Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

[Parky41]

There are so many lies being told in this case so thought it was worth pointing out about the family liaison officer.

“She was appointed on 1 July 2003 and contacted the Mitchell family that evening.”
(157) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

So the Mitchell’s or Luke had the whole of the following day to dispose of incriminating evidence.

Had most of the night of the 30th, any other time of the Liaison officer not being present (not there 24/7) Media used as another reason prohibiting any disposal.

Luke being out of the house, witnessed yet lied regarding length of time. Shane out and about that evening also.

[Nicholas]

Had most of the night of the 30th, any other time of the Liaison officer not being present (not there 24/7) Media used as another reason prohibiting any disposal.

Luke being out of the house, witnessed yet lied regarding length of time. Shane out and about that evening also.

Sandra Lean states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452619.html#msg452619
The "struck by a branch" suggestion came from SIO Dobbie - there was nothing to support it (for example, no impact staining on any of the branches, only drips)

Maybe because it had been taken away from the crime scene and burnt

[Nicholas]

“Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.” [54]
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[Nicholas]

The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that [Name removed]'s statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that ([Name removed]'s statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John [Name removed] said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]

There’s no doubting it’s intentional Parky
https://exploringyourmind.com/7-ways-identify-master-manipulator/

[Nicholas]

Fake news, also known as junk news or pseudo-news, is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media or online social media.

Fake news is written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[5][6][7] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership. Similarly, clickbait stories and headlines earn advertising revenue from this activity.[5]

Fake news is a neologism[1][19][21] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media[1] or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate [/i]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

[Nicholas]

The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that [Name removed]'s statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that ([Name removed]'s statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John [Name removed] said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]

Misinformation or disinformation?

[Nicholas]

The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that [Name removed]'s statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that ([Name removed]'s statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John [Name removed] said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]

So much for transparency

[Nicholas]

Podcast with James English and Sandra Lean and discussion at beginning re lie detectors

“Neither of them knew what the questions were gonna be they didn’t know until the day the guy turned up to do the test and they were done I think two months apart so there wasn’t even an opportunity for them to discuss potential answers because they had no idea what was gonna be asked

[Nicholas]

Is nugnug claiming to have heard the interviews? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452828.html#msg452828

untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know  maybe not

it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.


Luke Mitchell was interviewed several times by police but their behaviour was not found to be “overbearing” on every occasion he was questioned.



[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner.
However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.

The second passage relied upon was at page 21 of the transcript of the interview and related to the knife owned by the appellant. A photograph of the knife had been shown to him. That photograph had not featured elsewhere in evidence, but the knife itself had done so, for example, at page 106 of the transcript of the earlier part of the interview, Crown production 42, which had not been objected to.

A further passage relied upon was to be found at page 35 of the transcript in which the appellant had explained why he did not telephone the now deceased to see where she was when she failed to meet him. It was submitted that this passage had not made any new contribution to the evidence, since the appellant had said to David High that that was the case.

Reference was also made to the transcript, Crown production 40, pages 70, 120 and 143. The fourth passage relied upon by the Advocate depute was at pages 36 to 37 of the transcript, where the appellant was asked why he had not telephoned Jodi Jones when he had got home after playing with his friends. There had been nothing in that passage which had not appeared elsewhere in the evidence.

The fifth passage relied upon appeared at pages 39 to 40 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant had been asked about what he had said to David High when he met him and why he appeared to know that David High had said to the police that the appellant had said to him that Jodi was not coming out on the night in question. The fact was that the appellant had not agreed that he had said this at all. In any event, there had been no overbearing behaviour on the part of the interviewers at that point.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[Nicholas]

“[144] Further, the appellant had said to Judith Jones that he had thought that Jodi had been "grounded".

[Nicholas]

@ approx 11.28 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI

Corrine Mitchell says;

“At one point when Luke asked for a certain witness to be called his QC banged his fist on the table and said ‘it’s my way or no way laddie.”

“Asked by the popular podcast host about the trial, and why her son seemingly refused to give his side of the story, Corrine tells James: “Findlay wouldn’t allow him.”

When James ask why, she responds: “I’ve no idea, he just wouldn’t allow him. Luke wanted to take the stand, we wanted him to take the stand, but when you’re 15 you don’t argue with Findlay.”

“If you say something that Findlay doesn’t like he’d slam his fist down on the desk and say, ‘It’s my way or no way, laddy!’”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4298552/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-trial-lawyer-mum-corrine-james-english-anything-goes-innocent/

[Nicholas]

Findlay says: “I do worry. I worry about what is happening during a trial. I tend to take work home with me, and after a trial if the client has been convicted then I worry that perhaps I could or should have done better.

"But during a trial you do see some pretty horrendous things. Man’s inhumanity to man is pretty endless and you just have to harden yourself and look as it as best as you can as a piece of evidence.

“But some things I have looked at can be quite distressing, involving dead children and so on.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/

[Parky41]

Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

Area at present- [Name removed], brother , Joey ?? whatever the handle. Never been questioned, under the radar and so forth as is being maintained at present.  Will post sources from SL going back to 2012. One in ref to [Name removed] stateing they had sat around the table eating dinner, another of his medical conditions ( extracting from them but not divulging what is in them) Q re misinformation, why are these medical notes within sight of SL and the information from [Name removed] himself regarding eating dinner togeter round table? Quite the opposite of not being questioned or followed up IF there are medical notes in the first instance and 'his' statement of sitting eating dinner together.  So , the obvious is, the police , prosecution/defence did do interviews and background work on him- Now the cry is of 'nothing' . A somewhat large piece of selective misinformation for purpose of?


Will post source later.

[Nicholas]

Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

Area at present- [Name removed], brother , Joey ?? whatever the handle. Never been questioned, under the radar and so forth as is being maintained at present.  Will post sources from SL going back to 2012. One in ref to [Name removed] stateing they had sat around the table eating dinner, another of his medical conditions ( extracting from them but not divulging what is in them) Q re misinformation, why are these medical notes within sight of SL and the information from [Name removed] himself regarding eating dinner togeter round table? Quite the opposite of not being questioned or followed up IF there are medical notes in the first instance and 'his' statement of sitting eating dinner together.  So , the obvious is, the police , prosecution/defence did do interviews and background work on him- Now the cry is of 'nothing' . A somewhat large piece of selective misinformation for purpose of?


Will post source later.

Did SL’s spiel re her interests and hobbies remind you of the Carol Felstead case?

[Parky41]

G30

Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis

[/b].


One of the main areas around doubt being cast on the LM case is the presence of DNA from traced sources. Of which there are two full profiles- one being SK and the other condom man. There has been, time and time again misinformation pushed out on this. So much so that still, 16yrs later it is used as one of the main points to draw in support. For those who believe in the wrongful conviction of LM. SK, is a very unfortunate guy whom by a simple twist of fate, was drawn into being a suspect in one of this countries most heinous crimes. Not enough for this guy to have known the victim, to have been there when she was found, no doubt traumatized, the main supporters of LM feel it is right that he is brought to the fore time and time again. Books, podcasts and so forth. 

The continuous attempts to cast doubt on the search parties statements revolve around this. For those not aware of many aspects of this case. The search party went to the Path connecting the areas to meet LM as he was already at the foot of it.  The mismatch of telephone conversations centre on what LM has stated (proven to have lied over and over) and not the truth-heard at trial.

SK- I have provided a link below in respect of, the testing of sperm residue through washing cycles. Evidence was shown in court to this effect. The victims clothing smelt strongly of washing powder,( LM's hair of shampoo although dirty from his escapades in the woods later that evening) Evidence also produced on the transfer of sperm between clothing. The claims that it could not have transferred via the rain and so forth on that night. How do these people know that-by their own admission they do not know at what points the clothing may have been together, neither do they know if it transferred via a washing cycle. One scenario given of white clothes washed with dark, that it just doesn't happen? I'm guilty of that. Are others? when washing items at a low temp. Was the bra within the t-shirt and not noticed? No one knows. BUT the innocent reason for the DNA being there is and IMO was just that

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508