Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[corinne mitchell]

Another thing I would like to clarify, another thing that is being claimed on WKJJ, that Luke was a dealer at the age of 14!......As I have already pointed out, but again they choose to ignore.....Luke was not a dealer, he would get his friends cannabis when he was getting his, ( like you or I would get a friend a message whilst in  Tescos). That is not dealing.
It was established, in court, that John Ferris was the dealer and he admitted that Luke was still due him some money! Ferris's words, not mine!Funnily enough, although admitting he was the dealer....no charge was brought against him.

It has also been claimed, somewhere, that Luke got Jodi started on cannabis, again, this is false information. Jodi was taking cannabis BEFORE going out with Luke. This is not a slate on Jodi, just a fact. And FACTS are the important issue here no matter who likes it or not. Facts are facts there is no changing them to suit.

[corinne mitchell]

Oh dear Lord, with the amount of corrections needed with WKJJ. this thread is going to overtake the main one!!!

Firstly, I am NOT racist as claimed over there. My own mother is Irish, one of my employees is Irish. The term " Leprechaun" is a joke.....nothing sinister, nothing racist.....a joke! My uncle ( on my fathers side took French nationality when the family moved from Egypt).and he lived in Paris.....we constantly joked about the term "frog"......it is called.........humour!

On a serious note.......and this is a real doosey.......Lamberton, has now changed the time that Luke left the house!!! He is now claiming Luke left the house to meet Jodi at 5.15. Another outragious lie. Luke left at 5.40, making his claim that Luke was "seen" at the gate at 5.42.......downright physically impossible. He really is tripping himself up here. Why tell readers even more outragious lies??? Where has it EVER been claimed that Luke left the house at 5.15??? He is now just making it up as he goes along and seems to have forgotten that for months he, himself, put up a time line that Luke left the house at 5.30!

[Sandra Lean]

From John at wkjj:

It does however not mean that he is guilty of murder since I have shown that he could have been there after he left home at 5.15pm

It seems John has just made this up - there has never been any suggestion, anywhere, that Luke left home at 5.15pm.

We could debate it, of course - after all, Luke's only proof that he was at home at 5.15pm was his mother. John clearly thinks this is a clever move on his part - when we rely on Corinne's testimony, John can say she is lying, and carry on claiming Luke left home at 5.15pm.

But where does that take us, exactly? It can't be proven one way or another. John seems to think that this time of leaving makes the Fleming and Walsh "sighting" more credible, conveniently ignoring the huge flaws in their "evidence."

[Sandra Lean]

sorry, Corinne, cross posted!

I was reminded about the Shane debate yesterday. We currently have a family friend staying with us. When I came in last night, my daughter came downstairs, and we were chatting in the kitchen.

I asked her if the friend was in or out - she replied, "I've no idea."

Now, the two bedrooms are right next to each other - literally "through the wall" and our walls are paper thin. She had been home for more than an hour, and had been in her bedroom for most of that time. About 20 minutes later, the friend emerged from the other bedroom, having been there the whole time.

[corinne mitchell]

Another claim made over on WKJJ which is not true.

They are claiming I had knowledge that Luke was buying cannabis for his friends....................|NOT TRUE. I was only made aware of this AFTER the event as I was made aware of several other things,AFTER THE EVENT like my 14 year old was having sex which I was totally unaware of!!!!!I was informed by the police.on the evening of the murder.whenwe were at the police station

As like most parents I was unaware of certain things my teenage son was doing. This is common, very common. I was and am, the same as any normal parent. There are right now, thousands of parents, good parents out there blissfully unaware that their teenage son/daughter is taking cannabis and having sex.

I know they are trying to make me look like the bad parent, but there are thousands of us all the same. Judy Jones included.....Jodi was taking cannabis and was having sex. Does that make Judy also a bad mother.....They don't seem to be saying that. There is no difference between us. We are both mothers whose teenager was taking cannabis and having sex.How can you make one bad and not the other?

[corinne mitchell]

Oh this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. They are all over the place over on WKJJ.............you couldn't make it up!!!!

"Brysons description was............."very dark hair..........."

Detective Inspector Tom Martin states............."Jodi was slim, 5ft 7ins tall with shoulder length LIGHT brown hair

Now remember, Jodi was wearing a very distinctive black hoody with a deaftones logo on the back, black baggy trousers.
Yet the are giving credance to Bryson who claimed "Jodi " was wearing a navy hoody with BLUE jeans and her description of her hair differs with Martins description.

And the best of all......not only has Lamberton,just to~day introduced a new timing of Luke leaving the house at 5.15.....he has now got Jodi.................wearing/carrying............a COAT..........??.(it was a beautiful summer evening!!!)no mention of a coat, anywhere, anytime.

[corinne mitchell]

So, WKJJ in a nutshell,

they describe the gate as "in the middle of nowhere".....when it is nothing of the sort

they claim I describe the gate as  "being opposite the Beeches".......I never have

John Lamberton claims he has driven ands walked the area where the gate is........he clearly has not

he brings in a new time of Luke leaving the house,......when for months he has claimed a different time

he claims Jodi was wearing/carrying a coat.......no mention anywhere, that Jodi had a coat with her

they claim I KNEW Luke was drug dealing......Luke was not drug dealing and I didn't know he was taking cannabis

He started off picking holes in Fleming and Walsh's "evidence"........now they are the model citizens who can say no wrong.......................
...........and they want to be credible...............|Hmmmmmmm!

[corinne mitchell]

Over on WKJJ, "John" is STILL making it up as he goes along"

Quote from "John"
"Corinne was there in the car park as they drove him away........"WRONG

Corinne, was at home. Corinne wasn't in any car park.......where does he get this drivel from??

I phoned Luke to ask why he was taking so long. A policeman came on the phone and told me to go to Dalkeith police station.He refused to tell me why. When halfway there, a car stopped and a man got out. He told me he was the policeman who I had spoken to on the phone. I asked where Luke and Mia were and was told they were in the car. I asked what was happening and I heards the words "Jodi" and "dead". I didn't have time to ask them to explain as he got back in the car and drove off.
I was left in the street to carry on on foot and when I got to the police station Luke was in a room with 2 officers. He had been stripped and was wearing a white forensics suit. I asked why this was so, he was only 14 years old. They knew I was on my way, he should never have been stripped without a adult been present and why the hell had he been stripped anyway.I was told it was "routine". We were then taken up to the canteen where Luke had to give a statement at one end and I had to give a statement at the other end. We were then taken downstairs where Luke was examined for any cuts etc, his DNA taken, etc etc.

So "John", you have it WRONG........again.......if you are going to put out facts.....make sure you have your "facts" correct.I repeat, WKJJ has absolutely no credibility whatsoever as you keep getting things totally wrong.

 

[corinne mitchell]

Yet another correction!!!!!

WKJJ have now said I asked the police on the night if "Luke was under arrest".....again......WRONG, I did not.
It wasn't until after weeks of our home being searched 3 times, items taken, that I said to  Michele Lindsay the liaison officer......." Is Luke a suspect"..............they really do have to stop making things up.
And, where, have I at any time, mentioned Luke deleting any texts.......Nowhere!
When the police took Lukes phone and spoke to me at 12.03............he never got it back!!!!

I have also noticed they do a lot of......in my opinion.....I imagine.......I think.........this is not about any of these things......it is about FACTS.....which they appear to know very little about.

[corinne mitchell]

Correction.................again

Devilsadvocate on WKJJ posted........"Luke Mitchell deleted the messages at 12.25am...."

Physically impossible! The police took Lukes phone from him at 12.03.

[Sandra Lean]

From Admin at WKJJ:

"Came across this by Sandra Lean...

Corinne was trying to phone Luke, as she was getting worried, and the cop who escorted Luke back up to the car park took the phone from Luke, spoke to Corinne, then switched the phone off and kept it! 
 

Why would the police do that if all he was supposed to be doing was giving a statement on the finding of Jodi?

I just cannot see it happening like that"

Well, perhaps admin at wkjj would like to ask the nice officer why he wrote this in his notes, then? At the stage the officer took the phone from Luke, he hadn't even started giving a statement yet!

Read more: http://jodijones.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz18aARbKbt

[Sandra Lean]

The claim now is that they took Luke's clothes, examined him and took samples that night because it was just "procedure" and Luke was, at that stage, just a witness.

Right! So what about the other three members of the search party? No procedure there as far as anyone can see. And how many witnesses do they think are stripped naked, photographed, examined by police doctors, have their nails scraped and mouths swabbed for DNA samples?

I believe they're using the "just procedure" phrase to provoke Corinne, as she has often said that everything they questioned at the time was answered with "It's just procedure."

[Sandra Lean]

Just for the record (this is getting tiresome) I have never posted on the wkjj site under any name.

[Sandra Lean]

on wkjj, a poster calling him/herself "real life" posts (following an incoherent rant):

"has any1 ever thought why lukey boy phoned the jones house?? and not the mums mobile which he had been texted with? as he would know 2 get a hold of jodi on mobile as they had texted each other WHY NOT PHONE MOBILE??? WHY PHONE HOUSE.........................................................................."

Because if Jodi had left, she wouldn't have her mother's mobile phone, would she?

[Colin Bowman]

on wkjj, a poster calling him/herself "real life" posts (following an incoherent rant):

"has any1 ever thought why lukey boy phoned the jones house?? and not the mums mobile which he had been texted with? as he would know 2 get a hold of jodi on mobile as they had texted each other WHY NOT PHONE MOBILE??? WHY PHONE HOUSE.........................................................................."

Because if Jodi had left, she wouldn't have her mother's mobile phone, would she?

Presuming LM and Jodi Jones shared the understanding that her mobile was broken. Would LM have had JuJ's mobile number on his mobile's contact list? If he was keying in the number, he might not have known JuJ's mobile number, but he would almost certainly have had the Jone's house landline number at his finger-tips. Add in an element of fluster and annoyance, and might not that also have seen a person fall back on contacting through the most familiar route, rather than recovering a number from a text. Maybe LM had Jodi's mobile and home numbers on speed-dial, and he knew that Jodi's mobile was down.
Possible reasons for phoning the landline could be multiplied fairly indefinitely.

Can we presume that Jodi and LM would have had some kind of mutual understanding that she was texting using her mum's mobile?
Can we presume that this understanding would have extended to a secondary understanding that Jodi would not have been likely to have taken her mum's mobile phone with her when and as she left the house?
What can we presume about LM's understanding of what was holding Jodi back? Can we presume that Luke would have presumed that Jodi had left the house and was otherwise delayed? Can we presume that Luke would have alternately presumed that Jodi has not yet left home? Would he not have known one way or another?
If LM presumed Jodi had left home, and without a mobile because not likely to have taken mum's; then would he have been looking to whether others at Jodi's home would have any ideas about what might be delaying her? In that case, just why would he phone JuJ's mobile rather than the home landline? If he was trying to contact a Jodi he was imagining was still at home, then her not having texted him an explanation of delay would speak to her not having access to the mobile she had earlier used to text LM; so again seeking contact across the landline is a more robust possibility.
LM doesn't have to consider this too consciously, we can all go through a flurry of barely conscious reflection when making any decision.

Where does LM say he was when he phoned Jodi's home landline?

Real life really shows how a suspicion-generator can go to work. You set up a duality, LM attempting contact through a landline rather than a mobile, and you then suggest that the choice LM makes is suspicious. Real-life does not then go on to work through just why LM's choice should be considered suspicious. He doesn't make any explicated suspicion relevant by working it into a circumstantial implication of LM. It is simply enough, for purposes of obstructing and confusing a reconsideration of the circumstantial case against LM, to suggest and claim suspicion attaching to any and all actions by LM.
Given a grouping willing and determined to consider LM rightfully convicted, there is always someone willing to buy into even unexplicated and irrelevant suspicion. That's the vein of things that WKJJ seems to be able to exploit.

colin