Jump to content

Jodi Jones murder re-examined


Sten Guns

Recommended Posts

Generic Username

They should check the crime scene again for a jar of pish. Find one, see if it's the same pish as his. Bingo.

 

CSI EDINBURGH.

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

Angry Haggis

They should check the crime scene again for a jar of pish. Find one, see if it's the same pish as his. Bingo.

 

CSI EDINBURGH.

 

Every one knows that a jar of pish left out to the elements for more than one year will have no longer contain extractable DNA for identification of the source donator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Generic Username

Every one knows that a jar of pish left out to the elements for more than one year will have no longer contain extractable DNA for identification of the source donator.

 

What if he'd left it in a fridge, at the crime scene?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he hadn't done it im sure that someone in the area would have blurted something out by now.

 

Doubt that years later IF someone else was responsible they are just going to be dawdling round Tesco's at Hardengreen and suddenly confess to the crime to the bird at the deli counter whilst she wraps up 4 slices of his/her corned beef!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Doubt that years later IF someone else was responsible they are just going to be dawdling round Tesco's at Hardengreen and suddenly confess to the crime to the bird at the deli counter whilst she wraps up 4 slices of his/her corned beef!

 

Just out of curiosity if you were the bird serving the corned beef and someone did say "it was me that really killed Jodi Jones",what would everyone do?

Would you think "aye,ok then weirdo" or would you inform the police?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rocco_Jambo

 

 

Doubt that years later IF someone else was responsible they are just going to be dawdling round Tesco's at Hardengreen and suddenly confess to the crime to the bird at the deli counter whilst she wraps up 4 slices of his/her corned beef!

 

Happens all the time in Midsomer Murders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bert Le Clos

Whether he's guilty or not, he was guilty in the eyes of the public, and therefore most likely the jury long before it went to court. Should never have been tried in Edinburgh, but that's the Crown Office's fault, not the police.

 

That said, he's 100% guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Central Belt 1874

This thread is crazy.

 

I used to work with someone who was on the jury. This person was adamant, 100%, no doubt that it was him. This person said the evidence was clear cut. This person never went into details about it but I always suspected that some (important) evidence from this case has been kept away from the public.

 

However, I have worked with many people who come from that area, and there are strong rumours in the area that it wasnt him. Probably just banjo country conspiracy theories.

 

I reckon the only reason he is still pleading his innocence is there is a slim chance they can have the sentence overturned on a technicality like the police screwed up somewhere during the investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is his mum still washing his clothes in the barbecue then?

 

:)

 

On a serious note, the ***** is guilty as sin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
GrumpyMrDavros

So not even Dr Sandra Lean who spent ten years constantly squeeling and screaming that Mitchell was set up by the cops and the media and she has the absolute proof of his innocence and who came on to this forum under a couple of sock puppet accounts is no longer campaigning for him ? That's interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

So not even Dr Sandra Lean who spent ten years constantly squeeling and screaming that Mitchell was set up by the cops and the media and she has the absolute proof of his innocence and who came on to this forum under a couple of sock puppet accounts is no longer campaigning for him ? That's interesting

 

Your post seems to suggest that she no longer thinks he is innocent.

 

100% this is not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your post seems to suggest that she no longer thinks he is innocent.

 

100% this is not the case.

 

Probably also 100% the case that she doesn't have absolute proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems from the posts here that this was a case presented on Circumstantial evidence.

 

Going back some sixty four years I remember this being a subject at Scottish Police College Whitburn. The essentials and I don't remember them all were listed this way

 

M... motive

 

A... ability to commit the crime

 

G... one of the ones I have forgotten

 

I... as above

 

C... conduct after commission

 

O... opportunity

 

P... anther blank of memory.

 

 

Hopefully some of the serving policemen can fill in the blanks of my memory and put the other areas in so posters understand the ingredients required for a case of Circumstantial evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably also 100% the case that she doesn't have absolute proof.

 

Definitely I would say, I wasn't for one minute backing her up, merely correcting the implication that she had lost her belief that he was innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems from the posts here that this was a case presented on Circumstantial evidence.

 

Going back some sixty four years I remember this being a subject at Scottish Police College Whitburn. The essentials and I don't remember them all were listed this way

 

M... motive

 

A... ability to commit the crime

 

G... one of the ones I have forgotten

 

I... as above

 

C... conduct after commission

 

O... opportunity

 

P... anther blank of memory.

 

 

Hopefully some of the serving policemen can fill in the blanks of my memory and put the other areas in so posters understand the ingredients required for a case of Circumstantial evidence.

 

Motive,

Ability,

Guilty intent,

Identification,

Conduct after crime,

Opportunity

Preparation

 

A piece on it and how it was used to convict Nat Fraser for the murder of his wife Arlene.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/former-detective-alan-smith-reveals-857082

Edited by graygo
Link to post
Share on other sites
GrumpyMrDavros

Graygo Dr Lean was on here a couple of years ago claiming she had all the papers from court and that all the evidence was that it was a miscarriage of justice and she couldn't go in to detail why this was a MOJ until the appeal came up . The SCCRC rejected any ground for an appeal and she walks away from the Mitchell case . She knows she has been backing a lost cause for years and has finally admitted defeat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Graygo Dr Lean was on here a couple of years ago claiming she had all the papers from court and that all the evidence was that it was a miscarriage of justice and she couldn't go in to detail why this was a MOJ until the appeal came up . The SCCRC rejected any ground for an appeal and she walks away from the Mitchell case . She knows she has been backing a lost cause for years and has finally admitted defeat

 

Some direct quotes in this article suggest otherwise mate including this one -

 

Dr Lean said: ?I really have nothing to say about this. I believe Luke is 100 per cent completely innocent. The reason for my withdrawal will remain private as a matter of respect.?

 

http://www.edinburgh...chell-1-3478153

 

FWIW I reckon he is guilty as sin.

Edited by graygo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Motive,

Ability,

Guilty intent,

Identification,

Conduct after crime,

Opportunity

Preparation

 

A piece on it and how it was used to convict Nat Fraser for the murder of his wife Arlene.

 

thanks it's a bugger when you cannot remember

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/former-detective-alan-smith-reveals-857082

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Probably also 100% the case that she doesn't have absolute proof.

 

Do you need 100% proof that someone is innocent? I don't think you do. All you need is sufficient evidence to out doubt on the conviction. It could be tangible evidence, or simply a technicality in the law, or how the press behaved in the build up.

 

I am not saying he is innocent. I don't know enough about the case, but perhaps he is, or perhaps he isn't, but there were flaws in the case. Or maybe he is guilty and got what he deserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you claim you do, then yes, I think it's best if you do.

 

So if you claim to have proof that someone is 100% innocent and the jury/judge decides that it's only 95% probable then that person is found guilty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So if you claim to have proof that someone is 100% innocent and the jury/judge decides that it's only 95% probable then that person is found guilty?

 

Think you've missed Peebo's point.

 

Sandra lean claimed and has proof Luke was innocent.

 

She didn't provide it.

 

Wonder why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GrumpyMrDavros

Here's the previous thread where Dr Sandra Lean made an appearance

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/'>http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/'>http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/

 

She appears under her own name on page 15 but it's pretty obvious it was her posting under the usernames " AllanM " and " Consider This " whose entire contribution to the thread was " MItchell got set up and log on to the WAP website ( Which is administered by Lean ) and buy Dr Lean's book No Smoke because Lean has all the evcidence that Luke is innocent but she's not allowed to discuss it online ." Looking through the pages it's telling that people who thought Mitchell had a rough deal have spoken about the painful bias they witnessed on the WAP site

 

Lean might claim she " Still believes Mitchell is 100 per cent innocent " quickly looking through the internet you'll find she has a long history of latching on to cases and ditching the people involved when things don't go her way . She was a champion of Simon Hall who featured in her book No Smoke then when Hall confessed to the murder she back tracked and severed all ties with anyone associated with Hall including his heartbroken widow . She was also heavily involved in another case of a man called Adrian Prout and did the same thing when he confessed to the murder

 

It's interesting that since she's dumped the Mitchell case it's been revealed that she has no longer been keeping in touch with the Mitchell family for a long time and Corinne Mitchell got banned from the WAP website two years ago . It seems Lean jumps on every legal bandwagon that comes along , does all she can to promote herself , then when everything falls apart she disappears from view until another case comes up . It appears Lean doesn't care about justice , or anything else apart from herself and getting her face in the papers Here's the previous thread where Dr Sandra Lean made an appearance

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/

 

She appears under her own name on page 15 but it's pretty obvious it was her posting under the usernames " AllanM " and " Consider This " whose entire contribution to the thread was " MItchell got set up and log on to the WAP website ( Which is administered by Lean ) and buy Dr Lean's book No Smoke because Lean has all the evcidence that Luke is innocent but she's not allowed to discuss it online ." Looking through the pages it's telling that people who thought Mitchell had a rough deal have spoken about the painful bias they witnessed on the WAP site

 

Lean might claim she " Still believes Mitchell is 100 per cent innocent " quickly looking through the internet you'll find she has a long history of latching on to cases and ditching the people involved when things don't go her way . She was a champion of Simon Hall who featured in her book No Smoke then when Hall confessed to the murder she back tracked and severed all ties with anyone associated with Hall including his heartbroken widow . She was also heavily involved in another case of a man called Adrian Prout and did the same thing when he confessed to the murder

 

It's interesting that since she's dumped the Mitchell case it's been revealed that she has no longer been keeping in touch with the Mitchell family for a long time and Corinne Mitchell got banned from the WAP website two years ago . It seems Lean jumps on every legal bandwagon that comes along , does all she can to promote herself , then when everything falls apart she disappears from view until another case comes up . It appears Lean doesn't care about justice , or anything else apart from herself and getting her face in the papers Here's the previous thread where Dr Sandra Lean made an appearance

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/

 

She appears under her own name on page 15 but it's pretty obvious it was her posting under the usernames " AllanM " and " Consider This " whose entire contribution to the thread was " MItchell got set up and log on to the WAP website ( Which is administered by Lean ) and buy Dr Lean's book No Smoke because Lean has all the evcidence that Luke is innocent but she's not allowed to discuss it online ." Looking through the pages it's telling that people who thought Mitchell had a rough deal have spoken about the painful bias they witnessed on the WAP site

 

Lean might claim she " Still believes Mitchell is 100 per cent innocent " quickly looking through the internet you'll find she has a long history of latching on to cases and ditching the people involved when things don't go her way . She was a champion of Simon Hall who featured in her book No Smoke then when Hall confessed to the murder she back tracked and severed all ties with anyone associated with Hall including his heartbroken widow . She was also heavily involved in another case of a man called Adrian Prout and did the same thing when he confessed to the murder

 

It's interesting that since she's dumped the Mitchell case it's been revealed that she has no longer been keeping in touch with the Mitchell family for a long time and Corinne Mitchell got banned from the WAP website two years ago . It seems Lean jumps on every legal bandwagon that comes along , does all she can to promote herself , then when everything falls apart she disappears from view until another case comes up . It appears Lean doesn't care about justice , or anything else apart from herself and getting her face in the papers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you've missed Peebo's point.

 

Sandra lean claimed and has proof Luke was innocent.

 

She didn't provide it.

 

Wonder why.

 

Not surprising that I missed his point :unsure:

 

 

"Do you need 100% proof that someone is innocent?"

 

"If you claim you do, then yes, I think it's best if you do."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So if you claim to have proof that someone is 100% innocent and the jury/judge decides that it's only 95% probable then that person is found guilty?

 

I don't really understand the question.

 

There is a big difference between what someone claims to have or know, and what happens in court as part of the legal system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not surprising that I missed his point :unsure:

 

 

"Do you need 100% proof that someone is innocent?"

 

"If you claim you do, then yes, I think it's best if you do."

 

My point is that if you claim you have something that supports your argument, you should probably have it, or else your argument is devalued.

 

I'm not talking about what a jury may decide. For starters, trials in Scotland aren't focused on proving innocence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that if you claim you have something that supports your argument, you should probably have it, or else your argument is devalued.

 

I'm not talking about what a jury may decide. For starters, trials in Scotland aren't focused on proving innocence.

 

Fair enough, I think we're getting drawn into a wee debate here that I don't (neither of us?) really want so I'll back out :thumbsup:

 

Hope he is guilty though and rots in jail tormented by his demons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fair enough, I think we're getting drawn into a wee debate here that I don't (neither of us?) really want so I'll back out :thumbsup:

 

 

There is no debate to be had, I think, and hopefully now my post that you replied to is easier to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Yet another attempt at an appeal.  

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/fresh-appeal-launched-to-clear-name-of-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4800387

 

A fresh appeal is set to be launched with the aim of clearing the name of teenage killer Luke Mitchell.

 

The move will be the third appeal on behalf of Mitchell, who was 14 when he murdered his girlfriend Jodi Jones, also 14.

Jodi was stripped and stabbed to death on June 30 behind a wall on Roan’s Dyke path with the QC describing the incident as “the most gruesome killing of recent years”

 

Mitchell was found guilty in February 2005 and sentenced to a minimum of 20 years, but has always maintained his innocence.

 

Despite previous attempts, he has failed to overturn his conviction.

A new campaign is now being launched, being led by a Scots criminologist, Dr Sandra Lean, who has dedicated her life to fighting injustice and defending those she believes have been wrongfully convicted. She has dedicated her career to the case, which happened in her hometown of Dalkeith 15 years ago and is set to publish a book later this year which she claims shows failings in the original police investigation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there evidence that he didn't do it and someone else did? 

Or are they trying to get him off due to technicalities or police procedures? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Is there evidence that he didn't do it and someone else did? 

Or are they trying to get him off due to technicalities or police procedures? 

From memory, only convicted on circumstantial evidence. 

Which I always maintain, is utterly bizarre for such a brutal sustained murder.

For a 14/15 yr old to pull off is incredible and sits very uncomfortably with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

From memory, only convicted on circumstantial evidence. 

Which I always maintain, is utterly bizarre for such a brutal sustained murder.

For a 14/15 yr old to pull off is incredible and sits very uncomfortably with me.

Yep, there was no actual evidence, it stunned me at the time despite the media tone, I never thought there would be a conviction

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Yep, there was no actual evidence, it stunned me at the time despite the media tone, I never thought there would be a conviction

Cheers Smithee.

After posting, I thought that I was leaving myself wide open for a slaughtering.

All likelihood points at him, but no actual evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2013 at 10:36, Beats said:

 

He was a ******* dick back then as well.

 

I chucked the ***** off his bike outside the Harrow hotel.

 

 

And he's the dick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Is there evidence that he didn't do it and someone else did? 

Or are they trying to get him off due to technicalities or police procedures? 

 

They've been going on about failings in police procedures for years, maybe since just after the trial.  You'd have thought they might have brought this up at one of the other appeal attempts. The article mentions the criminologist involved, has a book about the case coming out later this year, hmmmm.

 

3 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

From memory, only convicted on circumstantial evidence. 

Which I always maintain, is utterly bizarre for such a brutal sustained murder.

For a 14/15 yr old to pull off is incredible and sits very uncomfortably with me.

Yes, and I found it strange that there was no DNA evidence, given the nature of the murder, and a lad that age could act with an semblance of normality after supposedly carrying it out.  Also the trial should never have taken place in Edinburgh; given the massive coverage the Evening News gave the case.

 

The picture from the Evening News isn't doing him any favours though.

Luke Mitchell at his appeal at the high court in Edinburgh. Luke Mitchell is lad in handcuffs from the high court after losing his appeal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case should never, ever have been held in Edinburgh.

How the case was supposed to be unbiased and only based on the facts in he face of the rabid media attention was beyond me at the time.

 

Circumstantial evidence cannot be enough to secure a murder conviction.

That is the definition of "reasonable doubt".

 

The guy was a proper weirdo but that should mean nothing in a court of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying there is no “actual evidence” is simply wrong. 

 

Was there a significant lack of forensic evidence? Yes. Does that mean there was no “actual evidence”? No. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephane Grappelli
16 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Saying there is no “actual evidence” is simply wrong. 

 

Was there a significant lack of forensic evidence? Yes. Does that mean there was no “actual evidence”? No. 

 

 

Spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Saying there is no “actual evidence” is simply wrong. 

 

Was there a significant lack of forensic evidence? Yes. Does that mean there was no “actual evidence”? No. 

 

 

Point taken, my bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Peebo said:

Saying there is no “actual evidence” is simply wrong. 

 

Was there a significant lack of forensic evidence? Yes. Does that mean there was no “actual evidence”? No. 

 

Well there was circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't prove the case, it really beats me how he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. 

When you speak of forensic evidence, in the absence of any witnesses, that's what's needed to prove guilt. No witnesses or forensic evidence proved that luke was guilty, and at the end of the day he doesn't have to prove his innocence, they have to prove him guilty. I don't believe that was done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Well there was circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't prove the case, it really beats me how he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. 

When you speak of forensic evidence, in the absence of any witnesses, that's what's needed to prove guilt. No witnesses or forensic evidence proved that luke was guilty, and at the end of the day he doesn't have to prove his innocence, they have to prove him guilty. I don't believe that was done.

They did prove him guilty, in the eyes of the court, based on the evidence offered.

 

Personally, having read all lot about the case, and having followed it for years, I’m convinced he did it. Does that mean he should have been found guilty in the trial? I would offer that only those involved in the trial, and privy to all of the details, really know that, or at least they are the people with the most informed opinion; I’m comfortable with the conclusion the jury reached (regardless of my own opinion on it). 

 

If if you don’t think he did it, or if you don’t think he should have been found guilty (not necessarily the same thing, I realise), fair enough. 

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...