Talk:Murder of Jodi Jones

Primary and secondary sources

While the court transcripts are interesting, we can only use them to source the article to the degree to which they have been reported in secondary sources like newspapers and books. See WP:PRIMARY. --John (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If an edit summary says 'per talk' one would assume the specific edit has been discussed. Making a very general point about primary sources on talk does not count as discussion in my book. Anyway, I don't think your characterisation of the source as primary in the context is correct. IN APPEAL BY LUKE MUIR MITCHELL against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE, SUMMARY is not a court transcript of the trial or appeal. It is given as a source for established facts about the background to the case. Only in respect of the reasoning of the panel of judges for their decision about the appeal could it be called a primary source.

The text about his mother's intervention getting Mitchell from a non-denominational primary school into a Catholic secondary school has been removed. Mitchell's defenders say it is relevant to accusations Mitchell openly espoused Satanism that he was a non-Catholic attending a Catholic secondary school. I think it should be mentioned.Overagainst (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We should summarise the best secondary sources, and not be influenced by "Mitchell's defenders" or report material that is only available from primary sources. --John (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The above link to an official summary that is provided to aid in understanding the appeal panel's decision. The source gives an overview of the background aspects of the case by appeal judges, who are drawing on investigative reports by others. The were not participants in the events. In my opinion that makes it a secondary source. It does not contain any witness transcript or record of what was said in the trial. Please explain why you think the source is a primary source, and less reliable that press reports of court testimony. I am sorry, but the above linked document is a secondary source for what it was referenced for. In my opinion it's quite in order to use the judges' summary as a reference for the background to the case. That includes problematic behaviour in his non-denominational primary school which resulted in Mitchell being at a Catholic secondary school.Overagainst (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jodi Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908093813/http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJAC54.html to http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010HCJAC54.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dog tracking

Where is there any proof that Mitchell's pet dog was trained to track? 82.41.41.200 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Article quality

Considering how many sources there are for this article, it isn't in great shape. Specifically, we should certainly mention the many efforts, led by his mother, to have Mitchell's sentence overturned. But, per WP:DUE, this should not be the main emphasis of the article. As far as the law goes, he is a convicted murderer. John (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Kieronoldham for the help in improving it. As always, the best sources summarised fairly will give us the best article. John (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Was going to get around to the internal ref. formats, John. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Trolls

This is being written by trolls and it should be removed. If only one side is allowed to be heard then the site is complicit in spreading false information. The brother did not say Luke wasn’t in the house he said he couldn’t remember after saying he was at home and being pestered to change it. so this is false. Wiki needs to correct all the information in this or shut it down completely 86.9.82.59 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)