How come ?

 

Wee lassie butchered

 

He's a freak

 

What's to be smug about ?

 

Yep I realised fairly quickly that smug was the wrong word and it sounds horrible. Sorry.

 

Still think he'll eventually be found innocent though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GTF with your DNA hocus pocus. He pished in a jar and someone smelt burning that night. What more do you want !?

It's not my DNA hocus-pocus, I was merely explaining WHY the case was being reopened as several posters were asking why. I did not offer my thoughts on the merits or otherwise of DNA. So YOU can GTF ya C. :pleased:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

 

It's not my DNA hocus-pocus, I was merely explaining WHY the case was being reopened as several posters were asking why. I did not offer my thoughts on the merits or otherwise of DNA. So YOU can GTF ya C. :pleased:

 

:facepalm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matthew Le Tissier

 

It's not my DNA hocus-pocus, I was merely explaining WHY the case was being reopened as several posters were asking why. I did not offer my thoughts on the merits or otherwise of DNA. So YOU can GTF ya C. :pleased:

:wow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
Prince Buaben

Was it Dr Lean or an associate of her that was on here before in a previous Mitchell thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has this news taken over a week to be published in Evening News? For people following the case they already new. Also I'm surprised for this to appear on Kickback.

Approximately 70% of people think he is guilty. It would take pages to outline the case but one point the SCCRC made was how badly Luke Mitchell was treated by

the police. A fifteen year old boy in custody was told he was not entitled to a lawyer. Also the judge allowed his statement to be read in court knowing this.

The other SCCRC point was new DNA not found at the time was found on the victims trouser top button not Luke Mitchell's.

If Luke Mitchell is innocent he is in a bad place because as stated most people think he is guilty and he has no one in the media to help him.

If he is guilty I would like to see someone come forward with proof once and for all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought so but still remember when he was found guilty and I mentioned it to a local from there. He very straight faced said "Mitchell didn't do it" but would say no more.

 

Oh well that's it then.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Edited by ToYouToMe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why has this news taken over a week to be published in Evening News? For people following the case they already new. Also I'm surprised for this to appear on Kickback.

Approximately 70% of people think he is guilty. It would take pages to outline the case but one point the SCCRC made was how badly Luke Mitchell was treated by

the police. A fifteen year old boy in custody was told he was not entitled to a lawyer. Also the judge allowed his statement to be read in court knowing this.

The other SCCRC point was new DNA not found at the time was found on the victims trouser top button not Luke Mitchell's.

If Luke Mitchell is innocent he is in a bad place because as stated most people think he is guilty and he has no one in the media to help him.

If he is guilty I would like to see someone come forward with proof once and for all.

 

I thought he'd had his trial and been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Didn't realise the Procurator Fiscal had to meet any other standard?

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

Why has this news taken over a week to be published in Evening News? For people following the case they already new. Also I'm surprised for this to appear on Kickback.

Approximately 70% of people think he is guilty. It would take pages to outline the case but one point the SCCRC made was how badly Luke Mitchell was treated by

the police. A fifteen year old boy in custody was told he was not entitled to a lawyer. Also the judge allowed his statement to be read in court knowing this.

The other SCCRC point was new DNA not found at the time was found on the victims trouser top button not Luke Mitchell's.

If Luke Mitchell is innocent he is in a bad place because as stated most people think he is guilty and he has no one in the media to help him.

If he is guilty I would like to see someone come forward with proof once and for all.

 

A jury and various appeals/reviews have all concluded that he is guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought my post was concise and neutral. What concerns me was semen was found on body not Luke's.

Also semen in a condom was found near body not Luke's. There was no Luke Mitchell DNA at all on body.

I believe he was convicted 8-7 if Henry Fonda was on jury he would have been found not guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Generic Username

Who cares about all that.

 

I want to know why he's hellbent on fermenting his own pish under a mattress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

I thought my post was concise and neutral. What concerns me was semen was found on body not Luke's.

Also semen in a condom was found near body not Luke's. There was no Luke Mitchell DNA at all on body.

I believe he was convicted 8-7 if Henry Fonda was on jury he would have been found not guilty.

 

Where is this confirmed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Dr Lean or an associate of her that was on here before in a previous Mitchell thread?

 

i'm pretty sure it was. wasn't she writing a book or something at the time??

 

while i think he's guilty i must admit i have little to no faith in the police with cases like this. i had a friend many years ago who was murdered and stuffed in a drain at newington. they eventually caught and tried someone, but the complete hash they made of gathering the evidence meant the guy got off with it. weirdly though, the guy they tried, i think was actually innocent, so (i hope) justice was done.

 

can't help but feel sorry for those who know the families involved though. i grew up in the area, playing in that same park til dark. awful thing to happen and sadly i doubt we will ever hear the truth of what went on

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he'd had his trial and been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

 

Didn't realise the Procurator Fiscal had to meet any other standard?

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

So were the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. And various other people that were subsequently found to be not guilty.

 

NB I'm not saying either way here BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought my post was concise and neutral. What concerns me was semen was found on body not Luke's.

Also semen in a condom was found near body not Luke's. There was no Luke Mitchell DNA at all on body.

I believe he was convicted 8-7 if Henry Fonda was on jury he would have been found not guilty.

 

They know who the condom belongs to. James Falconer. A guy who knobbed some lassie in the area around that time :lol:

 

Even the desperate Donald Findlay stopped clutching at that one.

 

"Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer"

 

http://m.scotsman.com/news/mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest-in-jodi-suspect-1-1154608

 

Serious question, do you believe Luke is innocent or are you just not happy at the evidence (that we're privy too) he was convicted on?

Edited by Sten Guns
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

So were the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. And various other people that were subsequently found to be not guilty.

 

NB I'm not saying either way here BTW.

 

That's the point thought isn't it? Other cases are irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point thought isn't it? Other cases are irrelevant.

 

Not in the point I was quoting, which indicated that because a case was proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', then that should be the end of it, which is an opinion fairly prevalent in society. There are several instances when that simply isnt true. Its up to individuals to decide their opinion on this one, much like the others.

Edited by Chester?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"They know who the condom belongs to James Falconer. A guy who knobbed some lassie in the area around that time"

 

A play with words there was no lassie with him the day of the murder.

He was ###### in the woods with a condom on, on his own, the police did not find this strange but I do. Was he ###### over the body?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

"They know who the condom belongs to James Falconer. A guy who knobbed some lassie in the area around that time"

 

A play with words there was no lassie with him the day of the murder.

He was ###### in the woods with a condom on, on his own, the police did not find this strange but I do. Was he ###### over the body?

 

It hardly matters. Even the defence accepted that it wasn't him who killed her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They know who the condom belongs to James Falconer. A guy who knobbed some lassie in the area around that time"

 

A play with words there was no lassie with him the day of the murder.

He was ###### in the woods with a condom on, on his own, the police did not find this strange but I do. Was he ###### over the body?

 

Wtf..... The condom wasn't found on the body FFS and it wasn't his seamen on the body either.

 

And you didn't answer my question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whitleybayhearts

I sometimes wonder why some in jail continually protest their innocence after a guilty verdict and losing appeal after appeal. Jones has always maintained that he is not guilty maybe, just maybe, he ain't guilty. Not be the first one dragged away kicking and screaming only to find out the Law got it wrong. Jeremy Bamber has been in jail for nearly nigh on 30yr but still insists he did not kill his family maybe just maybe he ain't guilty. For what its worth and the little I know I think Jones is guilty. As for Bamber not so sure, just an opinion :tiny:

Edited by whitleybayhearts
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was the sort to murder someone, regardless of circumstances, I'd probably cope ok with persisting with a fib for a few years/decades too. Just saying. :thumbsup:

 

Not an assessment of Mitchell's guilt or lack thereof, just an observation as I read through the thread.

Edited by redm
Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought my post was concise and neutral. What concerns me was semen was found on body not Luke's.

Also semen in a condom was found near body not Luke's. There was no Luke Mitchell DNA at all on body.

I believe he was convicted 8-7 if Henry Fonda was on jury he would have been found not guilty.

 

So even if what you say is true, the killer is going to leave a condom full of semen next to someone he's just killed. Aye ok. Kind of defeats the purpose of the use of the condom in the first place don't you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So were the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4. And various other people that were subsequently found to be not guilty.

 

NB I'm not saying either way here BTW.

 

I am afraid you have missed the point.

 

The poster I replied to was asking for incontrovertible proof of Mitchell's guilt. I was merely pointing out that this is not the legal standard required by our criminal law.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Generic Username

"They know who the condom belongs to James Falconer. A guy who knobbed some lassie in the area around that time"

 

A play with words there was no lassie with him the day of the murder.

He was ###### in the woods with a condom on, on his own, the police did not find this strange but I do. Was he ###### over the body?

 

Having a tug with a condom on is referred to as a "posh ****" or "a gentleman's stroke"

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was the sort to murder someone, regardless of circumstances, I'd probably cope ok with persisting with a fib for a few years/decades too. Just saying. :thumbsup:

 

Not an assessment of Mitchell's guilt or lack thereof, just an observation as I read through the thread.

 

Exactly. A lot of killers are also manipulative pathological liars too.

 

Funny that.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am afraid you have missed the point.

 

The poster I replied to was asking for incontrovertible proof of Mitchell's guilt. I was merely pointing out that this is not the legal standard required by our criminal law.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

It kinda is the standard.:)

 

Either way, the points I make are still relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It kinda is the standard.:)

 

Either way, the points I make are still relevant.

 

No i am sorry but it is not the standard. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt NOT cast iron, incontrovertible proof.

 

If it were, then some people would get off where the evidence is largely circumstantial but strongly indicative of their guilt. For example, that scumbag Gilroy who murdered Suzanne Pilley may have evaded justice.

 

And no I don't see the relevance of the cases you cite. Where is the evidence of police corruption etc in Mitchell's case for example?

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Edited by ToYouToMe
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No i am sorry but it is not the standard. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt NOT cast iron, incontrovertible proof.

 

 

In any judge's summation I have seen, which are many, the direction has always been 'you must be 100% convinced of guilt to vote for guilty, otherwise you should not do so', or a variant thereof. Ive always been taught by those in the legal profession, who I have discussed this with, that that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that the evidence must be as close to, to put in your terms, 'cast iron'.

 

Of course, there may be disagreements, but I never heard anyone in court, differ too much, if at all, from that view.

 

As for my points, you wont agree anyhow.:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In any judge's summation I have seen, which are many, the direction has always been 'you must be 100% convinced of guilt to vote for guilty, otherwise you should not do so', or a variant thereof. Ive always been taught by those in the legal profession, who I have discussed this with, that that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that the evidence must be as close to, to put in your terms, 'cast iron'.

 

Of course, there may be disagreements, but I never heard anyone in court, differ too much, if at all, from that view.

 

As for my points, you wont agree anyhow.:)

 

Being 100% convinced is not the same thing as demanding cast iron proof.

 

I may be on a jury and be 100% convinced of someone's guilt but that may not be backed up by irrefutable evidence!

 

The law does not require that it is. Merely that guilt appears to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Edited by ToYouToMe
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder why some in jail continually protest their innocence after a guilty verdict and losing appeal after appeal. Jones has always maintained that he is not guilty maybe, just maybe, he ain't guilty. Not be the first one dragged away kicking and screaming only to find out the Law got it wrong. Jeremy Bamber has been in jail for nearly nigh on 30yr but still insists he did not kill his family maybe just maybe he ain't guilty. For what its worth and the little I know I think Jones is guilty. As for Bamber not so sure, just an opinion :tiny:

 

 

You obviously know very little about it then as you can't even get the guilty persons name right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
whitleybayhearts

You obviously know very little about it then as you can't even get the guilty persons name right!

Not sure what you mean reckon Jones is guilty and Bamber not if the spellings poor well there you go

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure what you mean reckon Jones is guilty and Bamber not if the spellings poor well there you go

 

Jodi Jones was the victim, Luke Mitchell is the killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being 100% convinced is not the same thing as demanding cast iron proof.

 

I may be on a jury and be 100% convinced of someone's guilt but that may not be backed up by irrefutable evidence!

 

The law does not require that it is. Merely that guilt appears to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

So you're absolutely convinced of their guilt without irrefutable evidence? To me that sounds more like a hunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rocco_Jambo

 

 

 

 

In any judge's summation I have seen, which are many, the direction has always been 'you must be 100% convinced of guilt to vote for guilty, otherwise you should not do so', or a variant thereof. Ive always been taught by those in the legal profession, who I have discussed this with, that that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that the evidence must be as close to, to put in your terms, 'cast iron'.

 

Of course, there may be disagreements, but I never heard anyone in court, differ too much, if at all, from that view.

 

As for my points, you wont agree anyhow.:)

 

It's not proof beyond doubt it's proof beyond reasonable doubt which is clearly a standard below 100% certainty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

Luke Mitchell should have employed some of the Perry Mason's on this thread rather than Donald Findlay...

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

Wait did someone suggest earlier that Falconer had a posh one over the body and left the sleeve in the area :rofl:

 

He'd have to be all kinds of stupid and people that stupid don't get away with murder.

 

P.s Still absolutely convinced it was Mitchell.

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

 

So you're absolutely convinced of their guilt without irrefutable evidence? To me that sounds more like a hunch.

This guy gets it. :spoton:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy Brown

Are court transcripts available anywhere (on freedom of information).

 

I always remember at the time that reports from court had shown to hard evidence against Mitchell.

The reasonable doubt mostly being that he found the body and then burnt his clothes.

 

But for a 15yo boy to pull off such a brutal murder and leaving no crime scene evidence was bizarre in the extreme.

This always leaves me feeling uneasy both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you're absolutely convinced of their guilt without irrefutable evidence? To me that sounds more like a hunch.

 

Wow.

 

This is not rocket science guys.

 

The legal standard for conviction under Scots criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

It is NOT cast iron, absolutely irrefutable, beyond all argument, scientifically proven proof.

 

Given the evidence before you in any given trial you could be 100% convinced given the weight of evidence before you of someone's guilt however that evidence may not be beyond ALL doubt.

 

It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Edited by ToYouToMe
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not proof beyond doubt it's proof beyond reasonable doubt which is clearly a standard below 100% certainty.

 

This guy gets it.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
But for a 15yo boy to pull off such a brutal murder and leaving no crime scene evidence was bizarre in the extreme.

This always leaves me feeling uneasy both ways.

 

Pretty much my view on the case from the beginning. From the details reported in the press (don't have enough of an interest to pour over court transcripts) I'm not sure that without physical evidence that I could have said that he was guilty without reasonable doubt. In the back of my head I could not have stopped myself thinking that it would be almost impossible for a 15 year old boy to kill and mutilate his girlfriend in a wood and not leave a scrap of evidence, that to me personally would have constituted reasonable doubt.

 

I also wonder if the same verdict would be made today considering that compared to 11 years ago there has been an abundance of TV shows both fictional (CSI, Dexter etc) and Non-fictional (forensic documentaries etc) covering forensics and showing the discovery of microscopic evidence years after a crime was committed. Would this now mean that a jury would be more expectant of forensic evidence and be less likely to convict on circumstantial evidence?

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...