Jodi Jones murder re-examined

[Peebo]

1 hour ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

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.

 

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

 

I always struggle with statements like this. If he did the crime in the first place, surely trying to apply any sense of logic or normality to any of his actions is somewhat futile. 

[Auld Reekin']

On 15/09/2018 at 18:28, FORTHCLYDE said:

 

Donald Findlay QC was his lawyer 

 

 

 

 

As with Joe Beltrami in the old days, appointing Findlay as your lawyer is a pretty conclusive admission of guilt, as far as I'm concerned...

[Zico]

On 15/09/2018 at 14:11, Harry Potter said:

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.

A mate of mine was on the jury - he’s intelligent, calm and level-headed. He didn’t say much about the trial other than the fact that the photos were the most horrific thing he’s ever seen. I asked him if he thought Mitchell was guilty and he said he was 100% certain that he was. I trust his judgement. 

[William H. Bonney]

I think for a lot of people, the police included, it was his interview with James Matthews that convinced everyone he was guilty. 

[FORTHCLYDE]

8 hours ago, Zico said:

A mate of mine was on the jury - he’s intelligent, calm and level-headed. He didn’t say much about the trial other than the fact that the photos were the most horrific thing he’s ever seen. I asked him if he thought Mitchell was guilty and he said he was 100% certain that he was. I trust his judgement. 

Can you ask him what the vote was?

[Tommy Brown]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/

 

Worth a read.

I think everyone should possibly have a more open mind to this case.

[luckyBatistuta]

5 hours ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

Can you ask him what the vote was?

 

He’s not allowed to tell him and certainly not post it online if he did.

[redm]

1 hour ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

He’s not allowed to tell him and certainly not post it online if he did.

 

 

Ah, yes. Please don't post anything likely to attract the ire of judges or the Crown Office. Thanks.

 

 

 

[FORTHCLYDE]

1 hour ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

He’s not allowed to tell him and certainly not post it online if he did.

I asked Zico !

[luckyBatistuta]

7 minutes ago, FORTHCLYDE said:

I asked Zico !

 

Seriously!!!   what you getting all worked up for?  You post on a public forum and get annoyed when someone responds. Maybe you should try pm’s in future if you’re not happy.

 

Point still stands though, whether you asked him or not.

 

 

[benny]

Was there not evidence that was horrific that the public and press were not allowed to witness due to its horrific content.

Again was there not a kickback member related to the victim so we respected their wishes at the time of the trial.

[Geoff the Mince]

Personally I think it's in bad taste for this case to be discussed on here . 

[Tommy Brown]

5 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Personally I think it's in bad taste for this case to be discussed on here . 

 

I understand that is a sensitive local issue.

But, Geoff, it is in news reports in mainstream media.

If comments are kept sensible, I think it should be able to be discussed.

[Peebo]

6 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Personally I think it's in bad taste for this case to be discussed on here . 

Why?

[Jamboelite]

7 hours ago, Geoff the Mince said:

Personally I think it's in bad taste for this case to be discussed on here . 

It isnt, as long as its done in a respectful manner then no topic should be out of bounds.

[luckyBatistuta]

5 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

It isnt, as long as its done in a respectful manner then no topic should be out of bounds.

 

Agree, but the mods will have to keep an eye on this.

[FORTHCLYDE]

New Book by Sandra Lean just published.

 

Innocents Betrayed

This is the true story of the murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones in Scotland in 2003. But, could the boy convicted of that murder, Jodi’s boyfriend, Luke Mitchell (also 14 at the time), be innocent? Innocents Betrayed examines the truth buried in the case files, disclosing, for the first time, evidence of manipulation of witnesses, forensic failings, crime scene contamination, dishonesty and more. In an account that took almost fifteen years to piece together from witness statements, court transcripts, forensic reports, crime scene management logs and media coverage, the author, Dr Sandra Lean, probes the consequences of sacrificing true justice in the pursuit of convictions and questions the impact of too-close collaboration between investigators, key witnesses and the media.

A meticulous examination of the official story, with reference to all of the evidence, reveals another story far removed from the one that has dominated media coverage for a decade and a half. The evidence claimed to prove Luke Mitchell’s guilt crumbles under scrutiny and the official narrative collapses in a sea of unsupported assumptions, discredited eyewitness evidence, impossible scenarios and downright dishonesty. Could the conviction of Luke Mitchell be, in reality, a shocking Miscarriage of Justice?

Throughout, readers are invited to decide for themselves, were two families betrayed by a Justice System they trusted to protect them? Was Luke Mitchell wrongly convicted? And if so, who really killed Jodi Jones?

[Masonic]

On 30/10/2018 at 15:48, FORTHCLYDE said:

New Book by Sandra Lean just published.

 

Innocents Betrayed

This is the true story of the murder of 14-year-old Jodi Jones in Scotland in 2003. But, could the boy convicted of that murder, Jodi’s boyfriend, Luke Mitchell (also 14 at the time), be innocent? Innocents Betrayed examines the truth buried in the case files, disclosing, for the first time, evidence of manipulation of witnesses, forensic failings, crime scene contamination, dishonesty and more. In an account that took almost fifteen years to piece together from witness statements, court transcripts, forensic reports, crime scene management logs and media coverage, the author, Dr Sandra Lean, probes the consequences of sacrificing true justice in the pursuit of convictions and questions the impact of too-close collaboration between investigators, key witnesses and the media.

A meticulous examination of the official story, with reference to all of the evidence, reveals another story far removed from the one that has dominated media coverage for a decade and a half. The evidence claimed to prove Luke Mitchell’s guilt crumbles under scrutiny and the official narrative collapses in a sea of unsupported assumptions, discredited eyewitness evidence, impossible scenarios and downright dishonesty. Could the conviction of Luke Mitchell be, in reality, a shocking Miscarriage of Justice?

Throughout, readers are invited to decide for themselves, were two families betrayed by a Justice System they trusted to protect them? Was Luke Mitchell wrongly convicted? And if so, who really killed Jodi Jones?

 

 

 

[Ribble]

Bumping this in advance of the new 2 part Channel 5 Documentary showing Wed/Thurs next week

 

[steve123]

I read a bit about this in the Sun the other day about this documentary, seems to be significant questions all though I don't pretend to know anything really about it !!

[Guest]

Let the lassie rest in peace.

 

The only folk that think Luke Mitchell is innocent are weirdo attention seekers.

[Tazio]

1 hour ago, steve123 said:

I read a bit about this in the Sun the other day about this documentary, seems to be significant questions all though I don't pretend to know anything really about it !!

A truly impartial documentary is a rare thing. I’d be interested to see who the advisers are on this. 

[graygo]

1 hour ago, Candy said:

Let the lassie rest in peace.

 

The only folk that think Luke Mitchell is innocent are weirdo attention seekers.

 

I take it you'll not be watching it with an open mind then.

 

By the way, if he is innocent do you think she'll be resting in peace?

 

Having said all the above I think he's guilty and hope he rots in hell one day. Difference is that I accept I might be wrong.

[AlimOzturk]

All I remember from this case is that he led the police to the body, was a strange Kid who liked to piss in bottles and had a fascination for knives.  Didn't think there was any doubt about his guilt

[Tommy Brown]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

All I remember from this case is that he led the police to the body, was a strange Kid who liked to piss in bottles and had a fascination for knives.  Didn't think there was any doubt about his guilt

All that is not in question and circumstantial evidence that convicted him.

What has always bothered me, was that 15yo could commit  such a crime and not leave a trace of direct evidence. A police botch up.

Really feel for the Jones family. 

[JDK2020]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

All I remember from this case is that he led the police to the body, was a strange Kid who liked to piss in bottles and had a fascination for knives.  Didn't think there was any doubt about his guilt

 

Did he not also kip up with his mum, sharing her bed?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, graygo said:

 

I take it you'll not be watching it with an open mind then.

 

By the way, if he is innocent do you think she'll be resting in peace?

 

Having said all the above I think he's guilty and hope he rots in hell one day. Difference is that I accept I might be wrong.

Ill not be watching it full stop.  I've followed  it from the day her body was found.

 

I doubt very much some c5 rating grabber will unearth new evidence. It will be a rehash of stuff that's already known. 

[AlimOzturk]

57 minutes ago, Candy said:

Ill not be watching it full stop.  I've followed  it from the day her body was found.

 

I doubt very much some c5 rating grabber will unearth new evidence. It will be a rehash of stuff that's already known. 

 

Suppose for people like me who never paid much attention will find this more interesting. Genuinely never knew his guilt was in doubt.

[graygo]

4 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Suppose for people like me who never paid much attention will find this more interesting. Genuinely never knew his guilt was in doubt.

 

His guilt is only in doubt with folk who have looked at all the available evidence or lack of it, folk like me and @Candy have already made our minds up.

[Shanks said no]

Latest from the Times 

 

Private detectives who have re-examined the murder of a schoolgirl 17 years ago have identified five potential suspects who they believe were overlooked by police.

 

John Sallens and Michael Neil, who are former police officers, claim to have uncovered evidence that they say casts doubt on the conviction of Jodi Jones’s boyfriend Luke Mitchell who was jailed in 2005 for her murder.

[Guest]

Whose guilty I wonder?

 

Maybe it's the knife carrying, piss collecting, clothes burning boyfriend who happened to find the body?

 

Maybe it's some random who wristed himself off in the woods?

 

C5 investigates......

 

Ridiculous that TV can piss on the graves of victims like this.

[graygo]

42 minutes ago, Candy said:

Whose guilty I wonder?

 

Maybe it's the knife carrying, piss collecting, clothes burning boyfriend who happened to find the body?

 

Maybe it's some random who wristed himself off in the woods?

 

C5 investigates......

 

Ridiculous that TV can piss on the graves of victims like this.

 

What's ridiculous is that you think that anything in bold above makes him guilty of murder. 

I really hope it was him.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

What's ridiculous is that you think that anything in bold above makes him guilty of murder. 

I really hope it was him.

If it wasnt by him, has the random frenzied knife murderer just disappeared? Not a trace in the last 17/18 years?

 

What's a lot more likely to is that the the guy who liked knives, who was her boyfriend, whose family had a bbq the night she died, who found her body was guilty

Edited February 20, 2021 by Candy

[graygo]

15 minutes ago, Candy said:

If it wasnt by him, has the random frenzied knife murderer just disappeared? Not a trace in the last 17/18 years?

 

What's a lot more likely to is that the the guy who liked knives, who was her boyfriend, whose family had a bbq the night she died, who found her body was guilty

 

You think it's strange that a random frenzied knife murderer hasn't come forward to say that it was him all along? If I was him I would disappear as well.

 

The rest of your points, liking knives doesn't make you a murderer, being the boyfriend of a murder victim does not make you a murderer, having a family BBQ the night your girlfriend is murdered does not make you a murderer, I think you'll find that it was his dog who found the body, that doesn't make him a murderer.

 

Listen mate, I'm just playing Devils Advocate here, I lived in Mayfield at the time, my son went to Newbattle High, I'm well aware of the anger and emotion attached to the case. Like I said earlier, if it was him then I hope he burns in Hell.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

You think it's strange that a random frenzied knife murderer hasn't come forward to say that it was him all along? If I was him I would disappear as well.

 

The rest of your points, liking knives doesn't make you a murderer, being the boyfriend of a murder victim does not make you a murderer, having a family BBQ the night your girlfriend is murdered does not make you a murderer, I think you'll find that it was his dog who found the body, that doesn't make him a murderer.

 

Listen mate, I'm just playing Devils Advocate here, I lived in Mayfield at the time, my son went to Newbattle High, I'm well aware of the anger and emotion attached to the case. Like I said earlier, if it was him then I hope he burns in Hell.

If it wasn't him, he must be the unluckiest guy in the world.

 

Someone who was known to like knifes, who was her boyfriend, whose family garden had a smell of burning the night she disappeared, whose "dog" found her....but....there just happened to be at the same time a random knife murderer, who has - apparently - never struck before or again and who happened to be there and killed her?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Candy

[trotter]

1 hour ago, Candy said:

Whose guilty I wonder?

 

Maybe it's the knife carrying, piss collecting, clothes burning boyfriend who happened to find the body?

 

Maybe it's some random who wristed himself off in the woods?

 

C5 investigates......

 

Ridiculous that TV can piss on the graves of victims like this.

I hope to **** you never find yourself on a jury. Whilst I do think he did it, none of your rantings highlighted are evidence in any way shape or form that he actually did it. He was convicted based on forensic evidence at the scene, not circumstantial pish like yours. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, trotter said:

I hope to **** you never find yourself on a jury. Whilst I do think he did it, none of your rantings highlighted are evidence in any way shape or form that he actually did it. He was convicted based on forensic evidence at the scene, not circumstantial pish like yours. 

Really?

 

What forensic evidence was it?

 

 

[Byyy The Light]

9 minutes ago, trotter said:

.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Byyy The Light

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Byyy The Light said:

.

Not helpful

 

(Your deleted/amended post)

[Byyy The Light]

1 minute ago, Candy said:

Not helpful

 

(Your deleted/amended post)

Realised its **** all to do with me. 

[Guest]

Just now, Byyy The Light said:

Realised its **** all to do with me. 

Lol, sorry, :-;

[Byyy The Light]

3 minutes ago, Candy said:

Lol, sorry, :-;

All the best 

[graygo]

30 minutes ago, Candy said:

Really?

 

What forensic evidence was it?

 

 

 

That was kind of my point, no forensic evidence, convicted on circumstantial evidence. (I won't use the word pish) 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

That was kind of my point, no forensic evidence, convicted on circumstantial evidence. (I won't use the word pish) 

Indeed. Despite what forensic detective trotter thinks, it was circumstantial.

 

As I said before, it would be an awful coincidence if some random knife murderer just happened  to pop along at the same time.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Candy

[trotter]

38 minutes ago, Candy said:

Really?

 

What forensic evidence was it?

 

 

I thought there was something found at the scene, must've been mistaken. So apologies for that. 

 

Still, my point stands. I like knives, in fact I have about a dozen along with numerous hatchets and axes, I also occasionally start fires and have on occasion burned clothes - specifically ones that have been covered in oil from work that you can't really throw in the bin for health and safety reasons. Whilst I don't have a piss fetish, I don't think soon-to-be-Mrs Trotter is worried about me slitting her throat. None of what you said, whilst maybe true, is proof in any way that he did it. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, trotter said:

I thought there was something found at the scene, must've been mistaken. So apologies for that. 

 

Still, my point stands. I like knives, in fact I have about a dozen along with numerous hatchets and axes, I also occasionally start fires and have on occasion burned clothes - specifically ones that have been covered in oil from work that you can't really throw in the bin for health and safety reasons. Whilst I don't have a piss fetish, I don't think soon-to-be-Mrs Trotter is worried about me slitting her throat. None of what you said, whilst maybe true, is proof in any way that he did it. 

Lol.

 

[graygo]

2 minutes ago, trotter said:

I thought there was something found at the scene, must've been mistaken. So apologies for that. 

 

Still, my point stands. I like knives, in fact I have about a dozen along with numerous hatchets and axes, I also occasionally start fires and have on occasion burned clothes - specifically ones that have been covered in oil from work that you can't really throw in the bin for health and safety reasons. Whilst I don't have a piss fetish, I don't think soon-to-be-Mrs Trotter is worried about me slitting her throat. None of what you said, whilst maybe true, is proof in any way that he did it. 

 

It's a strange one, Candy seems to be taking delight in pointing out that there wasn't any forensic evidence and saying aye but there's circumstantial so he must have done it.

[trotter]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

It's a strange one, Candy seems to be taking delight in pointing out that there wasn't any forensic evidence and saying aye but there's circumstantial so he must have done it.

Which goes back to my original point, I hope Candy never gets a chance to sit on a jury if that is their attitude to convicting someone. That's right up there with 'he looks guilty, he must've done it'. 
 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

It's a strange one, Candy seems to be taking delight in pointing out that there wasn't any forensic evidence and saying aye but there's circumstantial so he must have done it.

 

8 minutes ago, trotter said:

Which goes back to my original point, I hope Candy never gets a chance to sit on a jury if that is their attitude to convicting someone. That's right up there with 'he looks guilty, he must've done it'. 
 

 

What on earth are you on about? Its well known that it was decided on circumstantial evidence. 

 

Trotter, jesus your earlier post said it was decided on forensic evidence so clearly  you have no clue what you are on about.

 

Graygo. I like your previous posts even though I disagree with you here

Edited February 20, 2021 by Candy

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Candy said:

 

What on earth are you on about? Its well known that it was decided on circumstantial evidence. 

 

Trotter, jesus your earlier post said it was decided on forensic evidence so clearly  you have no clue what you are on about.

 

Graygo. I like your previous posts even though I disagree with you here

 

I'm just saying that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is flimsy at best, forensic evidence tends to rule out any doubt, there was no forensic evidence as you've acknowledged.

Please don't take anything I've said as being me saying I don't think he did it because I do, however I haven't seen any evidence proving that he did it.

 

Edit: Thank feck I wasn't on the jury because I'm not sure whether I would judge with my head or my heart.

Edited February 20, 2021 by graygo