My first thoughts on the debates against this laddies conviction started with why?
A fit up begged the Q why?
We all know it happens in our society, many a miscarriage has taken place. Why frame this youth of 14yrs of age?
.....WHY target this 14 yr old laddie?
So WHY? for me would spell , it was the prime ministers son, got to pick someone else. Yes I'm being facetious. Simply asking WHY pick Luke?. NO DNA, absolutely no evidence , circumstanial etc against him So WHY?
According to Sandra Lean the people in her book “No Smoke
”were just ordinary citizens, living ordinary lives, until they became caught up in a nightmare from which there was no escape. (Luke Mitchell & Simon Hall were 2 of the 7 people in her book)
As hard as it is for us to believe, there was nothing in their lifestyles, background, or personalities which brought them into the criminal justice system as “suspects,” quite aside from any consideration of evidence. I strongly disagree with the above, for obvious reasons, and wonder what lessons, if any, have been learned since Simon Halls confession in 2013 and how he was able to con so many people over such a long period of time?
Remember Sandra Leans “
imaginary 12 points for a new justice system, where she claimed Luke Mitchell scored 12 points and Simon Hall scored 10 out of the 12?
Simon Hall was guilty therefore it would surely follow 10 of those 12 points in her “
imaginary new justice system require reexamination and revision?
But in January 2017 Sandra Lean stated, in response to me suggesting her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn.
”I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:
“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961Surely a synopsis of the revision of her book should also contain a reference to the Zenith burglary omission along with all the other details that came to her attention in the time leading up to Simon Halls confession? By leaving these facts out she’s misleading her readers.
And by not re-examining and revising at least 10 of the 12 points in her “
imaginary new justice system theory, she’s misleading people yet further. If 10 of her 12 point
imaginary new justice system theory is flawed in its reasoning which affects all 7 cases not just 1!
She then went on to state here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383720.html#msg383720”I wrote a book about wrongful convictions, and the things that make them possible. If you'd like me to write a book about psychopathy and personality disorders, then I can do that. But let's not conflate the two.Does Sandra Leans new book avoid looking into Luke Mitchell’s personality? What about his mothers and his brother Shane? His father? His gran?
What does it say about his personality and for example about his interests in satanism?
Does the book minimise these crucial aspects in this case, and if so, why?
An example re personality:
When Corrine Mitchell refers to her mum (Luke Mitchell’s Gran) during the James English interview, when telling a story about 3 guys on motorbikes (who allegedly surrounded the car) and knocking someone off a bike; she says;
“
she knocked him clean off his bike, she didn’t give a shit.” @ approx 109.26
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Did Luke Mitchell take after his Gran?
Did the guy who his gran allegedly knocked off his bike get hurt or didn’t “
she give a shit?. Facts like this are relevant to cases like this as they often give clues to the personality traits of the individual concerned.
According to Corrine Mitchell, Luke stayed at his dads house at weekends. So what does Luke Mitchell’s dad say about his youngest sons personality? And what does his dads witness statement say? Or was he never asked about his sons personality?
In cases like this, it’s a red flag if we are only hearing parts of the picture. Having no input from Luke Mitchell’s brother and father, especially when it comes to personality traits, and after 16 years, does not help the cause in the slightest.
Was Shane Mitchell on heroin? I recall him being referred to as a “smack head.” What drug or drugs was he taking previously in order to suffer from an alleged poor memory?
The court was told that he had given two conflicting statements to police about the events of that night, because he had a poor memory due to previous drug use and had been reminded of the evening’s events by his mother.