Print

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

[HaveHope]

i think of reason why he would suggest they split up there if of course he did.

well, its in his statement, his words, no one elses, and if he didnt say it, (as in suggest it to AW and JaJ that they split up at the junction), they will know if he is a liar or was telling the truth, about this point in particular.

[outsider]

That suggestion claim by SK makes no mention of meeting up with Luke or how it should have been achieved by his suggestion.
This could allow for the trio being at the path junction prior to ever being informed about meeting Luke.
That in itself rips holes in their already known to be false tales of how they got to the path junction.
It adds weight to that trio being prepared and equipped to perform a false search and able to set off at an incredibly early time and points ever more strongly at the use of a car from AW's house or that the trio were actually at Judy's house at the time of Luke's response to the text from Judy.

And from such a line it suggests the family were already aware of something having happened to Jodi and also suggests they did not want the police to know the truth. ie they were involved in a cover up.

[corinne mitchell]

Hi DanielM. Welcome to the forum and thank you for taking the time to lend your support.

HH. Re DD's twaddle about the footprint leading to our house......to be honest I laughed at that remark as it was so rediculous.......They had a footprint near a body, pointing towards our house...em ....what about the other 200 odd houses around us?...then he just kept digging a bigger hole for himself as he then went on to say they found an identical one leading into our back garden......wee problem here DD.........nothing can lead to our back garden......it is surrounded by other back gardens the only way into our back garden is through the house!!!!! Silly DD!!

Admin. Yes I was watching the news last night and thought I had heard wrong!! What in the name of sanity does Jodis murder have to do with a report on football. It also made Nimmo Smith look like this is only the second thing he's done!!! For the life of me I can't think of any reason why Jodi should have been mentioned last night at all!! I used to rely on STV news for giving me news.......Now I am not sure at all.....I might just switch to the BBC from now on! .......I wonder, if at any point, the newsreader asked her boss.........do I have to add that......it's got nothing to do with what I am reporting on

[corinne mitchell]

I was watching the frontline documentary yesterday and was left reeling at the way the search trio all changed their stories by the time it got to trial and equally reeling that Findlay never persued it. You can't tell me that when giving the police statements they ALL mentioned Mia dragging Luke to the wall, giving the same account as him then they trot off to court and ALL 3 changed it to Luke went straight to the "V"!!!!

I was vilified by the Press after the trial with huge headlines of Mitchells mother lied on the stand......prompting members of the public to shout abuse at me, calling me a f****** liar,.......a lying b**** and that I should be locked up with my lying son........... I was telling the truth, Luke would have told the truth had Findlay allowed him to take the stand, and his statements to the police.....were the truth.......however, sadly, Jodis family, for whatever reason felt they had to lie and certainly did so.

For the tabloids, and members of the public screaming I lied.........why the hell then, wasn't I re~arrested and put on trial for purjury??

[Flora]

why the hell then, wasn't I re~arrested and put on trial for purjury??

You'd have been a lot harder to bully than a 14/15 year old boy.  You'd have stood up for yourself and been a credible witness. If you had been found not guilty, then it would have weakened Luke's conviction.. They had nothing to gain from putting you on the stand, but a lot to lose.

[nugnug]

probebly becouse they knew you were telling the truth and this would be proved in court.

[admin]

Absolutely, Flora's right. Anything which confirms, strengthens or supports Corinne's account would have a devastating affect on the case against Luke. Imagine what would have happened if they'd gone ahead and taken Corinne to court before Luke's trial and lost, the obvious conclusion being that she was telling the truth. The case against Luke would have by necessity ended there with it, because you wouldn't get away with bringing a purely circumstantial case against a young boy for murder when you'd just lost a case against someone suggesting they'd been attempting to defeat the ends of justice by creating a false alibi for him. That is obvious.

Likewise with a perjury charge after the trial, imagine the effect of losing that one. It's obvious.

[HaveHope]

Corrine, since 2003 your version of events hasn't altered, and you have stuck to your guns through the trial and all these years later.  No way was the charge against you going to stick, of course it was going to get dropped, and they knew that only too well, but it was effective for a time, and that was there purpose.  They will threaten, manipulate, do anything they can to get what they want. 

As for a perjury charge, apparently it could still happen 

I can hear you now, BRING IT ON 

[nugnug]

then it could be proved who really committed perjury.

[admin]

I suppose technically they could try, but that would mean trying to prove that very specific things were lied about and frankly I don't think they're stupid enough to try, arrogant enough possibly, but not stupid enough.

[nugnug]

and theirs also concrete proof that certain other people did lie witch would also probably come out in court.

[HaveHope]

I was watching the frontline documentary yesterday and was left reeling at the way the search trio all changed their stories by the time it got to trial and equally reeling that Findlay never persued it. You can't tell me that when giving the police statements they ALL mentioned Mia dragging Luke to the wall, giving the same account as him then they trot off to court and ALL 3 changed it to Luke went straight to the "V"!!!!

I was vilified by the Press after the trial with huge headlines of Mitchells mother lied on the stand......prompting members of the public to shout abuse at me, calling me a f****** liar,.......a lying b**** and that I should be locked up with my lying son........... I was telling the truth, Luke would have told the truth had Findlay allowed him to take the stand, and his statements to the police.....were the truth.......however, sadly, Jodis family, for whatever reason felt they had to lie and certainly did so.

For the tabloids, and members of the public screaming I lied.........why the hell then, wasn't I re~arrested and put on trial for purjury??

I was having another read at Lukes caseblog as Sandra is updating it, and I would urge readers to read about how the stories changed and take note of the major leaps from what was said in statements from the search party, to what they actually said in court, beggars belief.  Can be read here...
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/how-the-stories-changed/

JAJ's statement of July 1st 2003: “Luke’s dog was on a lead at all times, but it started jumping about at the wall.”

SK's statments...July 12th 2003: “The dog was sniffing about and then pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall”

SK July 12th 2003 “I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and standing on its hind legs. The dog is an alsation and quite big – when it stood up its head was level with the bottom of the V in the wall.

SK “I seem to remember Luke’s dog pulling him over to the wall “

July 30th 2003: “I was aware of the dog pulling Luke over to the wall and saw it standing on its hind legs with its front paws on the wall.”

July 30th 2003: At one point Luke’s dog went to a wall that had the top bricks missing. It was sniffing and jumping up

In AW's statement...Statement July 30th 2003  “As Luke went over the wall, I did not see what way he went. By then, with the dog pulling, I moved a bit closer and was in the middle of where the V was.”

AW 12th July 2003 (statement):  “Steven went over and I had the dog then. I never saw Steven or Luke moving or walking about on that side.”

AW Next part of statement: “he said something about there is something, his voice was upset, agitated”

AW Statement of July 13th: All I remember is Luke being over the wall. I don’t know what he’s done with the dog, but I got it to hold at some point. I didn’t see him climb over, but he wasn’t over long before he shouted there is something here. I don’t know if he walked down from the hole in the wall or could see something from there.”

[nugnug]

yes and those arnt the only stories that changed.

[HaveHope]

then it could be proved who really committed perjury.

That's for sure!  There has been many deliberate lies in this case from certain prosecution witnesses and I always wondered if that is why a prepared statement was read out after the trial ended that the family would not speak about it again.

[admin]

It was probably a good idea, personally I don't think anything they've said on here or anywhere else has helped.