Jump to content

Jodi Jones murder re-examined


Sten Guns

Recommended Posts

The Frenchman Returns
12 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

It's not that incredible. Midlothian isn't that big. There were lots of people connected to the investigation etc. 

 

It happened on the same night the two young lads broke into the crypt up the town and started kicking the skull about. One of those guys was Mitchell's best pal and Jodi's ex boyfriend. The police thought the crimes were connected for a day or two because they were all friends and into the goth scene.

 

Now I know a lot about the break in crime and the young lad who did it and came to know/meet others who were itk about the poor lassies murder. Everyone knew Mitchell did it. His brother blabbed as well because he was terrified of him. And the interview on Sky was very telling as well. 

 

 


It does seem extraordinary to an outsider like me that a group of friends will carry out 2 horrendous crimes on the same day and there is no connection?

 

What the hell happened on the 30th June 2003 for this to take place? 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 562
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • graygo

    27

  • FinnBarr Saunders

    17

  • Dusk_Till_Dawn

    15

  • The Frenchman Returns

    15

11 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

I know someone too, my wife was in the force then. I’ve still no idea if he did it. 

I was on the jury for a pretty horrendous court case many years ago. The folk involved were seriously bad eggs and I would have been quite happy to see them taken off the streets. However, I was there to determine whether they were guilty of that said crime and not what I thought of them. We all agreed on that apart from one guy who just kept arguing that they were scum. He just couldn’t get it in to his head what we were actually there for. 
 

I’m just glad I wasn’t on the jury for this, as I think he was guilty.

 

I know what being wrongly arrested is all about. Got wrongly Identified for an assault many years ago; had been in a bit of bother before and the police officer thought he recognised me from CCTV. Luckily I could prove without doubt where I was before that otherwise I was probably fecked. When arrested the officers were pretty sure I was guilty and looked gutted when they had to release me. More work for them I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

I know what being wrongly arrested is all about. Got wrongly Identified for an assault many years ago; had been in a bit of bother before and the police officer thought he recognised me from CCTV. Luckily I could prove without doubt where I was before that otherwise I was probably fecked. When arrested the officers were pretty sure I was guilty and looked gutted when they had to release me. More work for them I suppose.

 

I can see how that could happen.

 

The good thing is the prosecution service in Scotland is independent of the police and in turn the judicial system is independent of the prosecution.

 

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial and in solemn procedure you are convicted by your peers. 

 

Beyond this there are still avenues for appeal at higher courts. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
43 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:


It does seem extraordinary to an outsider like me that a group of friends will carry out 2 horrendous crimes on the same day and there is no connection?

 

What the hell happened on the 30th June 2003 for this to take place? 
 

 

 

Just a horrible coincidence in the end. The younger laddie of the two who broke in to the crypt wasn't the brightest but was young enough to pretty much get off with it. The older laddie got a hefty sentence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Just a horrible coincidence in the end. The younger laddie of the two who broke in to the crypt wasn't the brightest but was young enough to pretty much get off with it. The older laddie got a hefty sentence. 

 

Must have been a full moon that night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2021 at 03:20, graygo said:

 

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.

 

I once sat on a Jury that went to deliberation. 3 accused. These are direct quotes from my fellow jurors......

"They're scum. I dunno if they done this but if they didn't, they done something else. Guilty".

"I'm saying not proven. For now. If we can spin this out another hour, I'll get another day off my work".

 

The judge gave very specific direction on what evidence to consider, which was immediately ignored by a substantial number of the 15 as soon the jury room was entered,

 

Just sayin' likesay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Greenbank2 said:

 

I once sat on a Jury that went to deliberation. 3 accused. These are direct quotes from my fellow jurors......

"They're scum. I dunno if they done this but if they didn't, they done something else. Guilty".

"I'm saying not proven. For now. If we can spin this out another hour, I'll get another day off my work".

 

The judge gave very specific direction on what evidence to consider, which was immediately ignored by a substantial number of the 15 as soon the jury room was entered,

 

Just sayin' likesay.

 

horrendous

 

I have no trouble believing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Greenbank2 said:

 

I once sat on a Jury that went to deliberation. 3 accused. These are direct quotes from my fellow jurors......

"They're scum. I dunno if they done this but if they didn't, they done something else. Guilty".

"I'm saying not proven. For now. If we can spin this out another hour, I'll get another day off my work".

 

The judge gave very specific direction on what evidence to consider, which was immediately ignored by a substantial number of the 15 as soon the jury room was entered,

 

Just sayin' likesay.

None of that surprises me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Just a horrible coincidence in the end. The younger laddie of the two who broke in to the crypt wasn't the brightest but was young enough to pretty much get off with it. The older laddie got a hefty sentence. 

 

He got 3 yrs probation + 200 hrs community service. His accomplace got 2 yrs probation. So the accomplace was best pals with LM ?  You can see how assumtions were made here - rightly or wrongly.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Greenbank2 said:

 

I once sat on a Jury that went to deliberation. 3 accused. These are direct quotes from my fellow jurors......

"They're scum. I dunno if they done this but if they didn't, they done something else. Guilty".

"I'm saying not proven. For now. If we can spin this out another hour, I'll get another day off my work".

 

The judge gave very specific direction on what evidence to consider, which was immediately ignored by a substantial number of the 15 as soon the jury room was entered,

 

Just sayin' likesay.

 Sadly had the same . Majority of jurors more interested in the free lunch, and how to claim expenses . 

"...just look at him - he's guilty as sin"

"aye...he looks like he could've done it,  ah'm goan guilty"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
28 minutes ago, felix said:

 

He got 3 yrs probation + 200 hrs community service. His accomplace got 2 yrs probation. So the accomplace was best pals with LM ?  You can see how assumtions were made here - rightly or wrongly.

 

 

Didn't the older of the two lads go to Polmont? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
32 minutes ago, felix said:

 

He got 3 yrs probation + 200 hrs community service. His accomplace got 2 yrs probation. So the accomplace was best pals with LM ?  You can see how assumtions were made here - rightly or wrongly.

 

Will you accept close friend? Of both the murderer and victim? A link to both was ruled out before being released to the community where he lived at the time   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Didn't the older of the two lads go to Polmont? 

Maybe for a later offence, not the Greyfriars incident, at least not accoring to the Evening Standard report I read.

 

1 minute ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Will you accept close friend? Of both the murderer and victim? A link to both was ruled out before being released to the community where he lived at the time   

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Didn't the older of the two lads go to Polmont? 

 

Just now, felix said:

Maybe for a later offence, not the Greyfriars incident, at least not accoring to the Evening Standard report I read.

 

Thanks.

The older one was convicted of breaking into a flat and stealing two guitars a couple of years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
6 minutes ago, felix said:

Maybe for a later offence, not the Greyfriars incident, at least not accoring to the Evening Standard report I read.

 

Thanks.

 

👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2021 at 10:42, AlimOzturk said:

 

The vast majority of people probably do as well.

 

Having read a bit on this case, based on the evidence presented to the Jury I wouldn't have convicted the Luke Mitchel. Doesn't mean I don't think he did it but don't think there is enough evidence there to convict someone.

I wouldnt either. 

22 hours ago, Stokesy said:

 

You can extend this lecture to apply to the press.

 

 

Great video.  I have always advised my clients who I work with to never speak to the police on their own without legal representation.  Never.  The police arent interested if your innocent or guilty. They are seeking to get someone. Yes hopefully the right person but if they can get evidence to secure a charge then bobs your uncle.  It then goes to the procurator fiscal to decide if there is a reasonable chance of conviction if it goes to court. If they feel it is they will take it to court. 

6 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

Just a horrible coincidence in the end. The younger laddie of the two who broke in to the crypt wasn't the brightest but was young enough to pretty much get off with it. The older laddie got a hefty sentence. 

Well that could be looked at exactly the same way regarding LM 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its an interesting case.

 

In his defence

 

His first interview with the police should never have been admissible in court.

 

The police actively did not persue or look strongly at any other suspects so just were myopic in their rush to charge him

 

There was no  DNA which is truly remarkable.

 

There was a couple of other legitimate suspects.

 

He was basically targeted and stigmatized due to being a goth and police and Joe Public made negative assumptions about him

 

For the prosecution :

 

I have been on a high court jury . it was a serious case. Anyway what i took away from it was the clear instructions from the Sheriff.  The Jurors have to be almost 100 per cent sure of someones guilt to convict them.  Its that simple.  There isn't really room for manovoeur with it.  In the case i was involved with . I felt there was a possibility the guy could have been guilty but didn't think it was anywhere near the 90 / 100 per cent mark of " beyond reasonable doubt".  Therefore the verdict was Not guilty. I was also jury foreman and had to stand up and say the verdict. I was almost as nervous as the accused.  He wept buckets when I announced it.  It was a really interesting experience.   However in LM defence was all the evidence presented to the jury ? Thats the issue. 

 

 

Edited by JamesM48
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
3 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

 

 

Its an interesting case.

 

In his defence

 

His first interview with the police should never have been admissible in court.

 

The police actively did not persue or look strongly at any other suspects so just were myopic in their rush to charge him

 

There was no  DNA which is truly remarkable.

 

There was a couple of other legitimate suspects.

 

He was basically targeted and stigmatized due to being a goth and police and Joe Public made negative assumptions about him

 

For the prosecution :

 

I have been on a high court jury . it was a serious case. Anyway what i took away from it was the clear instructions from the Sheriff.  The Jurors have to be almost 100 per cent sure of someones guilt to convict them.  Its that simple.  There isn't really room for manovoeur with it.  In the case i was involved with . I felt there was a possibility the guy could have been guilty but didn't think it was anywhere near the 90 / 100 per cent mark of " beyond reasonable doubt".  Therefore the verdict was Not guilty. I was also jury foreman and had to stand up and say the verdict. I was almost as nervous as the accused.  He wept buckets when I announced it.  It was a really interesting experience.   However in LM defence was all the evidence presented to the jury ? Thats the issue. 

 

 

If you were on a high court jury it wasnt presided by a Sherriff but a judge.

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

If you were on a high court jury it wasnt presided by a Sherriff but a judge.

Yeah ok i made an error...is that the only thing you picked up from my posting ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
3 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Yeah ok i made an error...is that the only thing you picked up from my posting ! 

I'm going to upset you more. If you didnt realise it was a judge and not a Sheriff, just how much attention were you paying as a juror?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
24 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

He was basically targeted and stigmatized due to being a goth and police and Joe Public made negative assumptions about him

 

 

 

By who? 

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

I'm going to upset you more. If you didnt realise it was a judge and not a Sheriff, just how much attention were you paying as a juror?

It was a Lord Kincaid.  I think.  I only remember having to get up from my seat every time he came back into the court . ! Yes I paid a lot of attention to the case and took my duties very seriously.  FFS

2 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

By who? 

Police and some of the general judgmental public. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

Police and some of the general judgmental public. 

 

😁

 

All the police or just the ones that found the bottles of pish under his bed? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

😁

 

All the police or just the ones that found the bottles of pish under his bed? 

 

Im sure having bottles of urine under his  bed doesn't automatically mean that the person is a murderer.  Where you on the jury by any chance? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard1874

There a was Doc/Drama on the TV a few yr ago .They  got ordinary punters off the street to do a case that had already been dealt with prior to see how they would compare and at the same time show you behind the scenes and what takes place in court when a Jury is involved. It was really good and sadly jaw dropping at times, making  me certainly  realise how a Jury can be a lottery . One member of the jurys whole defence (no pun intended) when questioned by others about what they seen a ridiculous train of thought, was to say ,im 75 and no better than anyone here as he continued to make a fool himself. Another said Police dont lie ever and the lack of reasoning was so evident from the off ,as some wont admit they are/were wrong or just dont know and wont admit it.It was a police assault case 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
8 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Im sure having bottles of urine under his  bed doesn't automatically mean that the person is a murderer.  Where you on the jury by any chance? 

 

I was just kidding about the pish, honest. 

 

Do you think one of the most high profile murder cases in Scottish history, where the accused was defended by one of the top defence teams anywhere, was prejudiced because Lothian and Borders finest and some gawping Daily Record readers didn't understand yoof sub-culture? 

Edited by Weakened Offender
Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard1874

I  dont think his Mum did him any favours from the off, as for his guilt prepared to listening to anyone who screams innocence after all those yrs in jail, bit like Bamber ,, not all found  guilty are 

Edited by haveyouheard1874
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I was just kidding about the pish, honest. 

 

Do you think one of the most high profile murder cases in Scottish history, where the accused was defended by one of the top defence teams anywhere, was prejudiced because Lothian and Borders finest and some gawping Daily Record readers didn't understand yoof sub-culture? 

Wake up.  Plenty people have been stitched up by the police and the courts. Its not unusual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weakened Offender
49 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Wake up.  Plenty people have been stitched up by the police and the courts. Its not unusual. 

 

I knew I'd regret engaging with you on this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in the area and knew Mitchell’s brother from school so paid fairly close attention to the case at the time.
 

My thoughts at the time were that (based on the evidence that was published in the press) I just couldn’t for the life of me get my head around a 14yr old committing such a violent crime without leaving any kind of forensic evidence. To me that would require either him to be a master criminal or that the police failed to protect/gather said forensics and if it’s the later then to me that casts doubt on the rest of their investigation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl Fredrickson

The police didnt cover themselves with glory. Part of the reason for lack of forensic evidence is that the body recovery site was not secured properly. The failed to secure the site with a tent to try and protect it. A lone officer was left to guard the site overnight and it rained. A lot. 

 

Mitchells grandmother owned and ran a caravan storage site very near the murder scene and the police received a report of a car which was or similar to Mitchells mother driving about the site the night after Jody was found. It was late in the evening and the site was closed and two females (one older than the other) arguing. It was months before the police interviewed the person who reported it. This may or may not have any direct bearing on the timeline of events but the fact that the police appeared to be dragging their feet/focusing resources elsewhere/not checking up all leads immediately did not fill me with confidence at the time. 

 

IIRC L&B got the FBI involved to assist them with putting a case together based on circumstantial evidence only. 

 

From my experience of being on a jury you do have a mix of those who prejudge and those who want to do their best to do as they should as a member of a jury. 

 

I will watch the C5 show but I doubt very much there will be any new or startling evidence. If there was I think it would have been in the press already as the Scottish media enjoy stuff like this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I knew I'd regret engaging with you on this thread. 

I can only hope u have leaned your lesson then and don’t “ engage “ with me on any threads ! Life is too short for regrets 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

Wake up.  Plenty people have been stitched up by the police and the courts. Its not unusual. 

:spoton:

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Carl Fredrickson said:

The police didnt cover themselves with glory. Part of the reason for lack of forensic evidence is that the body recovery site was not secured properly. The failed to secure the site with a tent to try and protect it. A lone officer was left to guard the site overnight and it rained. A lot. 

 

Mitchells grandmother owned and ran a caravan storage site very near the murder scene and the police received a report of a car which was or similar to Mitchells mother driving about the site the night after Jody was found. It was late in the evening and the site was closed and two females (one older than the other) arguing. It was months before the police interviewed the person who reported it. This may or may not have any direct bearing on the timeline of events but the fact that the police appeared to be dragging their feet/focusing resources elsewhere/not checking up all leads immediately did not fill me with confidence at the time. 

 

IIRC L&B got the FBI involved to assist them with putting a case together based on circumstantial evidence only. 

 

From my experience of being on a jury you do have a mix of those who prejudge and those who want to do their best to do as they should as a member of a jury. 

 

I will watch the C5 show but I doubt very much there will be any new or startling evidence. If there was I think it would have been in the press already as the Scottish media enjoy stuff like this. 

 

Probably one of the few arguments for the amalgamation of the individual forces into Police Scotland, at that time Dalkeith station would have dealt with very few murders (my only real recollection of anything before Jodi Jones was the Neil Wyse murder in Gorebridge in 92) it makes sense to have a serious crimes unit that should deal with all murders etc and is well versed in things like crime scene preservation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl Fredrickson
4 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Probably one of the few arguments for the amalgamation of the individual forces into Police Scotland, at that time Dalkeith station would have dealt with very few murders (my only real recollection of anything before Jodi Jones was the Neil Wyse murder in Gorebridge in 92) it makes sense to have a serious crimes unit that should deal with all murders etc and is well versed in things like crime scene preservation. 

 

I agree Re the amalgamation. The Neil Wyse case was another horrific tragedy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
2 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

Probably one of the few arguments for the amalgamation of the individual forces into Police Scotland, at that time Dalkeith station would have dealt with very few murders (my only real recollection of anything before Jodi Jones was the Neil Wyse murder in Gorebridge in 92) it makes sense to have a serious crimes unit that should deal with all murders etc and is well versed in things like crime scene preservation. 

There was also Keith Johnstone murdering his best friend, Stephen Hughes, about 1989.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

There was also Keith Johnstone murdering his best friend, Stephen Hughes, about 1989.

 

Slightly before my time so wasn't aware of that (was only 8 at that time), tbf I only knew of the Neil Wyse case as I'm from Gorebridge and by 11 i'd have been more aware of things. General point was more around cases where forensics would be key in catching the killer, from what i've just read on the Stephen Hughes murder that wasn't the case as it was immediately apparent what had happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember at the time

thinking that the evidence published in the papers at the time seemed less than conclusive. However, I wasn’t in  the court listening to it all so lack that holistic view. 
 

People clearly do get wrongly convicted ( not often, especially for major crimes ) but there are processes in place to resolve that which hopefully identify the majority of cases at some point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
1 hour ago, Ribble said:

 

Slightly before my time so wasn't aware of that (was only 8 at that time), tbf I only knew of the Neil Wyse case as I'm from Gorebridge and by 11 i'd have been more aware of things. General point was more around cases where forensics would be key in catching the killer, from what i've just read on the Stephen Hughes murder that wasn't the case as it was immediately apparent what had happened.

Yes, it was clear who killed Stephen Hughes. From memory Johnstone was making bizarre excuses. I was just highlighting another murder.

I can't remember the Neil Wyse case at all, and have lived in the areas almost my whole life.

Edited by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

You know people are getting desperate when they’re relying on Channel 5.

 

Guilty.

 

They should maybe have vetted the 2 ex detectives investigating the case for C5.

 

Ask them why they left the police before the end of their pension service. Strathclyde police and Counter Corruption are all you need to search on.  

 

Hardly credible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl Fredrickson
1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Yes, it was clear who killed Stephen Hughes. From memory Johnstone was making bizarre excuses. I was just highlighting another murder.

I can't remember the Neil Wyse case at all, and have lived in the areas almost my whole life.

 

Dont want to derail this thread but here is a link to the Neil Wyse story https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/lothian-murder-files-neil-deflated-balloon-my-arms-1738638

 

At the time most people I know doubted Williamsons story from the off as he is/was a compulsive liar. 

 

The earliest memory of a local murder I had is https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-tells-of-30-years-of-hell-1031001 

This haunted me as I was 7 at the time and it happened at my local swing park. Gives me a shiver to this day whenever I think about it. 

Edited by Carl Fredrickson
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said:

Feel gutted for the victim and the family involved.. as they are certainly living a life sentence  

As is the norm the victim and their family are always the forgotten ones. They get the true life sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Frenchman Returns

mmm that was rather one sided. The ex cops apparently have a rather colourful past according to an ex policeman I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was car crash TV at its finest 18 years after the brutal murder of Jodie.

Her family are going through a life sentance of their own. 

 

Are you telling me someone brutally murdered a 14 year old bairn in cold blood. Dumped her body and vanished. 

Mind no one has been murdered in this way ever since. 

 

I still don't believe there was enough evidence to convict the laddie but someone murdered the lassie. 

 

How many times has his conviction been up for appeal and been rejected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the police made mistakes with the investigation and releasing to much information to the press.Regarding tonight's program it come across as very amateurish and one sided in favour of luke Mitchell with very little regard for jodie Jones 

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...