Premiers at 4.15pm Wednesday.
I recently read Scott Forbes book A Long Walk to Justice. It is an account of the circumstances, arrest and conviction of Luke Mitchell for the murder of his girlfriend Jodie Jones. Both Luke and Jodie were 14 years old at the time of her brutal homicide in June 2003.
Scott Forbes has been Luke’s lawyer since 2010. He has though been close to the case since 2003. In his book Scott highlights many aspects of the case that cast doubt on the veracity of Luke’s conviction. Indeed, some of the glaring mistakes by Lothian and Border Police make one wonder why Luke was even a suspect in the first place.
The circumstances surrounding Jodie’s brutal murder are so bizarre I doubt even a crime writing novelist would attempt to push such things to their readers. The catalogue of errors, missteps, omissions, assumptions by the police are really quite unbelievable.
The most important aspect to any murder scene is to secure the crime scene. One of the most important aspects of securing the crime scene is to preserve the scene with minimal contamination and disturbance of physical evidence. First Responders to an incident should document the placement and/or movement of items at the scene. None of this basic stuff was done properly by the police on the scene that night. The body was dragged along the ground. Branches from trees were cut away to allow the police photographer better views for his pictures! These are only two of the many mistakes made at the scene.
This was at the outset of the investigation and sadly, from there it went downhill. Witnesses that should have been questioned were not. People who had been at the scene were allowed to go home in the clothes they were wearing with no forensics taken from them. Subsequently and in some cases rapidly these garments were washed thereby destroying valuable forensic evidence.
Several individuals that had been spotted in and around the crime scene were not question at the time. Indeed, some were not even questioned till years after Luke Mitchell had been convicted and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.
Alibis were created, statements were altered, crucial evidence discounted. The list of fatal mistakes and pure incompetence are too many to list. Information was leaked to the press, and they did a job on a 14-year-old boy and his family. Lies and false information were fed to the public via the Scottish gutter press.We all know how our media love to dig and dish the dirt.
This is a taste of the kind of headlines the Daily Record had been producing from the day of crime. It transpired the Record hack was a close friend of the leading investigator, DI Dobbie and we can only assume the source of her information.
Despite numerous other possible suspects the police determined from the night Jodie’s body was discovered that Luke was ‘their man.’ Indeed, DS Dobbie in charge of the investigation told his underlings to take Luke in and give him the ‘ full treatment.’ A 14-year-old child that had never been in trouble with the police in his life. He was exposed to this ‘full treatment’ by the police without a responsible adult beside him every step of the way. Luke was a Goth and the police thought he looked weird. That it seems was enough for the investigators to ignore any other suspects.
One crucial thing to note, not a shred of DNA or any other forensic evidence was found on Luke, his clothes or on Jodie! He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, police testimony and Daily Record bile!
Scott writes in far greater detail the circumstances around poor Jodie’s discovery, Luke’s arrest and subsequent conviction. I would advise you all to get a copy of his book and make up your own mind. This could just be the biggest ever miscarriage of justice in Scottish legal history.
I was able to speak with Scott this week and below is that interview. I would appreciate if you would listen to what Scott has to say. Then you will be free to make up your own mind.
Most importantly in all of this is Jodie Jones herself a 14-year-old child. Brutally murdered with over 300 wounds, her body mutilated in a most cruel manner and left dumped in a wood. Is another child capable of such a crime? Several criminologists, retired murder detectives and even the FBI don’t think so! Has justice served Jodie well or has justice only served its own needs, you decide?
Well, I don’t know the ins and outs of this, but I was working in Eskbank around the time of this, and a mate of mine, who has friends in the Court system told me “some” of the inside rumours of the time.
Apparently, there was a search for Jodie, and Luke Mitchell took part in that search, and in fact, it was Mitchell who found her.
What was considered highly suspicious was that Jodie’s body was not lying out in the open. You had to climb through a hole in the wall, and proceed a few meters along the wall before you’d see the body. The chances of “stumbling” on it by chance were farcical.
What made some witnesses very suspicious was not that he was a Goth that looked weird, but that Luke Mitchell went straight through the wall, and was first to “spot” the body, after pretty much making a beeline to where it was, as if he had some uncanny radar or something. This was not a random search, he went pretty much straight to it.
What added to the suspicion was that several books were found in Mitchell’s home, (I can’t remember if they’d been hidden or not), but these were CSI type of books about murder scenes, which suggested one of the best ways to compromise any DNA type evidence left by the murderer, is for the murderer to “find” the body and make contact with it, thereby being able to account for the presence of any incriminating DNA subsequently found on the body. This meant it was critical that nobody else found the body first, or he might have been kept back and out of reach. He had to be sure he found the body and got to it first.
Another piece of dodgy activity was Mitchell’s mother had apparently burned the clothes he’d been wearing. And this too was in apparently featured in the book about how to dispose of incriminating evidence and undermine a crime scene to establish “reasonable” doubt.
Now I have no connection with anybody involved, no axe to grind with any of them, or any undeclared interest. But we were just a bunch of workies blethering on a building site in the vicinity of the crime scene, and somebody knew someone who was working on the inside of the Police / Court process.
It seemed widely acknowledged that a significant wedge of crime scene evidence had been rendered inadmissible by these “ploys”, and the perceptions formed made several people investigating the murder acutely suspicious of Mitchell, and his peculiarly morbid choice of reading material. It “looked” like Mitchell had planned in considerable detail how to get away with it.
I don’t know anything more than that, no details of the case or trial, but the “gist” was the Police were pretty damned sure they’d got the right fella, but he was very clever, very devious, and well read up on how to deal with incriminating evidence, and lastly, knew he’d be safe if he could create reasonable doubt. He went about it like a pro.
When proof is destroyed or rendered inadmissible as evidence, it’s bound to be acutely frustrating for the Police, but there are degrees of “circumstantial” evidence, and the gossip was they “knew” he was their man.
In terms of timescale, I can’t remember how long ago this was, but it was contemporary with the trial being finished and guilty verdict delivered.
Is that rumour? Yes absolutely. Is it substantiated? Nope, not a word, although I could name a couple of folk there when it was discussed, but it’s essentially inadmissible here-say. But nevertheless, as gossip goes, this was insider gossip. I’ve also made a point of “not” listening to the arguments about releasing him. I don’t even know why the conviction is considered unsafe by some. I don’t actually want to know.
So make of it what you will.
I have a teeny bit more information, but it’s horrible. The lass was cut, and whoever it was, was a sicko. I don’t think the cops are losing many sleepless nights about Mitchell being locked up, and that’s kinda how I feel too.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the cops even had another suspect.
It seems Breeks you didn’t listen to the podcast nor have you read the book. You are repeating the police stories and daily record alleged ‘facts’ of the event. Please listen to the pod most of your assumptions are not accurate.
Happy to put my hands up Roddy, I have not.
I’m just sharing gossip from the inside of the system, and if the podcast addresses that then that’s fine. I’ll give it a listen. I’ve no axe to grind at all, no dog in the race whatsoever.
I’ll give it a listen now…
So you are quite happy to listen to gossip about how guilty and depraved Mitchell is, yet won’t listen to the other side.
Why is that? It does seem you have an axe to grind.
In fairness to Breeks if you look at his later comment he admits that he has had a change of heart after viewing the interview.
Roddy, you are not very good at interviewing. You interfere far too much. Please take note
Take note if you dont like it, don’t watch it.
Jeez. You jane hamilton’s sister brother or pal, what bull
WoW Breeks , you sound as though you are a bit defensive of the team who were involved in such a travesty or you may at least have some links to them, whether or not this is through the circus court system or not it is not too difficult to see that the Luke Mitchell case was a blatant setup.
Basically, the police were under pressure to get a ‘body’ and Luke being a bit wierd met the satisfaction of the local CID as a candidate for their attention as a suspect, they then in a nutshell, made a federal case from their perception of Luke and the purely circumstancial events surrounding his movements and behaviour.
The real problem today is people reading a newspaper (a tabloid! unnamed sources etc) and taking things as gospel. What they really should be looking at is the methods the police have used for decades , using these red tops as the police mouthpiece to satisfy docile non thinkers who believe everything they are told or read in the record or sun. Half the time I wouldnt believe the date on these rags.
Of course the police dont lie or fabricate (wouldnt it be great if that were true) and they dont go to great lengths to avoid being detected themselves for ‘fitting people up’ I mean the thought of the career down the drain , reputation as a decent member of society in tatters. and loss of the guranteed income when old and wrinkly. Sure! There is no need for them to lie or continue to prevent the public finding out they not only sent the wrong guy to prison , leaving the real killer at large. They are also actively, rather suspiciously to this day using various methods of skull duggery keeping him held in prison and sabotaging appeals to prevent the truth coming out.
Its a true fact the effort put into the coverup is usually the giveaway. If going by previous miscarriage cases .(TC Campbell, Joe Steele, not to mention the ones in Birmingham) then Luke wont be released any time soon or receive anything by way of recompense or apology as quick either.
They have started to engineer Luke Mitchells demise via fabricated psyche reports and false psycho-analysis proclaiming he is a danger to women” and parole paperwork, all prepared by forensic psychologists/psychiatrists of course with a bias to the prosecution, isnt that strange they appear now when there is talk of innocence and not near two decades ago? Where were they then?. They are only too keen to put the boot in which would be a tad more understandable if there wasnt so much pointing to a miscarriage. You wonder how these people can sit there knowing they have the wrong guy but they are going to mentally fry him and destroy him anyway. I will add more to that towards the end.
All this might be apt to a guilty person, but what if you are indeed innocent but to suffer the sheer malpractice ,negligence and malintent of authorities on one hand, amid the sneers and jeers on the other from both staff and prisoners in the protection hall of HMP Shotts i kinda feel the guys pain.
Corruption which is apparently rife among jail management going by (The Alan Marshall case for one most recently) the fact is they would rather blacken Luke Mitchells character even more and wrongfully detain him as a miscarriage of justice than have colleagues in high places take a fall. This is the reality, and also the clear and present danger we face in 2024. My reasoning for this danger is that there is absolutely no safe-guarding in place to stop a group of degenerates masquerading behind an organisation, conniving and colluding and sabotaging someones life leading to events like this one. Add to that the fear of letting the proverbial side down if Luke is freed and they fail to protect a pal(s) or a colleague(s) who could face the axe if found to be criminally negligent, thats why they go to these great lengths.
For as far back as we can see there is a serious problem with corruption and coverups within the police and prison system as the two are in cahoots and both have built in criminal element within them as both serve as the UKs biggest organised crime gang, as absurd as it sounds, this is actually quite literally the case. These upstanding pillars of the community as more rights are taken away and they lack accountability more each week, commiting atrocities such as the Luke Mitchell case and many more we dont, or have yet no knowledge of , atrocities no one could begin to comprehend.
The very stance of our authorities in this day and age is what is worrying as more and more is being done to take our rights away (you really think they are going to stop at criminals). They are signing up to become tyrants and that makes you wonder what kind of person would want to work in an environment like that which is whats wrong with the judicial system. Prisons are being used as a rubbish bin for the sins committed by the very people who are meant to know better , who sign up to oath and ethics yet once they wriggle into a position they can exploit , even law is forgotten as these individuals think it is there to be pissed on. This misplaced authority then drives them insane , they dont know how to handle that power so begin abusing it to satisfy personal vendettas rather than the interests of justice..
Not all of course but there exists a dark element at a certain rank and these are the ones who hide behind the scenes, who control those around them with fear, manipulation and deception leading to things such as this topic. Anyone who speaks out is ostracised, both at work and socially from clubs etc. You are either for the clique or against it, and thats the truth of how these individuals operate and why so little is done.
Hear hear
Aye, there a lot more than I’d been informed about, but there also glaring inconsistencies which would seem to condemn the investigation rather than incriminate or exonerate particular suspects.
It doesn’t seem possible Jodie was killed where she was found, because 6 pints (or litres) of blood missing couldn’t just disappear. Surely there’s a crime scene needing to be found. There seems a discrepancy between a time of death around 5, and an unknown time when the body arrived in the wood where it was found later.
So many questions unanswered. A defensive wound to the raised arm, but then hands tied behind her back. Might she have been killed around 5 but the injuries sustained later? If she wasn’t killed there, then the chronology seems irrelevant and all the alibis are thrown up into the air.
The dog evidence troubles me too. If the scene was secured with an ammonia type substance, then why were some dogs reacting but others not? If the dog was also trained to find bodies, it would likely have an alert signal. Paws on the wall and sniffing the air seems inconclusive.
The psychotic brother with the long knife threatening to do to people what he did to his sister seems obvious for suspicion, but is a deranged psycho having episodes also capable of a grotesque murder but then also capable of hiding or clearing up a murder scene with 6 pints of blood and not having their own clothes covered in blood? Same question again, where is the missing blood?
I was also taken aback that these nut jobs who mutilate living animals are allowed to walk about free. Jeezo. Here was me thinking Eskbank was quite a nice place.
Incidentally, none of my gossip and information came from the papers. It came from people actually in the Court system, and I just reported what I was told. If it was a hatchet job by the newspapers, it certainly worked, and coloured the judgement of people in the system.
The whole ugly business does seem wholly unsatisfactory, and there’s surely questions needing to be asked.
I work in supporting men and women leaving prison. I have never met Luke, but I have met many people who have served time beside Luke. I have never met one who believes he is guilty. Fellow prisoners can exact their own kind of justice to people who have committed the kind of murder Jodie suffered. None of Luke’s fellow prisoners have treated him like that. In a prison where there are many notorious people, Luke is said to stand out as well mannered, considerate and consistent. That doesn’t prove anything, but as we know from several other cases, pre-judgement in the media, especially the tabloids, often produces a poor perspective on things. Thanks for doing the podcast and keeping this case in the public consciousness. It is important.
Breeks has got the wrong handle on the narrative.. daily record spin and apparently even court employees spreading spin news, has caused a lot of spin to be taken as gospel… we need to educate these people. @Breeks.. Once you study what Scott and Dr Sandra Lean has highlighted over the case . Along with Data analysis from crimeolgy. It will have most people boiling over with all sorts of disbelief. But unfortunately it’s true and it does look like School Boy Luke Mitchell was Set up before the lad had left his house.. its totally outrageous. We in Scotland need the Petition for an independent enquiry.
Miscarriages of justice are not unknown. They happen and they happen regularly, albeit quite well spaced out apart. The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven were all examples of a state set up where innocent people were jailed to appease public demand. Stefan Kisko ( 1975), Robert Brown (1977) Anthony Steel (1977) Paul Blackburn ( 1978) Bridgewater Four (1978) Sean Hodgson ( 1979 )
And in Scotland Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steel (1984)
And in 1985 Winston Silcott. Michael Shirley (1986). Danny McNamee (1986) And in Scotland Ernest Barrie (1986) and in 1987 in Wales a trio comprising Miller, Abdullahi and Paris. And so with the list continuing up until today, its clear that miscarriages do arise.
In his video Scott Forbes, a local joiner turned witness came across as a very creditable commentator extremely knowledgeable about what may have been the background and the absolute deficiencies in the Crown case. We disregard people like that at our peril. Especially when one sees the effort that the police and prosecution put into trying to jail Alex Salmond. Or the effort put in to trying to destroy Mark Hirst. Many Police do a good job but there is now a question about some of them and especially the senior officers. Political, compromised and or driven to deliver results, lack of trust is now a major issue. Their approach to selective prosecution of Covid breaches also reversed that.
Based upon what Scott Forbes has said it would indeed be good if a Jonna Chery, or a Gordon Dangerfield or other similar took a look at this case. The thought of an innocent 14 year old being jailed for life whilst a butcher of a killer roams free is a real societal concern.
Scott Forbes is convinced Mitchel is innocent. There should based upon what he has said be another look and the Crown should not hid and or restrict the release of evidence. Our justice system is bad enough as it is.
I suspect that in all of these cases the police knew who was guilty and then proceded to make it so. Just knowing without evidence is an ongoing problem.
It was a full Scottish Jury found Him Guilty not “The Police”
Johannha Cherry, Gordon Dangerfield, Unlcle Tom cobley and all wouldn’t touch the Mitchell Case with a bargepole as doing so would make them look very very stupid indeed. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue/
I assume you have neither read the book or listened to the podcast.
I assume you didn’t read the link and understand how completely disfunctional the Family were ?
If he comes back to the area its likely he will get chased like the last Peado the Cops had 24/7 protection on just outside Newtongrange that they had to move on somewhere else to keep the crowd of locals sitting across the road away from him.
What a lot of nonsense. Your spreading lies and smear. The big Goth and Marlin Manson fan was Jannie Jones. Every family are dysfunctional and if you cared to read you’d discover that. As for chasing people from the area, Mrs Mitchell is still there
Up pops a new troll account. If dysfunctional families make you guilty of murder then folk from Jones, Ferris and other families would be in prison. Have you not read anything?
Alice you’re bitter and spreading lies. As for Joanna C etc etc. Chan5 had top QC John Scott, top forensic scientists and more have joined the fight, so your barge pole is just bitter lies. I’ll happily answer any questions, you, Jane H or anyone else has if you don’t hide behind fake accounts
You are seriously using the article as your argument? Hearsay, speculation about a mother comforting her son and judgement about what a mother wore to a prison.
You are backing up what Scott says about police/media, deflecting the jones family’s issues onto the Mitchell’s. The Jones were dysfunctional so with that in mind, could the killer be a jones family member?
Interesting show. I am doubtful about the conviction but there are aspects which I haven’t heard Scott Forbes or Dr Lean address.
Why did Mitchell tell his friend David High, Jodie wouldn’t be coming out that evening? He had phoned Jodie’s house earlier who informed him she had left to meet him so why tell his friend the complete opposite? How did he know she wouldn’t meet them?
When did he meet David High?
Why didnt he text/call Jodie at any point after 16.40? Surely if he’s been told she’s on her way to meet him at 17.40 and never turns up, he would have attempted a text to her to question whereabouts? Especially as he was out all evening until late.
The knife he had has never been found. What was his answer to losing it? What kind of knife was it? The new knife his mum bought him certainly looks too small but there was a previous knife whose whereabouts are unsatisfactorily explained.
What is the evidence that he owned a parker jacket? Are there any witness statements? How many? if not, what jackets did he possess when detained?
Why did he phone the speaking clock?
I personally do not know Lukes family but for years she was in the playground while waiting on our children. Corrine was there in her tight trousers and boots. They were horse riding gear and she had a horse in the grounds near their house. She used to go there most days straight after school. I know because I drove many times behind her car till I pulled off to my house. Her caravan park was just round the corner with fields around it. !00’s of yards from the crime scene. Her horse attire was black boots and trousers and red riding jacket. Also with a hat.. Luke was a normal young boy brought up in a nice area at a good school.
There seems to be an awful lot happening around poor Jodie. Luke in my mind is innocent. Great interview.
Thank you
As you know BB I campaign for Labour and I know every street mentioned in the interview. Luke used to go to my sons gigs when he played in the school band. He was a nice looking well dressed kid in primary school. Getting to 14 all kids change for these formative years. The contrast of where Luke lived and Jodie lived and the people around her is like night and day. When I campaign in and around Stone Place I sometimes hope they do not answer the door. Its a rough area. No way whatsoever could Luke get back to his house covered in blood without being seen. No way. The night of the murder and day it was a lovely day till the rain came on later. I know cause I had to drive down to the shop my son was working part time while he was at school to pick him up. It was the next morning the news of the murder broke. Luke could get out if he confessed and all credit to him for staying true to himself. This needs looked at again. And soon. I hope this moves things on. I will ignore the remarks made about Sir David. I am sure at the time he would have done his bit.
Strange isn’t it how no other similar Murders have happened since Luke was locked up , its almost like they must have got the right perpetrator.
You actually think this sort of behaviour is “normal” Sandy ? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue/
Of course its not normal. What is not normal is the people around Jodie. That is where the abnormality is. Severe abnormality. Luke was in the same year as Jodie and the all used to smoke weed across the road from the old school before it moved. He was brought up like any other kid. Not so around poor Jodie I am afraid. Look there I say. The mother of Luke was only doing what any mother would do. Protect her son. She could not protect him from the police and public opinion. That was too strong for a mother. Anyway what makes you think I think this is normal?
Alice your true identity has been given to me. If you would like the opportunity to put your points to the same Prism audience then just email me at roddy1314@gmail.com
Always willing to put both sides of any debate on Prism.
Isn’t it telling that you don’t see the irony in judging people by where they live or by their implied “social standing “, while campaigning for a party that purports to represent the disadvantaged.
Typical Labour hypocrisy.
Not at all when considering they are all around the same age as my 2 sons and I know the names. I know where they live . They used to go to my sons gigs. Do not know where you live, do not care. I live in the middle of this. Good try on Labour though. Not good enough though if you seen the people around Jodi. Keep trying though. I am now off to speak to Scott about the same.
Sandy Re Sir David, I approached his office many times only to be shunned by his wife, who really no idea about the case except from local gossip and daily record. Neil F was similar. Their political positions couldn’t afford to look at the case.
A Knighthood from a Tory Gov changed my perception of Hamilton
Scott I applaude your attempts to get Justice for Luke but you fell into the trap of slagging the Labour Party on a Nationalist site. Now you are saying you never met David. He was probably in WM when you went. I too have been turned away from Davids office when I went. Do not go in angry. Present yourself properly. Not like I did.lol. On Neil F. If that is Neil Finlay I do not think he was in Parliament at the time of Jodies murder. It must have been about a decade later you approached him.
The only good one I knew for Years was the Granny, you will likely remember Her too.
Corrine and Luke fabricated a story that Luke was at Home all the time , it was the other Brother who admitted that it wasn’t true. Its only hundreds of yards away if you cut across the fields , certainly not by road.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12402619.why-did-luke-mitchell-kill-his-mother-holds-a-clue/
Alice, this is a new troll name for you. Jannie was the goth with obsession with Marlin M. Her bro Joe was phycotic as was her mother. The thing that sticks in my head is why jannie would ask S Kelly minutes after Jodi was discovered “was she naked”…why would someone close to Jodi ask that? Dysfunctional
Yes, I recall that case, young Mr Mitchell’s mother said she’d fight for her son’s innocence and liberation, Police Scotland certainly isn’t infallible, nor above reproach, look what happened to the likes of Oscar Slater and more recently Sheku Bayou, not to mention Craig Murray, and the attempt to fit up Alex Salmond.
Ah Craig Murray ? 🙂 More Fool you. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2BECuq6OluW_Fd_2zDDexAu6Xh_6MTwtdhKiiKo7altQJmMRsdiuZpQb4
Alice.
I’m not going to get into it on Craig Murray’s unjust conviction on this thread, this is for Luke Mitchell, I’ll just say do a wee bit of research on what happened to Craig Murray and why.
If as is being said Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodi Jone then terrifyingly the killer is still out there.
Jones was murdered and literally chopped up with over 300 stab wounds. This is the action of an absolute psycho. That there are said to be grave issues with the evidence. Review also described the Police investigation to be “ outrageous ‘
Moreover with the statements that their are people in the local community who deliberately wound animals so that they can be mutilated alive, one would think that 5here would be a willingness to have the matter reinvestigated.
Incredible therefore that the authorities are absolutely resistant to opening up an appeal whilst a potentially innocent individual remains incarcerated with a psycho killer remaining at large.
“whilst a potentially innocent individual remains incarcerated with a psycho killer remaining at large.”
And yet strangely there have been no similar incidences of any similar sort in Scotland while Mitchell has been in
the chokey , isn’t that strange huh, all those years gone by but hasn’t struck anywhere again ?
Maybe they have, maybe they too are incarcerated for another crime. Maybe the real culprit died,emigrated.Murders like these could be happening elsewhere. Unless of course,you know something or someone we dont?
While I dont like the daily record I do have faith in the Jury system when it is not political.
I personally think judgment is best left to a jury who are in possession of the evidence presented. Also a person who commits the crime of murder at this level goes on to commit other murders usually more violent than the first. The level of violence increases with their confidence in not being caught .This has not been the case prehaps because they got the right man.
Were is your evidence that killers such as Jodi goes onto do it again? You’re just making that up! It was a frenzied killing, carried out by a frenzied phycopath. He maybe didn’t kill anymore because he stopped taking the drugs that made him phycotic and kept taking the drugs that kept him calm
The jury weren’t made aware of the full facts
The jury were spun total garbage, the judge also was outrages in his directions to the Jury. The 3 witness sightings were taken as Fact even though they were not accurate. Its crystal clear, Luke was set up and the sex offenders were protected. The Truth is apparently obvious and the real killer/s are known..
A psychologist interviewing Dennis Neilson was so taken in by him he thought that he was a charming well dresssd character, wity and intelligent a civil servant. It wasn’t till Neilson asked him if he had ever felt the weight of a human head is his hands did he realise the reality of who he was dealing with, a psychopathic monster. These people can switch the charm on and off as it suits them. Another point he made is the prisons are full of innocent people , he calls this the right man syndrome which they all seem to suffer from. Luke’s Mother burnt his clothes that night , strange isint that. My point is if a hardened psychologist who is use to interviewing murders can be fooled by a psychopath we all can .People who display signs of the dark triad are not always visible to our senses these are ones which are the most dangerous. Psycopath ,Narcissism and Machiavellian. Also this must be constant torture for Jodie’s Mother and family another common factor these people have, they like to feel control over their victims who can never heal from the perpetrators crime, Brady being another example of this behaviour the psycopath has. I think Jodie’s mother has suffered enough.
You have either not read the book only read the Daily Record. Not watched the interview that you keep commenting on without knowing g or understanding the content. The only other explanations you are either a person of interest or protecting a person of interest latterly just a daft wee immature troll.Take this as a yellow card.
I dont read the Daily Record it’s a Unionist rag full of imagery and cartoons and you are correct that I have never read the book but I do know this case has been thrown out of appeal, the crown council do not think it warrants a retrial due to a lack of evidence, the legal process has been followed .Authors of books have their own views it doesn’t make what they say as factual. I have my view ,you disagree and dont like that that’s ok. I am not a troll but I will give myself a Red Card.
I like your blog but you are off piste. Prehaps you have been unwitingly sucked in by people who have an agenda to subvert the course of justice.
Or maybe you have reason to not look at both sides, maybe you have a vested interest.I don’t know. By all means disagree with my blogs or podcasts but to criticise a podcast you have never watched about a book you never read is ridiculous in the extreme!
A mother has lost her daughter in the most heinous way imaginable, I have no vested interest, what’s yours Roddy ? This is out of character for you.
That is right she has lost her child.A14 year old child was brutally murdered and very possibly the murderer is still walking free! What kind of person would oppose an inquiry to determine if the real killer is in prison? A 14 year old child who was railroaded by lazy incompetent cops who conducted a keystone cop investigation. Why would you or anyone not want any doubt removed? What is your vested interest Alastair because it sure isn’t justice that is motivating you?
Hahahhaha You really have jumped the Shark now Roddy , what a gullible individual you must be after all.
And that is how you shut a troll up .
I would love to know why anybody with half a brain would not want an Enquiry if for nothing else for Jodi , why does this dwindling section of our society not want to put this to the test and ENSURE Jodi got justice , it is a puzzler for sure . They would prefer never to have the answers to why a 14 year old girl had so many areas of sperm left on her was Jodi in lots of relationships which makes all this sperm innocent. Why did Luke have no incriminating evidence from one of the most horrific scenes on his body , nails, greasy hair , boots , house, room , drain pipes, door knobs and of course his mobile phone that he supposedly had on him and used to phone the Jones. Why did the Jones family not feel at 5:40 when Luke called that Jodi was not we’re she should be. Why did everybody and their granny have a licences to abuse the Mitchell’s the SKY interview were people called them names and vile character assignation of the Mitchell family , they do realise SKY has the say so when a program goes out not Mrs Mitchel. Give Luke Mitchell the first fair hearing he has ever been afforded by our Justice system , send this to an Enquiry with an unbiased review of all of it , it will bring this to a end for the life of me I do not understand these people who want to troll and hold this up , it’s happening , matter of time ✌🏻
Sandy Re Sir David, I approached his office many times only to be shunned by his wife, who really had no idea about the case except from local gossip and daily record. Neil F was similar. Their political positions couldn’t afford to look at the case and remains like that today.
A Knighthood from a Tory Gov changed my perception of Hamilton who I’ve known for 40yrs. Alex B was my dad’s closest friend…..not one politican had the decency to look at this case
No-one was willing to look at the case because they don’t want to look like loonball conspiracy theorists.
Harry.
Difficult interview to control, Roddy, but you handled it well, under the circumstances..
Can’t make my mind up as to whether the police were complicit, stupid, or just down right lazy. Or maybe all three!
No doubt that this case is extremely disturbing and deserves the widest exposure. I hope it can be brought to Kenny MacAskill’s attention also, as it would be helpful to gain his learned opinion on the evidence provided/ or not provided in this case.
What happened to being innocent, until proven guilty?
“Kenny MacAskill’s attention also, as it would be helpful to gain his learned opinion”
Seriously ? Hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahaha.
Maybe Lothian and Borders police and their – so called Forensic experts – way back in 2003 had never heard of Dr Edmond Locard’s exchange principle.
Which is…”Every contact leaves a trace”.
In forensic science, Locard’s principle holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene and leave with something from it, and that both can be used as forensic evidence. Dr. Edmond Locard (1877–1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of Lyon, France.[1] He formulated the basic principle of forensic science as: “Every contact leaves a trace”. It is generally understood as “with contact between two items, there will be an exchange.” Paul L. Kirk[2] expressed the principle as follows:
Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibres from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value.
Luke Mitchell brought nothing to the crime scene around five fifteen pm, two thousand and three, and left nothing at the crime scene around five fifteen pm, two thousand and three, because he (obviously) wasn’t there at the crime scene around five fifteen pm, two thousand and three.
CASE CLOSED.
Luke is innocent, get him out of that jail cell in Shotts, and place whoever is responsible for this débâcle instead in there.
After of course they’ve had a fair trial and then found guilty, the charges will be gross incompetence, dereliction of duty, and attempting to defeat the ends of justice.
Seems the people of Scotland aren’t too happy about killers coming back to the area they committed their crimes in. This is at least the second time he has been recognised and people want him moved out again. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsscotland/young-mum-living-below-da-vinci-rapist-robert-greens-left-terrified-after-angry-mob-attack-home/ar-AA12OGFz?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fa818fa11fdc4a7ba33d8738e0d7fc5e
This what the SNP wanted for offenders of this type course, maybe could move him to Glasgow where he would less likely be recognised in a big city further away from where he committed his crime. https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-msp-under-fire-paedophiles-25834877
As someone who’s stumbled on this case, I can’t believe the incompetence both the police and the poor lads defence did. I am English so not sure how different the law is in Scotland, but I have served on jury’s 3 times and stuck my heels in when even probably knowing someone was guilty but knowing there was not enough evidence to 100% prove it. How on earth with no evidence this child was convicted beats me. The jury was either so badly directed by the judge or had been too swayed by the media that it was an unfair trial. I hope you keep on with your fight Scott, I am usually not so angered by these things but how this miscarriage happened is beyond words. I will be getting the book
Luke’s dog Mia found Jodi, there’s absolutely no doubt about it as far as I’m concerned, we can all argue and squabble on here or any forum or anywhere about how many somersaults the dog took, or how many minutes it took or didn’t take to get along the Roans dyke path from A to B, or B to A (yes some folks were discussing that on a forum, incredible isn’t it?) along the path, shouting over walls, shining torches, what who said or didn’t say to PC plod , or why SK or his girlfriend couldn’t be bothered walking a few of minutes to retrieve something of Jod’s for the dog to sniff…all we like.
The solution into who found Jodi, is simple.
The bottom line is… Mia led Luke to that V in the wall. Mia didn’t even need anything of Jodi’s to sniff.
As I said, I’m absolutely convinced, there’s no two ways about it. The three witnesses (besides Luke) who gave their on the spot original statements to the police were telling the truth…the dog led Luke to the V in the wall.
From what I’ve read so far it might even be the only thing they were truthful about.
German shepherds are amazing, that’s why law enforcement and the armies from all over the world use them. And of course they are very popular with Joe Bloggs and co.
How far can a German shepherd smell? German Shepherds have 225 million scent receptors. This makes them as one of the best breeds overall for their sense of smell, being able to detect scents over a mile away on land, up to 40 feet underground and in 80 feet of water! Their sense of smell tie with beagles are second only to bloodhounds, which have 300 million scent receptors! A German shepherds smell is almost 100,000 times better than that of a human’s!
I wont provide a link here to the above, but for any doubters out there who think I just made all that up, just copy and paste it into google, that’s if like I did, you want to learn what the experts have to say, they know what they’re talking about, so I encourage you to go and learn what a dog like Mia (even without training) is capable off.
Why did Donald Findlay not call as a witness the ex army veterinary expert and dog trainer (who was training Mia) and settle it (at least on who found Jodi) once and for all.
Donald knew Mia had some training, (not that the dog needed training), so why did he not call the expert as a witness?. After all, Luke and Luke alone with virtually no help from the dog was presented as evidence to finding Jodi.
My fertile mind is beginning to wonder if Findlay was in league with the opposition. I’m not joking, this isn’t funny, a young man got life in prison on nonsense evidence like this.
Alan Turnbull didn’t win his case, Donald lost it. Alan Turnbull must have asked himself when he was driving home in his car, I’m baffled…what happened?, how in the hell did I win that?.
Why did Donald not call an expert?,
He would have taken me apart in there if he’d just brought an expert witness in.
I would have had only two dodgy bits of circumstantial evidence left from my original submission as possible evidence, he only needed to have refuted even just one more of them…and I was sunk without a bubble.
On his next case Turnbull must have thought to himself.
Please, please god, could you give me Donald as the defence opposition. He’s a smashing bloke, and very kind to me.
The issue with the dog is that Jody’s family all changed their statement within a month to say the dog didn’t and that Luke just went directly to where she was found without the dog showing interest. I don’t know if the statement was changed after Jody sister boyfriend was found on her T-shirt. Scott maybe be able to answer that.
Within a few days of collusion between themselves, obviously after they were interviewed by the police. they all realised how important it was (to getting Luke convicted) to say that it was Luke who found Jodi and not the dog. That’s why they changed their statement. It doesn’t take a veritable Einstein to work out why. so make of that what you will.
As for the rest of the so called evidence….well lets just see shall we.
Apparently there was Luke’s DNA on her bra, and Jodi’s DNA on his trousers , and for that reason or some reason similar, the prosecution (Alan Turnbull) and defence (Donald Findlay) agreed in some kind of shady deal (god only knows what Donald was on, puffing away on that pipe of his) that it wouldn’t be referred to at trial, because it could be accounted for since Luke was in a relationship with Jodi.
OK that’s clear, and that’s maybe understandable, at least as far as ordinary DNA is concerned, but what if Luke had Jodi’s blood splatter on him?, and or on the clothes he was wearing on the night of the murder, under his fingernails, in his hair, etc, which there certainly would be if he was guilty.
If you (anyone who reads this) were Alan Turnbull, and you knew that there was indeed blood splatter from Jodi on Luke, would you agree to Donald Findlay’s proposal?.
Noooo…I bet your sweet ass you wouldn’t.
So you see, the reason Turnbull agreed (Turnbull must have been rubbing his hands in glee, and high-fiving the rest of the prosecution team) to Findlay’s proposal, (It doesn’t really matter who proposed to who first) was that there was no blood splatter of Jodi’s on Luke.
Before Donald’s proposal, Turnbull realised he had a massive (no blood splatter) problem to solve.
Because just prior to Donald’s proposal, I bet Turnbull was tossing and turning in his bed, banging his head of the wall, maybe he even looked up his precious law books (you know? The books that quote mindless crap way back to/and from around the time of George the first, even back to the great charter of twelve fifteen, stuff like…In the case of Smithers versus Stumpers followed by some arbitrary date) and found that there isn’t anything on there or anywhere, some desperate loophole perhaps, to give him a helping hand and a way out of this conundrum,
He might even have temporarily forsaken his inflated ego by lowering himself to ask the plebs on his prosecution team for help, somebody on his team might pluck up the courage and say, Alan old boy, is it possible that Luke might have washed himself up at the nearest river,
And Alan would reply (because he’s not stupid) if that was true, then since rivers have their own DNA (chemicals, plaques, heavy metals etc) that would easily be shown up by forensics. Besides I also have to account for the lack of blood splatter on his clothes as well. Not to mention why he still had dirt rings round his neck and ankles.
Someone on some forum, I can’t remember where, said the River Esk and the Ochre burn were fresh flowing water and Luke could easily have washed himself there.
Well go to the Ochre burn then, or any burn or river and drink a glass out of it, I can guarantee within a few hours you will be in the nearest hospital, on a drip, throwing your guts up, with serious diarrhea and probably hallucinating and screaming for your mammy.
The excruciating bottom line for Turnbull was (and as smart as he is) he just couldn’t find a way round why if Luke really was guilty then why then is there none of Jodi’s blood splatter on him. If Luke is guilty then it has to be there, AND HE KNEW IT.
Not to mention there was no Jodi’s blood evidence in Luke’s mum’s house etc.
It’s incredible, the police descended on the house like locusts, leaving no stone unturned, ripping up plants, they even went through the drains and plumbing system, and still found nothing.
There’s just no way round this, if Luke is guilty, then there will be some kind of blood splatter from Jodi on him, and almost certainly Jodi’s blood DNA back at the Mitchell ranch, (with a confirmation by forensic testing), and if he’s innocent, then there will be no blood splatter on him.
When Turnbull was told this (There’s no blood splatter at all on Luke Mitchell) by the police and or forensic team, or whoever it was that told him. He must have slumped over his desk, held his head in his hands, and had a near heart attack and ready to be sick at the same time.
Right there and then he knew in his heart, that’s if he’s got a heart (in my opinion he is ruthless, self-serving, and callous, but no fool) that Luke Mitchell just couldn’t have committed this murder.
But what did Mr Turnbull do?. Knowing (let’s suppose he needs blood from some kind of pump to get to his brain) fine well in his heart that Luke was innocent, did he give up?, did he just concede with honour?.
Or do the right thing and inform the police to stop bothering him with nonsense and go track down the real murderer, NO, instead…he carried on with the charade.
After Findlay gave him that one in a million-chance way out. And solved his no blood splatter problem for him.
I have some (just a tiny smidgen of) sympathy for Donald, there’s certain things he can’t challenge in a court if it’s not presented as evidence, the prosecution also using obscure loopholes to hide evidence from him (And other defence teams) when it suits them, amongst other things. Ok we get that.
But Donald is part of the system, he knows how it works, he’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem, does he do anything himself to change it and become part of the solution?, NO…not that I’ve ever seen.
Someone (Gerrae I think it was) on some Luke Mitchell forum pointed out, it’s not so much what Turnbull said at the trial, in other words what Turnbull presented as evidence at the trial, it’s what Turnbull didn’t say at the trial and didn’t present as evidence
That is the key, and it’s a very big key.
It seems that nobody in the jury, when they went in to the jury room to deliberate, had the wit to ask anyone else there, hey wait a minute troops, why didn’t the prosecution mention some kind of blood splatter on Luke if he was guilty?.
And someone would say (at least someone should say) maybe it’s because there wasn’t any blood splatter on him, and another would say, hey that’s right there couldn’t have been any blood splatter on him because the prosecutor would have let us know, but how in the hell can you stab and slash someone (even if the heart has stopped beating) over twenty times and not get any blood on themselves?, no blood splatter whatsoever, zero, zilch. How can that be possible?. Moreover, there’s the little matter of no marks, no bruises, no lumps, no impact damage at all on him.
Someone else would/should say, I noticed the prosecutor didn’t mention it. And someone else would say, that’s right he didn’t mention that did he?, it would have left no doubt to us that Luke Mitchell was guilty if he did present it as evidence, I wonder why the prosecutor left that out of the evidence?. What’s that all about?.
The penny would drop, (well by this time it should drop, unless they all have 70 IQs), and there would be further inevitable discussion among themselves, the correct conclusion would be drawn amongst them all and Luke walks free as in…NOT GUILTY.
Because I can assure you, if Luke had blood splatter on him, just the tiniest drop would be enough, Turnbull would happily agree (which he did) to Findlay’s proposal of skin, sweat etc type DNA because Luke and Jodi were in an intimate relationship, but no way would he agree to Findlay’s proposal if (If the evidence was there that is) Luke had Jodi’s blood splatter type DNA on himself on the night of the murder.
What person in a relationship gets blood splatter all over their clothes, in their hair, ears, eyelashes, under their fingernails? Whilst being intimate.
Moreover, not only would Turnbull, I’m sure (In his own way) reply to Findlay when he made his proposal, Donald come on, do you take me for an Idiot?, do you think I came up the river Clyde/ Forth (pick your favourite river) in a wheelbarrow (politely of course, he wouldn’t want to hurt his right honourable friends feelings) but he (Findlay) if he keeps on talking about or trying to prove Luke is innocent, then he should look forward to being made to look like a jackass in court.
I could imagine Turnbull would say, so Donald old chap, I’ll make a counter proposal to you, go back to Luke and ask him why Jodi’s blood was on him, since Luke will only have one sensible answer, (eh a dunno, will not be acceptable) then we can save the Country money by avoiding a big massive trial and we can make a deal, maybe you can enter a plead on his behalf that he was not in his right mind.
And I can also assure you that if Luke had any blood splatter from Jodi on him. Then Turnbull sometime at the trial (if Donald still insists Luke is innocent and takes it to a jury trial) would have been straight up there (tripping over himself) to get to the jury, to tell them all about it.
This isn’t mind bending quantum mechanics, or advanced calculus, this is just logic for goodness sake.
But it’s amazing the amount of people out there who couldn’t figure out which way to slide a thirteen-amp fuse into an electrical plug, or even fit a nut onto a flippen Halloween cake. And they are still let loose to deliberate in a jury room.
I don’t know what the average IQ of the jury was, who knows?, maybe there was some folks with hardly any brain cells to rub together at all on the jury.
There was at the very least eight of them on that jury, and each of that lot made two short planks look like a computer, because a guilty verdict was actually returned.
As I said…who knows?. But one thing’s for sure, they have a strange way of thinking.
I’m sure someone is going to come on here (hands up, bottom dollar)…with no evidence whatsoever as proof and say…but em er a guy in the pub told me Luke must have been wearing a hazmat suit plus goggles, gloves, foot covering the lot.
A suggestion like that, truly is the height of desperation.
Well when the hazmat suit, goggles, gloves, foot covering, the lot, eventually come off, as they have to at some time, atomised minuscule blood droplets get released all over the air, driven by even the slightest of winds, expanding if the air is warm, so minuscule they can’t be seen by the human eye, so minuscule you’d need a powerful professional microscope to detect them, (these microscopes are available) the tiny tiny droplets will land on his hair, his eyelashes, in his ears you name it. And forensics would pick it up that night no problem.
I doubt very much if there is anyone on planet earth who can dodge those blood particles. Unless they’re capable of jumping around thirty feet straight up into the air in less than a second.
Remember Luke didn’t wash that evening, he was taken to the police station straight away, and he was stripped and forensically tested virtually on the spot.
First, he’d have to purchase the hazmat suit, so where around the Dalkeith area or even Edinburgh can you buy a hazmat suit?, I’m sure there’s somewhere, the seller would inquire of him (and wonder) why a child wants a hazmat suit with the appropriate goggles and so on. AND WOULD CERTAINLY REMEMBER HIM.
They are available I believe on the internet from a company called chemsuits, so he needs some kind of credit card to pay for it.
He could hardly say hey Maw guess what? em er a want to buy a hazmat suit, mouth covering, goggles, protective gloves etc on Amazon, from a company called chemsuits…fine distributors of hazmat suits, could you lend me your credit card?.
Then he’d have to get rid of the hazmat suit, goggles, gloves, foot covering after he’d contaminated it with blood splatter, disposing of it somewhere he was sure was ultra-safe, somewhere it couldn’t possibly be found, along with the plastic bag he’d carry it in.
So no one would have to see where he bought it, see when he bought it, see him pay for it, see him trying it on in the shop to see if it’s a smashing fit, see his hiding place where he planked it, see him smuggling it in and out of his house, see him walking around the streets and woods with it in a carrier bag or a mini rucksack.
It’s just ridiculous, and I will not be bothering to countenance or answer a desperate suggestion like that.
Alan Turnbull was lucky, he was very very lucky, when he left the court that last day of the trial, and he knew it, he managed to get an innocent young lad stitched up like a kipper, on flimsy evidence like four (so called) eye witnesses two of them being Andrina Bryson and her dodgy hubby, flying round the bend on Easthouses road in a car, just giving them a couple of seconds at most to see a young couple standing in the entrance of a lane having a conversation, who don’t even match her descriptions of Jodi or Luke. She couldn’t say for sure what the males face looked like, and couldn’t’ see the face of the girl, and couldn’t identify Luke Mitchell in court standing between two guards, even though his face had already been splashed all over the front page of every newspaper in the Country…And that was accepted as evidence.
And why wasn’t the hubby brought to court (after all he was in that car with his wife Andrina) and asked by Donald if he already knew the Jones family and what he saw going round the corner.
If he answered truthfully then Andrina’s so called witness testimony looks even more shaky.
It’s not as if Donald didn’t know the hubby was in the car.
It’s obvious who the female was standing in the lane, at least it’s obvious to me, and it wasn’t Jodi. Since that female didn’t come forward (ask yourself why?, because she had something to hide, that’s why) then there’s only one person in the whole of East Lothian it could be.
Yes, I heard it, Donald likes to do it all the old-fashioned way, and let the prosecution prove his client is guilty, well that way of working, isn’t actually working is it Donald?.
Around twenty years ago was time for a serious rethink.
A young diligent and ambitious lawyer would have taken a can opener to Turnbull’s so called circumstantial evidence and made absolute mincemeat out of him.
As for the other two, Fleming and Walsh, they couldn’t even get their stories straight before they went to court, they colluded together before they went to court (and still couldn’t get it right between them), and at least one of them committed perjury in court.
(Sandra Lean, Innocents betrayed, page one hundred and thirty). So their evidence on what they saw was/is totally unreliable.
Again, their what they saw stories were accepted and put to the jury as evidence.
I wouldn’t be surprised If they were driving down the Newbattle road on the evening of thirty of June two thousand and three far too busy gibbering about coronation street and east enders to even notice a Tiger tank sitting across the road pumping out shells at full blast.
And the outright lies from the other three witnesses (they all knew and remembered fine well what they said to PC Blogs in their original statements) at the search party (when they later changed those original statements in court) to give the jury the impression that it was Luke who (rather than the dog pulling to the V in the wall using it’s scent) found Jodi’s body, and an outright refusal by the police to accept that Luke’s home alibi was true.
As I said, Mr Turnbull was very lucky whilst carrying out his dreadful work, he with pride took his state paid thirty pieces of silver.
Fine well knowing that what he did to that young lad was so wrong, he must have given himself a pat on the back saying to himself, oh that was a close one, if just one member, just one of the fifteen-member jury had started gibbering in the deliberation room about a lack of blood splatter. I would have lost.
You see, these people like Findlay, and Turnbull especially, that’s how they (in my humble opinion) actually think, they don’t live in our (at least in my) world, it’s not about innocence or guilt or truth and justice with these guys, it’s not really so much about money, although that’s very important to them, they have plenty of money, they only work for it because (they don’t even look at their court activities as work, more like a hobby) they are selfish, self-serving and greedy, it wouldn’t matter how much they had in their bank accounts, they would still want more and more and more, if their bank accounts were bursting at the seams, they would still approach the public teat and ask…please sir can I have some more?.
Try phoning up Findlay and say to him…Donald old chap, It’s terrible, the horror of it all, I’ve just been arrested for murder, I’m innocent and I can prove it, can you help me?, (you could even chip in, with a vain desperate attempt to get some sympathy, It’s awful in here, the guards are sadists, people are whining and screaming at all hours, getting tortured morning noon and night, it’s crawling with rats, mice, cockroaches the lot, and there’s the last couple of inmates blood and excrement running up and down the walls) unfortunately Donald there’s this little matter of…I don’t have any money, there’s no hope of getting any, and legal aid wont help me, are you up for a bit of pro bono?.
Do you know what you would hear?, yes you guessed it, something like, well that’s a jolly bad show old chap….then brrrrrrrrr is the last thing you’ll hear as his phone drops down.
Yes, money is very important to them, but unbelievably there’s actually something else that even tops money. Something else that gives them a much-needed wonderful boost to their miserable lives.
Yes dear reader, as I indicated money is important to them, but doesn’t turn them on anymore, maybe it did at one time in the past, but not anymore, money is just something to possess, (like a bursting to the brim with cash ATM receipt to stare at) or a couple of thousand pounds, along with plastic cards in their wallet to look at, to touch and feel, when bored out of their skulls after reading the latest mind bending law books.
Rather, and I’m metaphorically speaking, it’s that exhilarating thrill of the hunt, the scream of view-halloo, the running down and dispatching of their prey (the trading places movie, ruining someone’s life for a paltry Dollar is another similar example), and the pleasure in ripping their victim/s apart, it’s raising champagne glasses whilst exclaiming… I give you today’s fox sir.
Good god sir….that was a damned good show old boy, did you see that?, the scoundrel nearly escaped your clutches.
NO, what really turns them on into really getting their kicks, is WINNING the game, winning at all cost, any cost, By god I’m going to get that fellow if it’s the last thing I do, that’s all that matters to them, even if people’s lives, reputation and livelihood get left to fall apart and are ruined whilst unwillingly and with no fault of their own, forced to compete in this cruel heartless (so called justice) game.
Getting one up on the other guy is the ultimate aim, that’s how they get their kicks, their daily fix.
It looks like to me that Edinburgh (inter alia courts in Scotland) high court is where truth and justice is dispensed……WITH.
For goodness sake this is not north Korea or China, or the hell that’s Putins Russia.
At least it’s not supposed to be.
After Luke is found innocent or guilty by an independent review board. And I’m confident the independent experts will one way or another see through this farce.
Not a re-trial, as far as I’m concerned it will just be another shambles like the last one.
If they do find him guilty after scrutinising all the available evidence of both sides, then so be it, he should (in my opinion anyone who commits a crime like that) never be released.
If they find him not guilty, then he should be released on the spot, and I mean on the spot, not next flippen year or even month.
In the interest of truth and justice and to settle this matter one way or another, once and for all, and for us all to have confidence in the justice system….so what’s the problem?.
We need to start all over again with a new justice system, no matter the cost, no matter the sacrifice, no matter what it takes, one Billion, two Billion, three Billion, as many Billions as it takes, we need to get real and demand that we make truth and justice be our top priority.
We could make a start by creating an internal affairs team, honest men and woman, akin to the American unbribable untouchables (do they exist ?, you may ask, I’m sure they do I’d reply) investigating and keeping an eye on the whole Scottish judiciary and law enforcement system, no shady deals, no hiding or disposing of evidence, no stitching people up, no backhanders, no refusing legal aid to the defence teams on petty technicalities and loopholes, no holding back evidence from the defence teams, no whitewashing when found out, no leaking dross to the press, just plain old simple making sure that justice is done and SEEN to be done.
Sandra Lean (and don’t forget Scott Forbes) must be losing the will to live at this moment in her life, she really must be in despair and just about ready to give up, I know I would if I were her.
I see a tenacity and integrity there that most people don’t have or ever will have. I personally, certainly don’t have that grit.
It’s amazing the amount of people out there who take the view, well it’s not me who’s in prison for the rest of my life, I don’t know who Luke Mitchell is or was or care who he is or was, he’s been found guilty of murder by our wonderful infallible justice system, who are honest and truthful and never make mistakes, why should I care, I’m all right Jack.
I haven’t noticed anyone on these forums out there thanking Sandra Lean (and Scott) for all the self-sacrifice, tremendous effort and good work she’s put in over the years, maybe someone has thanked her/him sometime, somewhere, if they have then I apologise.
I’m sorry but I’ve just never seen it. I’m not blaming anybody, we, and I’m guilty too, tend not to notice or fully appreciate people like that until they’re gone.
Imagine…getting nothing but never-ending hassle and problems (Someone spat on her, who in the hell spits on people?, what kind of pond life would do that?) threatened with violence, for just trying to do what’s right, for just trying to get to the truth one way or another, and just trying to make this Country a better place, after all getting to the truth for the sake of truth and justice; it’s not just for her benefit, it’s for the benefit of us all… So then, I will thank her.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one day, Sandra gets a phone call from the top levels of police Scotland (maybe even from the Right Honourable fabulous Alan Turnbull himself) saying (and I’m paraphrasing with apologies to Alex Jones)
See how dumb they are?, they’re not interested in their rights, why are you bothering with these people Sandra?, why don’t you come and join us instead, the cattle don’t want your help.
I personally wouldn’t reproach or blame her if she went.
It’s not the various laws and the justice system itself I detest, rather, it’s the way it’s run, it’s some of the people who are running it, it’s the I don’t want to rock the boat and ask awkward questions brigade, Donald might get angry and bang the table whilst shouting It’s my way or the highway, so I’ll keep my mouth shut, and know my place and just let them do as they please, It’s the I don’t want to get involved in demanding the courts give us a right to a fair trial, so I’ll let them carry on with the circus.
There’s decent police officers, and there’s decent lawyers, I know because I’ve met them, but their hands are tied, bigwigs further up in the judicial food chain bang on tables, foam at the mouth, threaten, (do you realise you could lose your pension for talking like that?, do you want to end up in the dole queue?), shout and scream at them for having the temerity, the audacity, to mention our people have rights and those rights must be respected, given the evil eye for merely suggesting is it possible sir you may be wrong?.
Why did the police officer wait until he retired before he spoke about (and even then, in private) the guy who confessed to killing Jodi?.
Why did Prof Jamieson wait until he retired to say ”since the formation of the Scottish Police Authority and single force in 2013, defence briefs have been banned from seeing the cops’ secret forensics files.
It means scientific police evidence — including DNA samples — must be accepted as fact without scrutiny.
Scotland is the only country in the civilised world where lawyers are denied access to this key evidence”.
Above is an excerpt from the sun newspaper.
At the moment, until justice is really done and seen to be done, every high court and police station in Scotland should have a massive placard above it saying.
ABANDON LORD HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE.
just watched roddy and scot forbes video it fantastic, luke is definatly innocent
and a read that comment mr yull, and i agree on every word, it seems no one is interested in wot you have to say. your right aboot am awright jack as well no one cares eh ? its so true
beth ryan or strangenostalga ill be oan here soon tellin u how your all wrong, every u-tube video shes on rantin aboot 20 pieces of evadence on how luke is guilty is guilty as sin.
jeeez there’s no hope is there ?
Yes I know, Beth Ryan and her followers (there’s a few of them, like strangedemon, ourwilliam, crowdkontrol and more) they’re on every single Blog, Forum or You-tube video on the internet trying to persuade us all that Luke Mitchell is guilty.
I’m just surprised this Luke hunting praying mantis isn’t on here yet.
Plying her trade, because she doesn’t seem to have anything better to do or think about, judging by the amount of time she’s spent scouring through the internet over the years. Going (as far as I can see) all the way back to at least two thousand and ten, and probably even longer.
Well she and her stupid friends might have all those Luke is guilty crowd fooled, but they’re not fooling me.
I strongly suspect they are all from the one family clan, interbreeding with each other like there’s no tomorrow.
Funny though, they all come on to those forums and videos to comment without fail at the exact same time.
Incredible isn’t it?, at the exact – almost to the minute – same time.
My favourite by Beth (and it makes me laugh) is her never ending copy and paste…Luke Mitchell is guilty, there’s twenty pieces of evidence that proves it, and that’s a lot for one defendant….and so on and so on.
And guess what?, she has no real evidence, at least that I’ve ever seen, her evidence is dross stuff like Luke possessed a viscous two inch penknife, he looks like the type of guy that would do that, a man down at the local chip shop swore it was him, he wrote 666 on a jotter, he likes Marilyn Manson, he once read a book about Hitler, and another book about Satan, his bedroom was chocked full to the gunwales with books about crime scenes, and how to be a master criminal and hoodwink the police by destroying all of your own blood and DNA evidence whilst keeping the other fellows DNA on there at the scene of the crime.
Then we get…Scott and Sandra are liars, and as for that stuff they wrote in their books?, well they made all that up, just to become millionaires.
If I ever get charged with some dreadful crime and I’m innocent, I hope to god they don’t stick people like Beth in the jury, because there’s absolutely no hope in people like that seeing any kind of sense.
I’d be as well just excepting my lot by pleading guilty and throwing myself at the mercy of the court in the hope of getting a reduced sentence.
I wonder if Beth would like to reveal her real name on here, or somewhere else on the internet, (and we can all take note) because I strongly suspect she has criminal knowledge from the thirtieth of June two thousand and three onward, and would be a person of interest in Luke’s future independent inquiry review.