Murder of Jodie Jones

[jason_c]

"Which reminds me - Jodi's family and extended family all went straight to the path where her body was found. On the way there they did not stop to search anywhere else.
Yet her mother claims Jodi was not allowed to walk on that path alone."


I've just found this:

"Easthouses and Newbattle are linked by the Roan's Dyke Path, which provides a shortcut between these settlements. The deceased lived around 250 metres from the east end of the path, and the appellant about 600 metres from the west end. The path was about 900 metres long"

Jodi had told her parents that she was to visit Mitchell. I'll ask you now Sandra, in what way would it be even remotely suspicious that this path was searched first?

[Sand87]

"He had headed straight to the V, gone over and immediately turned to his left rather than to the right or walked straight ahead.

If he went over the wall alone then how does anybody know that he turned immediately left and found the body straight away? There is no account of anybody going over at the same time as him. It was also dark. And the wall was a foot higher than it is today.

And of course there is SK's original statement. If he saw him do what is described above then why launch into a very visial description of how Luke's dog Mia reacted? Why not just say...Luke and his dog went straight over the wall? Perhaps because they didn't?

[jason_c]

That is exactly the reply I gave.

If a group of people set out to specifically find a person then how can any inferred guilt be drawn when one of those persons finds the body?

Which reminds me - Jodi's family and extended family all went straight to the path where her body was found. On the way there they did not stop to search anywhere else.
Yet her mother claims Jodi was not allowed to walk on that path alone.

So why was that the first place they went to? Why were they not searching on the way to the path?

I don't know the area. A path to me sounds like a fairly reasonable place to start when searching a wooded/greenfield area. Teenagers do allsorts of things they are not meant to. I suggest Jodi's family knew this.

[Sand87]

This seems to be in contrast to other reports ive read. As far as I know it was not only Kelly who disagreed with Michell's statement but Kelly's fiance and Jodi's grandmother.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...needed-1.65040

Thanks for the reply.

This is the point I am trying to make. SK did not disagree with Luke. He agreed and collaberated Luke's version of events. At first.

It was not until much later on that he changed his story.

Likewise with all of JJs family involved in the search. They gave either neutral or positive reports of Luke straight after the murder. Not one of them claimed that Luke knew where the body was. Until later.
T

[Sand87]

Regarding the sexual aspect of the case, her jeans had also been pulled off and tied around either one or both wrists.

Now, either this is clearly sexual or there was a more practical reason to do this.

A bloody branch was found next to the body. The ever sharp detective surmised this may have been used to beat her. Why use a tree branch to beat somebody when you have a knife (which was used to slit her throat and her eyelids).
Could it be that the jeans were tied to her wrists to help move the body and in doing so some blood was transferred to the tree branch? Or are we to believe the suspect went to the scene armed with a knife but decided to prolong the attack, risk the suspect escaping and risk being seen flailing around with a tree branch rather than just immediately using the knife? What if there was no suitable tree branch around to use? Would he have kindly asked Jodi to wait a minute while he went off searching (on a pretty popular path next to a High School) for a tree branch to bludgeon her with?

[jason_c]

And then there is the fact that Jodi's sisters fiance, Steven Kelly - his sperm and blood were found on Jodis body.
Remember, he was the guy who found the body, alongside Luke and later changed his statement to say that Luke went straight to the body...
This is where the story of Luke going straight to the body came from. That is why you all read it in the papers. It came from her sisters fiance whos blood and sperm were found on her body and who was in the search party and was the second person to find her body. Yeap.

This seems to be in contrast to other reports ive read. As far as I know it was not only Kelly who disagreed with Michell's statement but Kelly's fiance and Jodi's grandmother.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...needed-1.65040

"But three witnesses at the trial said there was no way Mitchell that night had gone anything like the distance beyond the V and then come back. He had headed straight to the V, gone over and immediately turned to his left rather than to the right or walked straight ahead. It was the fact that Mitchell appeared to know where to find the body and to see it from such a long way in the dark that led the jury to believe that only if he had known she was there in the first place would he have found her body."

[RivkahChaya]

The West Memphis Three was horrendous, all the more so because, if I remember correctly, one of them recieved the death penalty. If ever there was an argument against the death penalty it must be that Miscarriages of Justice do happen.

One of them received a death sentence, but it was never carried out, and he is free now. However, during the years he was in prison, he was on death row, which means he was in his cell, alone, for all but an hour a day. Death row inmates are not allowed to work in prison, nor participate in social activities. They get an hour out of their cell for exercise and sunlight, and that's it. The reasoning, is that someone on death row has nothing to lose, and won't think twice about harming another prisoner (or a guard, so death row inmates are always in wrist-ankle shackles when not in their cells), and there's probably truth in it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just another argument against the death penalty.

[Sand87]

The West Memphis Three was horrendous, all the more so because, if I remember correctly, one of them recieved the death penalty. If ever there was an argument against the death penalty it must be that Miscarriages of Justice do happen.

I noticed an interesting quote on the wiki page about those three: "Although most of the genetic material recovered from the scene was attributable to the victims of the offenses, some of it cannot be attributed to either the victims or the defendants."


This is exactly the same scenario in this case. We have Jodi lying dead in the woods with 5 unidentified specimens of DNA on her. None of which belong to the man convicted of her murder.

The police decided to tell the press this was a non-sexual murder. Really? Her bra was cut or ripped off, she had 5 mens sperm/blood on her and her underwear had splodges of sperm on them. And lets not start on the condom found near her body with sperm in it from somebody who played a pretty key role in the whole thing.

In what way is that not sexual?

Unless someone talks I doubt we'll ever know who killed her but the important thing, and the cause that Luke's relations are fighting for now is not to find the killer but to demonstrate that a) Luke didn't recieve a fair trial and b) Luke cannot have been responsible.

I think a lot of fingers should be pointed at the seemingly amazing Donald Findlay QC, the man supposed to be defending Luke.
Now, his reputation certainly goes before him - he works with some very high profile clients and is considered extremely capable in his field.
So why did he let so many things slip during the trial? He didn't pick up on contradictions, innacuracies, police wrong doings. He has forgotten more than most will ever learn so was he just not giving the case 100% (the longest trial in Scottish history) or was it perhaps suggested that this would be a case to...lose? Or maybe get a not proven verdict which we all know may work for a speeding ticket but is almost irrelevent in a murder trial.

He should have been all over the DNA, the contradicting witnesses, the bias introduced to the media by police. I mean, in an identity parade Luke and several other boys photographs were shown to a witness. Luke's photo had a different background colour than all the others making it visually stand out like a sore thumb. How can the most regarded lawyer in the country not kick up hell about this?

One of the Police investigators involved described the murder as one of the most violent he had seen in 28 years and that Jodi ha dput up quite a struggle. Why then, did Luke not have a single scratch on him. Why did he not have a single drop of blood on his clothes or his body? When examined at the police station his hair was described as unwashed - not really consistent with someone having a shower to get rid of blood etc. (Not to mention the timing for him to have a shower and get back to where he was seen by another witness would make him Superman).

Why didn't he just walk in and say "There were 5 unidentified males DNA on the victims body. None of which match my client. I rest my case, your Honour."

And before the fact gets drowned in my spiels...lets not forget Luke and his Mother have passed lie detector tests.
Wouldn't it be interesting if we could lie detector test some of the others who played a role in that night...such as JoF and GD, both of whom were spotted pushing a moped into the wooded area where the murder occured. Another witness spotted the moped propped against the wall behind which Jodi was found - around the time of the murder. Both boys were planning to go round to JoF (Jodi's brother who suffered from quite severe mental health issues) house to smoke cannabis but neither turned up. JoF chopped his hair off directly after police released a description of somebody they'd like to speak to which matched his.

[RivkahChaya]

Nobody?

I haven't read through the entire thread, nor all the linked articles, but I wanted to note that I am in fact very interested, although I have no opinion at this time. It makes me think of the "West Memphis Three," a very famous US case of three teenagers getting pretty much set up for conviction by the police and a corrupt jury member, in response to an outraged community who couldn't wait for a proper investigation.

There's another case that's pretty well-known in the US, of teens being coerced into false confessions: the "Central Park Jogger" case.

So yes, it does happen, and it happens much more often to teenaged defendants than to adults. But that doesn't mean that because a defendant is a teenager, he is innocent.

It's not good when the police feel such pressure to clear a case at all costs, that they follow the path of least resistance, and let a lot of leads drop; on the other hand, I personally know of a case where the police had no leads, and a lot of community pressure to resolve a case, and so spent millions of dollars of a very small city's funds pursuing every lead called into a phone tip-line that was physically possibly. This included draining a portion of a very wide river. Then, after many years, the case was resolved, partly because someone out with his dog tripped over something, and partly because another person's conscience got the better of her.

[Sand87]

P.S I can't quite remember if the 5 unidentified males DNA on her body includes SK. I think it is 4 plus SK but I need to check. Forgive me.

[Sand87]

He was one of the people looking for her. The fact that it was he who found the body is evidence neither of guilt, nor of innocence to my mind.

That is exactly the reply I gave.

If a group of people set out to specifically find a person then how can any inferred guilt be drawn when one of those persons finds the body?

Which reminds me - Jodi's family and extended family all went straight to the path where her body was found. On the way there they did not stop to search anywhere else.
Yet her mother claims Jodi was not allowed to walk on that path alone.

So why was that the first place they went to? Why were they not searching on the way to the path?

[Sand87]

And then there is the fact that Jodi's sisters fiance, Steven Kelly - his sperm and blood were found on Jodis body.
Remember, he was the guy who found the body, alongside Luke and later changed his statement to say that Luke went straight to the body...
This is where the story of Luke going straight to the body came from. That is why you all read it in the papers. It came from her sisters fiance whos blood and sperm were found on her body and who was in the search party and was the second person to find her body. Yeap.

[Sand87]

And we haven't even started on the condom with JF's DNA in it, found 50 yards from a dead body, put there after JF had masturbated in the woods, whilst a dead body was there, without him seeing it. Oh yeah, and all this is supposed to have happened again a day or so later. Presumably whilst the place was crawling with forensics/police yet a young man was able to wander in, have a wank and leave.

That was the story he gave anyway. (to prevent confusion, yes, he claimed to have gone to the murder site twice to masterbate. Once whilst the body was there and once a short while after it was discovered. As you do). Was this a pathetic attempt to explain why his DNA was at a murder site? No no no, his story is far more believable, according to the police.


There is so much wrong with the police and certain individuals in this case that anybody who reads the evidence and still thinks Luke had anything to do with it should seriously examine themselves.

I like the fact that the MP, I forge the weeds name, who was promoting using Lie Detectors to monitor sex offenders decided it was best not to discuss lie detectors when asked if he agreed with Lukes test. Funny that, isn't it? An MP jumping on a bandwagon when it suits him and straight off it when things get a little akward.

[Sand87]

Actually, the members of Jodis family who were part of the search party all gave statements shortly after the body was found.
Steven Kelly, who was next to Luke as they came to the gap in the wall where Jodi was found, stated that Luke's dog Mia reacted strongly at this point in the wall. He actually goes in to quite a lot of detail here, it is clearly a strong memory. He describes how Mia jumped up on her hind legs and put her forelegs against the wall and sniffed the air. He described her size when standing up like this.

It was not until much later that he decided to change his statement to say that Mia did not react and Luke went through the gap straight away and turned left.

If you take care to read all of the Jones's family statements you will see one thing that will stand out. Each one of them has significantly altered certain key facts in their statements. The statements they gave directly after the body was found are different to the ones given much later or in court. I don't mean different in random, unconected ways. I mean different in that they all suddenly come together, agree with one another and focus the blame on Luke.

The rubbish about him burning clothes in his garden, having no alibi, being obsessed with Manson (he owned 1 Marilyn Manson CD) smoking huge amounts of Cannabis (small amounts were found in his system) are just that...complete rubbish. The media wrecked Lukes chance of a fair trial. What sort of country allows a 14 year old child to be put in front of T.V Cameras before a trial? For that matter what country allows a 14 year old child to be verbally ruined by 3 senior detectives in an Interview room with no supervising adult and no Lawyer?

Jodis body/clothes had the blood/sperm from 5 (FIVE) unidentified males. Do you know how many of those matched Luke? None.


"Personally, I'd like to see the mother doing time for aiding and abetting."

This is not a threat so please do not percieve it as one. If you are interested in discussing this further then please get in touch with Sandra or Corinne directly. She will provide direct evidence relating to her involvement in Luke's alibi. Most of it is in the public domain but of course has been ignored by the Press.

There is then the witness statements. Several witnesses claim to have seen Luke near the scene, around the time of the murder. On the surface this is evidence of his guilt. When you look at their statements and the times they give for seeing him you notice that they contradict each other to the point that the only conclusion is that the witnesses are lying or are mistaken about the times they saw Luke at the path or Luke could physically not have been able to carry out the killing.
So which would you want? The witnesses (one of which played a major part in his conviction and the failure of a 2008 appeal) were wrong/lying. Or Luke didn't kill Jodi.

[jason_c]

He was one of the people looking for her. The fact that it was he who found the body is evidence neither of guilt, nor of innocence to my mind.

I can't remember the details but members of Jodie's family who were also in on the search said Mitchell climbed over a wall? and went directly to the body. I'd have to read the actual evidence to confirm the details.

Mitchell's alibi also fell down fairly sharply, there were also claims the incinerator in his back garden was used to burn clothes that afternoon. Neighbour's claimed it gave off a strange smell the day in question.

Personally, I'd like to see the mother doing time for aiding and abetting.

I assume the last sentence is not objectionable to Sandra. I know the most well known "Luke Mitchell is innocent" site regularly pointed to members of Jodie's own family as the killer.