"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Parky41]

Heather Brunt in response to the following http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg652168#msg652168

Heather
I couldn't even get past a few last news, it's littered with RUBBISH, #LukeMitchell told Scott c Forbes Sandra could have the files. No one's going to read your nonsense unless you start with some kind of truth

Oh dear - It's one of those "no shit" moments, really Heather? Are you sure this was the process now? They don't appear to know themselves, such a series of conflicting accounts. Shall we have a re-run? Scott c Forbes says he had the boxes of defence papers stacked in his room in 2006 (In his book), he was lying Heather. SL says she was granted POA and obtained access to those papers, that she too had them stacked up her spare room. This POA status around 2009/10. They do a 'live' together, and Scott c Forbes says 2007/08/09 something like that, and who cares when really? But he distinctly remembered Ms Lean carting them to him in her van to Stirling, they both "think" this may have been 2009? But and again, what does it matter they say who has access, or when, what or why? Think the term "slippery as f**k is the only thing to be applied, again Heather.

I agree Heather, rubbish indeed, what is there to believe UNLESS it is the truth, and how do we begin to start sifting through a mire of deceit to find any truth? With access from a compulsive liar, convicted killer, being granted to like minded people who have no qualms in the slightest around compulsively lying?

[faithlilly]

I agree Heather, rubbish indeed, what is there to believe UNLESS it is the truth, and how do we begin to start sifting through a mire of deceit to find any truth?

What indeed Parky when one’s understanding of a case if shaped by a combination of vacuousness and vitriol?

[KenMair]

What indeed Parky when one’s understanding of a case if shaped by a combination of vacuousness and vitriol?

Faith, what are your 3 key points that convince you of LM's innocence without blaming someone else?  I'll start from a guilty perspective.

1) Behaviour between 4-6pm and lack of credible alibi as to being where he said he was and not calling back J family after 6pm. His g/f was on way to meet him and never turned up. 5 possible sightings at RD Path exits.
2) Conduct from 11pm onwards and "finding the body" within minutes in a heavily wooded area that he claimed he was unfamiliar with.
3) Heavy cannabis use, ownership of knives and threats against various girls from age 12. Add in some Satanic interests at an early age as well. "I was the local weirdo" (LM). "He was just a normal laddie" (CM).
4) Sandra Lean/Scott Forbes

[faithlilly]

Faith, what are your 3 key points that convince you of LM's innocence without blaming someone else?  I'll start from a guilty perspective.

1) Behaviour between 4-6pm and lack of credible alibi as to being where he said he was and not calling back J family after 6pm. His g/f was on way to meet him and never turned up. 5 possible sightings at RD Path exits.
2) Conduct from 11pm onwards and "finding the body" within minutes in a heavily wooded area that he claimed he was unfamiliar with.
3) Heavy cannabis use, ownership of knives and threats against various girls from age 12. Add in some Satanic interests at an early age as well. "I was the local weirdo" (LM). "He was just a normal laddie" (CM).
4) Sandra Lean/Scott Forbes

Let me drill further into your reasons before giving you mine.

1)What behaviour? He cooked dinner, ate dinner and went out to wait for Jodi. No tangible evidence has ever been produced to disprove that. Luke was punished for his brother’s absentmindedness in his first statement. That is absolutely clear. Luke had called Jodi’s home and been told that she’d left. What else could her family have told him if he’d called back? Perhaps he believed that they’d be annoyed if he kept calling? How does his gf not turning up prove he murdered her? 5 possible sightings? AB’s original statements were far too late to be Jodi and Luke, the identification was carried out without adherence to proper procedure and she failed to identify him in court. It is obvious that the police, at first, failed to take the sighting seriously as on the 17th of July they called the Stocky Man sighting ‘ the first possible sighting of Jodi after leaving home’. This of course was at least two weeks after AB had given her statement about the youths at the Easthouses entrance to RDP. Can you explain this? F & W were shown to be the thoroughly dishonest pair they were. Even after they had allegedly identified Luke they didn’t inform the police even though they had reported the sighting in the first place.

2)Again you’ll have to explain what behaviour you mean? If AW hadn’t suggested that they go back down the path Luke had just came up Luke would never have been in the wood. Much is made of the swiftness with which he found the body but the logical place if Jodi wasn’t found unconscious on the path was to look in the woods. How long do you think it should have taken him to find it? All that planning, the laying of a false alibi, burning of clothes etc and he puts himself thoroughly in the frame by pretending to find the body. Is that really what you think? Of course it really comes down to whether you believe the testimony of three witnesses who changed their statements, according to the BBC who would have seen the statements, or Luke.

3) If heavy cannabis use was a contributory factor in this crime then half the teenagers in Dalkeith should have been in the frame, some of those closest to Jodi included. Did Luke have a knife or have an interest in knives? How many of those around about him owned similar knives? Who did the girls tell first about their traumatic encounters…the police or the tabloids? That tells you everything that you need to know. ‘Satanic interests’? What are they when they’re at home? Was the murder in any way satanic or ritualistic?

4) Sandra Lean/Scott Forbes? And? Care to extrapolate?

As to why I don’t believe Luke is guilty…I have just one reason. Without substantial changing of initial statements no one  could categorically put him on that path at the time Jodi is presumed to have been killed. Of course you could put the lack of coherent statements down to trauma or forgetfulness but then to be fair you’d have to apply the same understanding to Shane Mitchell.

[Nicholas]

Heather Cuthbertson
Sandra Lean grr. Does luke have any thoughts on who done this to jodie? Got to remember he would have been grieving for a girlfriend whilst getting all this thrown at him d

Sandra Lean
Heather Cuthbertson He has his thoughts but, like me, he wouldn't point the finger, because to do that to someone else would just be doing what was done to him. Also, it could create a situation where the real killer might never be brought to trial, because they would be able to claim they couldn't have a "fair" trial after being publicly accused - the irony!!!

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Adele Brownless We don't know for sure that the fingernail samples were destroyed - we're still waiting to find out. But we do know they were taken for destruction, so I'm not holding out a huge amount of hope there.

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
AAnne Adb, Cath Black Shane was in the house after work, went out after tea to meet some friends and was back home, in his room, when The call came in from Judith saying she'd called round her friends and Jodi was nowhere to be found

Was he?

And Shane Mitchell didn’t accompany his 14 year old brother to help ‘search’ ?

[Nicholas]

Looks like someone made a freedom of information request to police Scotland for copies of statements re psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell in 2021 https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/ejtnhtl4/21-0536-response.pdf

Freedom of information requests for psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page witness statement (dated 1st July 2003), and other transcripts, should be made to the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Services (SCTS)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/23/convicted-killer-luke-muir-mitchells-22-page-witness-statement-freedom-of-information-request-part-166/

[Nicholas]

Sharon Indy Sunshine
This seems to be whats happening in lukes case also. People finding it hard to believe they have been fed false information all this time. Refuse to believe it.

Yep

[Nicholas]

Corinne Mitchell
The police reported that Luke had "concealed" trousers in his hold~all........The trousers were "in" his hold~all...a hold~all used to go to his fathers every weekend and like all teenagers, never emptied from one week to the next (the trousers were taken to be tested and ofcourse, there was nothing on them except the usual from being worn)....
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=546.msg16259#msg16259

The evidence of the sadistic killer was that he spent Sundays at his fathers house

When did psycho killer Luke Mitchell last visit his father Philip Mitchell

Were these the trousers with [Name removed]’s DNA on them?

[Nicholas]

Corinne Mitchell
The police reported that Luke had "concealed" trousers in his hold~all........The trousers were "in" his hold~all...a hold~all used to go to his fathers every weekend and like all teenagers, never emptied from one week to the next (the trousers were taken to be tested and ofcourse, there was nothing on them except the usual from being worn)....
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=546.msg16259#msg16259

There was no evidence that psycho killer Luke Mitchell had spent the weekend of the 28th/29th June 2003 with his father Philip Mitchell

[Nicholas]

AAnne Adb
First of all I'd like to say I 100% believe Luke to be innocent.  Always have right from the beginning.  Can someone local  please answer this. I showed my friend the Scott Forbes Long Walk to Justice.  She is adamant that you don't have to walk through the streets to get to where Luke stayed from where the murder happened and that you can go a back way through fields etc.  I argued that if was the case the prosecution would surely have said it but I'm from West Lothian and don't know the area.

Sandra Lean
Because of where Luke lived, he'd have had to come out onto wide streets with houses either side, whatever route he took. There is a "back route" (which, as I just said, would still mean Luke coming out onto the wide open street), but, had Luke taken that route, the already tight timings would have become impossible.
Remember, the prosecution case is that Luke was "seen", in a Parka jacket at the Newbattle end of the path and then again literally minutes later, at the end of his street, in a bomber jacket. If he'd had to take the "back route" from where the first witnesses claimed to have seen him, to get home and change out of the Parka into the bomber, (a) there's no time for him to do that and (b) after he'd taken the back route, he would still have had to walk along the street, in said Parka jacket, to get to his house.
There was no separate entrance to the house via the back garden - all the back gardens were connected behind the houses, so the only way into his house was through the front door - from the street.
Hope that helps!!

[KenMair]

Let me drill further into your reasons before giving you mine./

As to why I don’t believe Luke is guilty…I have just one reason. Without substantial changing of initial statements no one  could categorically put him on that path at the time Jodi is presumed to have been killed. Of course you could put the lack of coherent statements down to trauma or forgetfulness but then to be fair you’d have to apply the same understanding to Shane Mitchell.

Much of what you wrote has been discussed numerous times and it would be pointless to go over the same issues although I respect your opinion. I don’t believe the Mitchell’s dinner alibi and neither did the majority of the jury while both CM & SM were charged with perjury which caused SM to change his story, which alongside the already substantial circumstantial evidence lead to a guilty verdict.

Regarding his actions and behaviour - From the 2008 Appeal: Par[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told DH that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased.

As to Lean & Forbes as his amateur legal team – if there was an opportunity to overturn a MOJ, the best of the Scottish legal profession would be all over it. L & F come across with a distinct lack of integrity and a deceptive agenda IMO and have probably done more to keep LM in jail by their past & present witch hunts no doubt orchestrated by the Dark Lord of HMP Shotts himself.  Has there ever been a successful outcome in any of Lean’s campaigns in 20 years? Did she not say in 2014 approx she had been duped by LM?

[faithlilly]

Much of what you wrote has been discussed numerous times and it would be pointless to go over the same issues although I respect your opinion. I don’t believe the Mitchell’s dinner alibi and neither did the majority of the jury while both CM & SM were charged with perjury which caused SM to change his story, which alongside the already substantial circumstantial evidence lead to a guilty verdict.

Regarding his actions and behaviour - From the 2008 Appeal: Par[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told DH that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased.

As to Lean & Forbes as his amateur legal team – if there was an opportunity to overturn a MOJ, the best of the Scottish legal profession would be all over it. L & F come across with a distinct lack of integrity and a deceptive agenda IMO and have probably done more to keep LM in jail by their past & present witch hunts no doubt orchestrated by the Dark Lord of HMP Shotts himself.  Has there ever been a successful outcome in any of Lean’s campaigns in 20 years? Did she not say in 2014 approx she had been duped by LM?

You have to ask yourself what impact charging Corrine and Shane with perverting the course of justice had on the jury even before the case got to court? How Shane’s evidence was impacted knowing that if he didn’t toe the line the police wanted him to he may go to prison himself? How the jury were impacted when Turnbull warned Corrine to tell the truth? Little tricks but hugely impactful. Why do you think L&Bs didn’t go ahead with the charges against Corrine and Shane? Could it be that they knew that they didn’t have the evidence to secure a conviction, knew the cases would never come to court but by the time the charges were dropped they’d served their purpose, that they’d destroyed the credibility of those who gave Luke an alibi?

Your second paragraph is simply the Crown’s case, every part of which was tainted in some way. Do you really think that they were going to deviate from it in any way unless they were forced kicking and screaming to do it? Are you aware of how many appeals of wrongfully convicted people fail before justice is latterly achieved?

Your last paragraph is just a hateful spittle flecked diatribe of the type I’ve come to expect here and not worthy of further discussion.

[Venturi Swirl]

Much of what you wrote has been discussed numerous times and it would be pointless to go over the same issues although I respect your opinion. I don’t believe the Mitchell’s dinner alibi and neither did the majority of the jury while both CM & SM were charged with perjury which caused SM to change his story, which alongside the already substantial circumstantial evidence lead to a guilty verdict.

Regarding his actions and behaviour - From the 2008 Appeal: Par[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told DH that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased.

As to Lean & Forbes as his amateur legal team – if there was an opportunity to overturn a MOJ, the best of the Scottish legal profession would be all over it. L & F come across with a distinct lack of integrity and a deceptive agenda IMO and have probably done more to keep LM in jail by their past & present witch hunts no doubt orchestrated by the Dark Lord of HMP Shotts himself.  Has there ever been a successful outcome in any of Lean’s campaigns in 20 years? Did she not say in 2014 approx she had been duped by LM?

I’m surprised you didn’t point out to Faithlilly the wholly illogical reason she gave for believing in Mitchell’s innocence.   The reason she gave is in no way evidence of his innocence.  Perhaps you could ask her to try again to list all the evidence for innocence, as she has me on ignore?