Jodi Jones murder re-examined

[ri Alban]

12 minutes ago, Morgan said:

Do know about this case, but I'll never ever trust these corrupt gangsters. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

31 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

What a statement, no doubt they wont be if you ever need them, some post.

 

I'll never need them. The losers of school trying to seek revenge. 

[Harry Potter]

7 minutes ago, Peebo said:

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. 

The jury would have convicted on all the facts open to them, they would not have convicted unless they were positive on the facts given to them.

Certainly if i was on such a jury i would have needed 100% proof of guilt to convict.

[Harry Potter]

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'll never need them. The losers of school trying to seek revenge. 

Dunno one at my school was a good rugby player, lol

[Sharpie]

I vaguely remember that case when it happened, of course the only evidence I got was on here and papers on the internet. There seemed to be quite abit of debate at the time, but he was obviously convicted.  There may be some police lack of efficiencey, but there also has to be a prosecutor who presents in Court the evidence including having thoroughly reviewed it before trial. Of course at the end of the presentation  of evidence a Judge, or if present a jury have to make th e decision of in Scotland if I recall Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven. There have been unsuccesful appeals, I suspect that at no time was any police perjury, or other misbehaviour claimed or proven. Certainly there may be an arguement of police procedure, I know that the systems over the years with D.N.A. and other investigative tools, physchological profiling for example, what was more than acceptable police procedure of even fifteen years ago may seem inadequate now, but is a long way from rightly being  described as crooked. Such a claim in a case as serious as a murder case. particularly involving a juvenile is not only inappropriate,  but considering the checks and balances of the justice systems almost ludicrous. 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Dunno one at my school was a good rugby player, lol

I like Bob, so there are exceptions to the rule. 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

Dunno one at my school was a good rugby player, lol

I like Bob, so there are exceptions to the rule. 

[Morgan]

A policeman kindly put me on a bus home one night.

[Harry Potter]

1 minute ago, Morgan said:

A policeman kindly put me on a bus home one night.

Ha Ha, worse for wear mate,  

[Sharpie]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I'll never need them. The losers of school trying to seek revenge. 

 

Y'know you were particularly critical of me and I was pretty pissed. As I do I sat back relaxed, and in future posts responded to you although not agreeing with you in a respectful manner, and I felt your responses were similar, and you were not to bad a lad. Just like collecting the evidence in this post I see I was totally mistaken, I was so with good intent, but you have proven in this thread beyond reasonable doubt you are a nasty angry wee loser, I would suggest that you not be so quick to feel no need for police assistance, because if you speak in company the way you do here your need for the help of emergency services may be critical.

[Morgan]

Just now, Harry Potter said:

Ha Ha, worse for wear mate,  

‘fraid so Harry.

 

I was sleeping on the ground beside the police box outside the Cafe Royal.  He thought it best I went home.

[Harry Potter]

Just now, Morgan said:

‘fraid so Harry.

 

I was sleeping on the ground beside the police box outside the Cafe Royal.  He thought it best I went home.

These things happen mate, hope it was in the summer, bit cauld in the winter , that was good of him mate.

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

Y'know you were particularly critical of me and I was pretty pissed. As I do I sat back relaxed, and in future posts responded to you although not agreeing with you in a respectful manner, and I felt your responses were similar, and you were not to bad a lad. Just like collecting the evidence in this post I see I was totally mistaken, I was so with good intent, but you have proven in this thread beyond reasonable doubt you are a nasty angry wee loser, I would suggest that you not be so quick to feel no need for police assistance, because if you speak in company the way you do here your need for the help of emergency services may be critical.

I can look after myself thanks. And I don't place the Fire service and NHS in the same bracket as the Polis. 

[Tommy Brown]

Guys, this should be kept a very serious thread, please.

 

keep it on track

 

thanks

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, Harry Potter said:

These things happen mate, hope it was in the summer, bit cauld in the winter , that was good of him mate.

Once again, ‘fraid not  

 

It was after a Christmas night out and was bloody freezing.

 

You're right though, it was good of him.

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

Y'know you were particularly critical of me and I was pretty pissed. As I do I sat back relaxed, and in future posts responded to you although not agreeing with you in a respectful manner, and I felt your responses were similar, and you were not to bad a lad. Just like collecting the evidence in this post I see I was totally mistaken, I was so with good intent, but you have proven in this thread beyond reasonable doubt you are a nasty angry wee loser, I would suggest that you not be so quick to feel no need for police assistance, because if you speak in company the way you do here your need for the help of emergency services may be critical.

Do u like most cops think your above the Law? Maybe if Polis didn't think themselves as the law I'd have more respect, until then ACAB. 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Guys, this should be kept a very serious thread, please.

 

keep it on track

 

thanks

Fine! 

[Morgan]

1 minute ago, Tommy Brown said:

Guys, this should be kept a very serious thread, please.

 

keep it on track

 

thanks

Yeah, sorry.  Good point Tommy  

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'll never need them. The losers of school trying to seek revenge. 

[Sharpie]

Actually this is a thread that is really suitable for reasonable discussion. It seems the case was settled as a result of mainly if not all circumstantial evidence. Certain points have to be proved in these circumstances, in training we were taught them and the use of the first letter for each component was provided MAGICOP. I listed them all recently so can't be bothered doing it again. On looking back to the first threads I noticed that there had been an unusually to me early   release of the crime scene, a bit strange. The burning of the clothes by the mother may have helped divert from that in a way. The character of the accused and his close relationship with the girl may also have been critical in police decision making. It is possible there was a rush to judgement by the police investigators, taken with the requirements of the circumstantial evidence and the other factors a feeling of who else would have had reason to do this  may have been adopted, and as can happen the focus on proving it rather than investigating could have transpired. It can and does happen, some times is lost in Court and I am sure other times succeeds, it is not a criminal deliberate act, it is a normal human failing when dealing with highly emotional circumstances. What however cannot be ignored is the previously stated fact by me that this was reviewed by the Procurator Fiscals office, reviewed by a defence lawyer, who I am sure cross examined, presented to a jury and a judge, and a verdict of Guilty declared. I have attended court and seen and heard Not Proven verdicts, and it is a convenient way for a jury or judge to say we just don't know and the doubt goes to the benefit of the accused.That was the case here. Excellent material for discussion but the only umpire who can declare a winner in the discussion is the found guilty accused.

;

Edited September 15, 2018 by bobsharp

[John Findlay]

3 hours ago, Morgan said:

‘fraid so Harry.

 

I was sleeping on the ground beside the police box outside the Cafe Royal.  He thought it best I went home.

Similar experience in Gibraltar 33 years ago. Got woken up by a swift sharp kick to one of my legs. Opened my eyes. Saw a big pair of black boots first, looked up and there was a Gibraltar Bobby looking down at me. "Right son you have 30 seconds to get back onboard".

I was up like a flash and legged it back to my ship. It wasn't until I was back onboard that I noticed one leg of my trousers was covered in dogshit. It was then that I realised I had been lying asleep in the gutter on top of dogshit right outside the power station in Gibraltar. To this day I have never been that drunk and hopefully never will be.

Edited September 15, 2018 by John Findlay

[FORTHCLYDE]

I have followed this case from the start I followed the trial I have read every website about this case.

I have lost count of the thousand pages I have read.

A number of years ago I added up all the messages on the internet and approx. 75% of people on the web think he is guilty.

My opinion is he comes over a weirdo and his family have not helped him.

He pissed in lemonade bottles and kept them beside his bed.

He carried knives he smoked cannabis. 

He was having underage sex.

What I would say is he was interviewed at 15 years without a lawyer and strip searched the doctor concluded he had not had a shower in the last 12 hours.

No one else in the search party had there clothes taken.

His Mother did not burn his clothes forensic tests on the log burner proved that.

He was not sleeping with her although he may have slept in the same room.

The trial should have been held in Glasgow.

The only evidence against him was he found the body although he says it was his dog who smelt the blood not him.

There was no DNA against him.

Jodi's sisters boyfriend sperm was found on her body but the crown ignored that saying Jodi was wearing her sisters top.

A  used condom with sperm was found less than 100 yards  away but Police ignored that as  just a in the park!

Other DNA was found on her body but no one has been traced for that.

Donald Findlay QC was his lawyer he made the mistake of telling Luke not to take the stand.

He had got Francis Auld off for the murder of Amanda Duffy with a similar defence and tried to do the same again but it backfired.

I was told the jury was 8-7 against although I am unable to prove that and they only took a couple of hours to deliver 

the verdict so that may not be true. 

I have an open mind but I do not know how he was convicted on the evidence in court.

The police did not look for anyone else.

As an aside Mark Dixie's  M.O. matches the killing although it was stated he was in Spain.

He had connections to Scotland as his step father was Scottish.

Maybe new evidence can be found to prove Luke was guilty or indeed innocent.

 

 

[Cruyff Turn]

All I’d say about this is, given the nature of the murder, if it wasn’t Luke Mitchell, there is a serial killer about somewhere.

 

The person who did this had either killed before and if it was their first, would or will have killed again. 

[Junta]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'll never need them. The losers of school trying to seek revenge. 

 

So, you hear a noise through the night in your living room and find an intruder with a knife, you'll shout through to the missus, "dont phone the police, ive got this".

 

Bizarre.

[Herbert.]

1 hour ago, Junta said:

 

So, you hear a noise through the night in your living room and find an intruder with a knife, you'll shout through to the missus, "dont phone the police, ive got this".

 

Bizarre.

 

 

Maybe he would welcome the company.

[JWL]

1 hour ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

I have followed this case from the start I followed the trial I have read every website about this case.

I have lost count of the thousand pages I have read.

A number of years ago I added up all the messages on the internet and approx. 75% of people on the web think he is guilty.

My opinion is he comes over a weirdo and his family have not helped him.

He pissed in lemonade bottles and kept them beside his bed.

He carried knives he smoked cannabis. 

He was having underage sex.

What I would say is he was interviewed at 15 years without a lawyer and strip searched the doctor concluded he had not had a shower in the last 12 hours.

No one else in the search party had there clothes taken.

His Mother did not burn his clothes forensic tests on the log burner proved that.

He was not sleeping with her although he may have slept in the same room.

The trial should have been held in Glasgow.

The only evidence against him was he found the body although he says it was his dog who smelt the blood not him.

There was no DNA against him.

Jodi's sisters boyfriend sperm was found on her body but the crown ignored that saying Jodi was wearing her sisters top.

A  used condom with sperm was found less than 100 yards  away but Police ignored that as  just a in the park!

Other DNA was found on her body but no one has been traced for that.

Donald Findlay QC was his lawyer he made the mistake of telling Luke not to take the stand.

He had got Francis Auld off for the murder of Amanda Duffy with a similar defence and tried to do the same again but it backfired.

I was told the jury was 8-7 against although I am unable to prove that and they only took a couple of hours to deliver 

the verdict so that may not be true. 

I have an open mind but I do not know how he was convicted on the evidence in court.

The police did not look for anyone else.

As an aside Mark Dixie's  M.O. matches the killing although it was stated he was in Spain.

He had connections to Scotland as his step father was Scottish.

Maybe new evidence can be found to prove Luke was guilty or indeed innocent.

 

 

 

No new evidence required to prove his guilty as he's.............................guilty. I'll chuck in my tuppence worth. Spoke to a cop friend of mine after he was convicted and he was 100% convinced he had done it. He'd worked the case from day 1 and even though the evidence collated was circumstantial, he fully believed the right person went to jail.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Maybe he would welcome the company.

Sounds a good match.

[Tommy Brown]

3 hours ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

I have followed this case from the start I followed the trial I have read every website about this case.

I have lost count of the thousand pages I have read.

A number of years ago I added up all the messages on the internet and approx. 75% of people on the web think he is guilty.

My opinion is he comes over a weirdo and his family have not helped him.

He pissed in lemonade bottles and kept them beside his bed.

He carried knives he smoked cannabis. 

He was having underage sex.

What I would say is he was interviewed at 15 years without a lawyer and strip searched the doctor concluded he had not had a shower in the last 12 hours.

No one else in the search party had there clothes taken.

His Mother did not burn his clothes forensic tests on the log burner proved that.

He was not sleeping with her although he may have slept in the same room.

The trial should have been held in Glasgow.

The only evidence against him was he found the body although he says it was his dog who smelt the blood not him.

There was no DNA against him.

Jodi's sisters boyfriend sperm was found on her body but the crown ignored that saying Jodi was wearing her sisters top.

A  used condom with sperm was found less than 100 yards  away but Police ignored that as  just a in the park!

Other DNA was found on her body but no one has been traced for that.

Donald Findlay QC was his lawyer he made the mistake of telling Luke not to take the stand.

He had got Francis Auld off for the murder of Amanda Duffy with a similar defence and tried to do the same again but it backfired.

I was told the jury was 8-7 against although I am unable to prove that and they only took a couple of hours to deliver 

the verdict so that may not be true. 

I have an open mind but I do not know how he was convicted on the evidence in court.

The police did not look for anyone else.

As an aside Mark Dixie's  M.O. matches the killing although it was stated he was in Spain.

He had connections to Scotland as his step father was Scottish.

Maybe new evidence can be found to prove Luke was guilty or indeed innocent.

 

 

 

wow, quite a post.

 

A few interesting comments in there that I have never read before.

[Armageddon]

The maw set fire to his clothes in an oil drum the night she went missing ....

 

The trial included a full scale exact replica of the wall, unbelievable work from the folk who make theatre sets in Edinburgh.

[Tommy Brown]

4 hours ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

 

His Mother did not burn his clothes forensic tests on the log burner proved that.

 

 

1 hour ago, Armageddon said:

The maw set fire to his clothes in an oil drum the night she went missing ....

 

 

You both can't be right.

Be interested to find out more from FC's post.

 

I always believed it to be true also, makes you wonder if it was an unsubstantiated allegation that the press continued to feed.

[Shanks said no]

1 hour ago, Armageddon said:

The maw set fire to his clothes in an oil drum the night she went missing ....

 

The trial included a full scale exact replica of the wall, unbelievable work from the folk who make theatre sets in Edinburgh.

If I remember correctly it was built under Parliament House in Laigh Hall, part of the Faculty of Advocates

[Smack]

9 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

Y'know you were particularly critical of me and I was pretty pissed. As I do I sat back relaxed, and in future posts responded to you although not agreeing with you in a respectful manner, and I felt your responses were similar, and you were not to bad a lad. Just like collecting the evidence in this post I see I was totally mistaken, I was so with good intent, but you have proven in this thread beyond reasonable doubt you are a nasty angry wee loser, I would suggest that you not be so quick to feel no need for police assistance, because if you speak in company the way you do here your need for the help of emergency services may be critical.

Assume you mean you were annoyed rather than drunk Bob? 

 

Describing someone as a  "nasty wee angry loser" is nasty in itself. Lad has an opinion, right or wrong. You stink of an old school cop who forms an opinion then sets out to "prove" it. Try googling confirmation bias. 

[Sharpie]

53 minutes ago, Smack said:

Assume you mean you were annoyed rather than drunk Bob? 

 

Describing someone as a  "nasty wee angry loser" is nasty in itself. Lad has an opinion, right or wrong. You stink of an old school cop who forms an opinion then sets out to "prove" it. Try googling confirmation bias. 

 

Thank you for your contribution, Ri Alban and myself have a history of less than complimentary character descriptions, his referred to something like my wrinkled old swinging dick, in one situation. We have settled down and have got on pretty good, even this morning after our contretemps we engaged with each other on another thread and I think our ruptured relationship may be on the mend again.

Yes I was suggesting annoyance, I am a non drinker so do not post or make statements as a result of inebriation, I am well aware of what I say, and yes do have the ability to realise what I have said is not always acceptable to all.

I am I must say despite age and other diminishments still very aware of hygiene of all sorts I bathe regularly, am no stranger to dental hygiene and mouthwash etc. Whatever  I am and whatever I say, I do not stink under any circumstance.,  Its funny but your keying in on on my being an old school cop forming an opinion and then setting out to prove it almost sounds like my comment earlier, I would almost expect it from a young cop who takes exception to my comment, and tries to not to gently place it in one of my body apertures.

I thank you for your counselling but suggest you direct some to my friend Ri Alban who refers to members of my former profession as losers, crooks and other derogatory descriptions, but in the absence of you doing soi I am sure Ri Alban and Iwill sort out and hopefully between ourselves resolve our current difference.

Semper Vigilo.

[Smack]

21 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

Thank you for your contribution, Ri Alban and myself have a history of less than complimentary character descriptions, his referred to something like my wrinkled old swinging dick, in one situation. We have settled down and have got on pretty good, even this morning after our contretemps we engaged with each other on another thread and I think our ruptured relationship may be on the mend again.

Yes I was suggesting annoyance, I am a non drinker so do not post or make statements as a result of inebriation, I am well aware of what I say, and yes do have the ability to realise what I have said is not always acceptable to all.

I am I must say despite age and other diminishments still very aware of hygiene of all sorts I bathe regularly, am no stranger to dental hygiene and mouthwash etc. Whatever  I am and whatever I say, I do not stink under any circumstance.,  Its funny but your keying in on on my being an old school cop forming an opinion and then setting out to prove it almost sounds like my comment earlier, I would almost expect it from a young cop who takes exception to my comment, and tries to not to gently place it in one of my body apertures.

I thank you for your counselling but suggest you direct some to my friend Ri Alban who refers to members of my former profession as losers, crooks and other derogatory descriptions, but in the absence of you doing soi I am sure Ri Alban and Iwill sort out and hopefully between ourselves resolve our current difference.

Semper Vigilo.

Thanks for the reply Bob.

 

A wrinkled swinging old dick. Might have been a compliment? Some cops are bent and they behave inappropriately. Some are just nasty and enjoy the power. Some are upstanding people looking to protect society. Lots of grey in between the black and white. 

 

Signing off with semper vigilo (which I had to Google [always watching]) is a bit weird and creepy. 

 

 

 

[Smack]

Reckon the boy Mitchell is innocent btw, to keep it on topic. No proper evidence and just the most obvious suspect. Jodi's murder was disgracegul. The thought that the killer could still be out here is why I think it should be re-examined.

[Shanks said no]

3 hours ago, Smack said:

Thanks for the reply Bob.

 

A wrinkled swinging old dick. Might have been a compliment? Some cops are bent and they behave inappropriately. Some are just nasty and enjoy the power. Some are upstanding people looking to protect society. Lots of grey in between the black and white. 

 

Signing off with semper vigilo (which I had to Google [always watching]) is a bit weird and creepy. 

 

 

 

Semper vigilo was the motto of the old L&B Police force

[Dunks]

4 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Semper vigilo was the motto of the old L&B Police force

 

Pretty sure it was all the Scottish forces and is still the motto for Police Scotland.

[FORTHCLYDE]

Re my post what goes against Luke is the number of things that are facts but people dispute.

The Log Burner was only I think 17 inches not big enough for jacket and jeans and was forensically tested that is fact.

I also followed the Glyn Razzell case for 15 years similar to Luke he has denied he was guilty 

however he refused a lie detector test which makes him look guilty.

If you remember Luke passed similar test.

As I said Doctor said Luke had not showered after murder so how was there no blood on his body

and how did DNA not get on to Jodi's body.

There is inconsistent information whether the tramp in the woods was actually interviewed  he was living in the woods

but after the murder he disappeared.

I know Luke  was found guilty but I would like to see evidence that proves it.

There was more evidence against Jodi's sister boyfriend, the guy masterbating in the woods and 

the two guys on the bikes at the murder scene at the time but did not hear anything than Luke.

I know this story was massive but have people not come forward yet.

What goes against Luke was:  there has not been similar murders since which makes it look it was him.

However there have been cases where someone has been caught drunk driving 20 years after a murder and finally caught.

The DNA found on Jodi do the Police constantly check it or is it lying in storage somewhere?

They could do comparison DNA tests.

I have heard the stories that the Police thought it was Luke from day 1 and he was guilty as sin.

However the Police were blinkered and did not look elsewhere.

[Thaw]

Sandra Lean made an appearance on this thread in 2012, which ended rather strangely:

 

 

[Armageddon]

12 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

If I remember correctly it was built under Parliament House in Laigh Hall, part of the Faculty of Advocates

 

 

Absolutely stunning hall, used to keep horses in there under the public Parliament Hall, it’s now a library, honestly Edinburgh folk, get into Parliament Hall and have a look about, amazing piece of our history, fire places gifted from France, a painting showing how it used to operate and a public hall/court rooms and a stained glass window with a dude that looks like Gazza

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

Re my post what goes against Luke is the number of things that are facts but people dispute.

The Log Burner was only I think 17 inches not big enough for jacket and jeans and was forensically tested that is fact.

I also followed the Glyn Razzell case for 15 years similar to Luke he has denied he was guilty 

however he refused a lie detector test which makes him look guilty.

If you remember Luke passed similar test.

As I said Doctor said Luke had not showered after murder so how was there no blood on his body

and how did DNA not get on to Jodi's body.

There is inconsistent information whether the tramp in the woods was actually interviewed  he was living in the woods

but after the murder he disappeared.

I know Luke  was found guilty but I would like to see evidence that proves it.

There was more evidence against Jodi's sister boyfriend, the guy masterbating in the woods and 

the two guys on the bikes at the murder scene at the time but did not hear anything than Luke.

I know this story was massive but have people not come forward yet.

What goes against Luke was:  there has not been similar murders since which makes it look it was him.

However there have been cases where someone has been caught drunk driving 20 years after a murder and finally caught.

The DNA found on Jodi do the Police constantly check it or is it lying in storage somewhere?

They could do comparison DNA tests.

I have heard the stories that the Police thought it was Luke from day 1 and he was guilty as sin.

However the Police were blinkered and did not look elsewhere.

Interesting points mate. I was sure at the time it was him, with the the things I read anyway, but certainly seems like the police had it in for him from the start. Maybe he did do it of course but certainly seems unlikely he’d have no blood on him has he murdered her in such a frenzied fashion. He’d be covered in it you’d think...

Edited September 16, 2018 by jack D and coke

[Jamhammer]

Never seriously doubted his guilt and still don't. 

[Shanks said no]

11 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

 

 

Absolutely stunning hall, used to keep horses in there under the public Parliament Hall, it’s now a library, honestly Edinburgh folk, get into Parliament Hall and have a look about, amazing piece of our history, fire places gifted from France, a painting showing how it used to operate and a public hall/court rooms and a stained glass window with a dude that looks like Gazza

Been a few times to the building through work and always say its my favourite building in Edinburgh, it just oozes history. I was lucky enough to be on a behind the scenes tour a couple of years back when we were shown many features others don't see, such as the haunted room, the story behind Queen Victoria's unused throne and the condemned cells.

[Armageddon]

2 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Been a few times to the building through work and always say its my favourite building in Edinburgh, it just oozes history. I was lucky enough to be on a behind the scenes tour a couple of years back when we were shown many features others don't see, such as the haunted room, the story behind Queen Victoria's unused throne and the condemned cells.

 

How about the Coffin Room???!!!

The Robing Room was also a cool spot.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Armageddon

[Shanks said no]

3 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

 

How about the Coffin Room???!!!

The Robing Room was also a cool spot.

The Coffin Room was what I meant by the Haunted room

[Peebo]

49 minutes ago, Thaw said:

Sandra Lean made an appearance on this thread in 2012, which ended rather strangely:

 

 

Some real blast-from-the-past accounts posting on that thread...

[¼½¾]

3 hours ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

Re my post what goes against Luke is the number of things that are facts but people dispute.

The Log Burner was only I think 17 inches not big enough for jacket and jeans and was forensically tested that is fact.

I also followed the Glyn Razzell case for 15 years similar to Luke he has denied he was guilty 

however he refused a lie detector test which makes him look guilty.

If you remember Luke passed similar test.

As I said Doctor said Luke had not showered after murder so how was there no blood on his body

and how did DNA not get on to Jodi's body.

There is inconsistent information whether the tramp in the woods was actually interviewed  he was living in the woods

but after the murder he disappeared.

I know Luke  was found guilty but I would like to see evidence that proves it.

There was more evidence against Jodi's sister boyfriend, the guy masterbating in the woods and 

the two guys on the bikes at the murder scene at the time but did not hear anything than Luke.

I know this story was massive but have people not come forward yet.

What goes against Luke was:  there has not been similar murders since which makes it look it was him.

However there have been cases where someone has been caught drunk driving 20 years after a murder and finally caught.

The DNA found on Jodi do the Police constantly check it or is it lying in storage somewhere?

They could do comparison DNA tests.

I have heard the stories that the Police thought it was Luke from day 1 and he was guilty as sin.

However the Police were blinkered and did not look elsewhere.

From your reading of the case, what's your view on Mitchell finding the body? 

 

The wall is pretty high, maybe 6 feet for the most part, and it was dark when the searchers walked along the path. It seems a quite a big coincidence. 

 

Mitchell's dog, said to have been in training (by him?), to track people was supposed to have indicated at a the part of the wall the body was behind. If I mind right, it was a part of the wall that was a bit lower, due to damage from a tree branch, and therefore would be  conveniently easier to climb. Could the dog have sensed that Mitchell himself had climbed the wall earlier? Did the defence or prosecution have the dug tested in any way, to check its capabilities?

 

This is the only real problem I have with the case. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

On ‎15‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 14:23, bobsharp said:

 

Y'know you were particularly critical of me and I was pretty pissed. As I do I sat back relaxed, and in future posts responded to you although not agreeing with you in a respectful manner, and I felt your responses were similar, and you were not to bad a lad. Just like collecting the evidence in this post I see I was totally mistaken, I was so with good intent, but you have proven in this thread beyond reasonable doubt you are a nasty angry wee loser, I would suggest that you not be so quick to feel no need for police assistance, because if you speak in company the way you do here your need for the help of emergency services may be critical.

Completely right . I've served on a serious trial one time and a guy could have got a few years but always recall the Sheriff being very clear that we needed to be certain " beyond reasonable doubt" that the guy did the crime. I wasn't and neither where my co jurors.  I was Foreman too and had to read out the verdict. I was nervous wreck but relief and tears on guys face made it worth it.  Ironically he might have did the deed but as stated wasn't sure " beyond reasonable doubt". Its a high threshold to convict and so it should be. The Scottish Jutice system ( apart from sentencing) is respected around the world. 

[Sharpie]

9 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Semper vigilo was the motto of the old L&B Police force

 And the older Edinburgh City Police.

[FORTHCLYDE]

3 hours ago, Lemongrab said:

From your reading of the case, what's your view on Mitchell finding the body? 

 

The wall is pretty high, maybe 6 feet for the most part, and it was dark when the searchers walked along the path. It seems a quite a big coincidence. 

 

Mitchell's dog, said to have been in training (by him?), to track people was supposed to have indicated at a the part of the wall the body was behind. If I mind right, it was a part of the wall that was a bit lower, due to damage from a tree branch, and therefore would be  conveniently easier to climb. Could the dog have sensed that Mitchell himself had climbed the wall earlier? Did the defence or prosecution have the dug tested in any way, to check its capabilities?

 

This is the only real problem I have with the case. 

That was the only evidence against him.

I think other dogs were taken to the site but there was a dispute about there capabilities and the weather conditions.

I know they recreated the wall but the defence said it was not accurate.

To be honest I don't know enough about dogs to give a proper opinion.

But surely if he had murdered her he would not have gone anywhere near the wall he would have walked straight down the path.

The police were given wrong info by the family at the outset they were told they were meeting down the lane which Luke denied making.

With that info Luke was lifted straight away. Luke was in custody a couple of hours after body found with no lawyer.

For a year before his trial the Police told the press he was guilty. 

I cant remember everything but did Jodi not have a brother who threatened Jodi's mother with a knife.

There was also the case of Jodi's family hiding clothing.

I still think there must be evidence either way out there. 

Could the knife still be hidden in the fields?

I still think the DNA found on Jodi could be the key.