UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on March 16, 2021, 03:19:24 PM
-
Why doesn't Shane Mitchell speak out if his brother is innocent?
This is a question that has puzzled me for many years and as the innocence campaign gathers some pace it becomes even more relevant.
Despite claims to the contrary by those who advocate for Luke Mitchell, one of the most telling and significant pieces of evidence to come out of the entire investigation and trial was the fact that his brother Shane ultimately failed to corrobate his alibi.
For those who don't know, Luke Mitchell claimed to be home at around the time Jodi Jones was killed. He claimed that he was home making dinner yet never spoke to his brother once. That is very strange since at this very time Shane Mitchell was looking at porn on his computer with the bedroom door open so that he could hear if anyone came into the house. Doesn't add up does it I hear you say?
-
It gets better though. Initially Shane Mitchell gave a statement which led some support to his brother being home, however, after being warned by the police as to the punishment for perjury, he changed his statement. He gave evidence to the trial along the same lines as the second statement. He also revealed that his mother Corinne Mitchell had influenced his initial statement, you know, the one he later changed.
It is now more than 16 years since the trial ended and Luke Mitchell was convicted by majority verdict of murdering Jodi Jones. His brother has never publicly spoken about the case nor has he exibited any public support for the innocence campaign. You could be forgiven for asking yourself, why not...what is he scared of?
I'm afraid the reader has to draw his or her own conclusions but I know that if it was my brother who was wrongly accused I would be leading the campaign for justice.
-
It gets better though. Initially Shane Mitchell gave a statement which led some support to his brother being home, however, after being warned by the police as to the punishment for perjury, he changed his statement. He gave evidence to the trial along the same lines as the second statement. He also revealed that his mother Corinne Mitchell had influenced his initial statement, you know, the one he later changed.
It is now more than 16 years since the trial ended and Luke Mitchell was convicted by majority verdict of murdering Jodi Jones. His brother has never publicly spoken about the case nor has he exibited any public support for the innocence campaign. You could be forgiven for asking yourself, why not...what is he scared of?
I'm afraid the reader has to draw his or her own conclusions but I know that if it was my brother who was wrongly accused I would be leading the campaign for justice.
Are there parallels here with the Simon Hall campaign/case and his brother Shaun?
Is it possible Shane feels ‘trapped’ for varying reason and afraid to speak out against his brother and in turn his mother ?
-
Shane Mitchell is the only person who would have been in the position to give his brother a cast iron alibi by confirming his alleged presence in the house.
A check of his hard drive must have confirmed where he was, what he was doing and when he was doing it ~ I think if his younger brother had been in the house he would have known it and would have been able to testify to it.
Is there a fourteen year old who doesn't play music or sing along to the latest hit if thinking they've got the house to themselves?
-
Shane Mitchell is the only person who would have been in the position to give his brother a cast iron alibi by confirming his alleged presence in the house.
A check of his hard drive must have confirmed where he was, what he was doing and when he was doing it ~ I think if his younger brother had been in the house he would have known it and would have been able to testify to it.
Is there a fourteen year old who doesn't play music or sing along to the latest hit if thinking they've got the house to themselves?
I absolutely agree Brietta, there is no way that both of them could have been in such a small house and not known about it. I see no mystery here, I just see truth and lies.
-
It's interesting, John, that more people are willing to say that they have concerns over the conviction than before, but many still do so anonymously. I don't blame them at all - having stated very publicly that Luke is innocent, I know the sort of backlash it creates, and the truth is, most people just don't need that sort of hassle.
I often say to people, "but what if this was your son, or brother? Wouldn't you want everyone to be shouting from the rooftops?" And still, even with all of this information, they just don't and can't believe that it could happen to them.
SL
Interesting that Ms Lean does not apply this to SM nor his dad.
-
SL
Interesting that Ms Lean does not apply this to SM nor his dad.
not only does she not apply this to luke's brother or dad, she makes it clear it's off-limits to question this
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277 (https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277)
why?
-
Shane Mitchell is the only person who would have been in the position to give his brother a cast iron alibi by confirming his alleged presence in the house.
Mr Turnbull to Shane Mitchell during his brothers murder trial
Mr Turnbull: 'On that evening, about4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?'
Shane Mitchell: 'No one at that time.'
Mr Turnbull: 'Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?'
Shane Mitchell: ‘I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there.'
Shane said his mum arrived home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Mr Turnbull read out a police statement from Luke Mitchell in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother was present at the interview and, when police asked if he had eaten with Shane, his brother had asked her: 'Shane wasn't there, was he?'
His mum had intervened: 'No.' Luke had then added: 'Shane was not in when I left.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
-
not only does she not apply this to luke's brother or dad, she makes it clear it's off-limits to question this
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277 (https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277)
why?
Control
-
Are there parallels here with the Simon Hall campaign/case and his brother Shaun?
Is it possible Shane feels ‘trapped’ for varying reason and afraid to speak out against his brother and in turn his mother ?
I'm inclined to agree. Shane may well feel it would be disloyal to tell the truth if that would expose his brother and mother as having lied.
I'm just guessing though!
-
I'm inclined to agree. Shane may well feel it would be disloyal to tell the truth if that would expose his brother and mother as having lied.
Don’t you think Mitchell’s murder conviction has already exposed him and his mother’s lies?
-
I'm inclined to agree. Shane may well feel it would be disloyal to tell the truth if that would expose his brother and mother as having lied.
I'm just guessing though!
Perhaps Shane declined to go along with the narrative agreed with his mother when it became apparent to him that it did not stand up to police scrutiny.
My opinion - Shane knew exactly where he came in the pecking order here and if there was to be a sacrificial lamb he might have been as good a candidate as any of the other local males who have found themselves fingered over the years with qualifications such as ~
- Locals ~ some of whom were known or even related to Jodi.
- They had a pulse
As it was, Shane had a solid alibi which kept him well out of the frame.
I doubt if there was anyone who knew his brother better than he ~ or of what he was capable. He may very well have known Jodi and disapproved of what had been done to her and the disgust felt by that may well have nullified any sibling loyalty.
-
Don’t you think Mitchell’s murder conviction has already exposed him and his mother’s lies?
If he's guilty, yes.
The fact he was convicted doesn't necessarily mean he is , however.
-
It gets better though. Initially Shane Mitchell gave a statement which led some support to his brother being home, however, after being warned by the police as to the punishment for perjury, he changed his statement. He gave evidence to the trial along the same lines as the second statement. He also revealed that his mother Corinne Mitchell had influenced his initial statement, you know, the one he later changed.
It is now more than 16 years since the trial ended and Luke Mitchell was convicted by majority verdict of murdering Jodi Jones. His brother has never publicly spoken about the case nor has he exibited any public support for the innocence campaign. You could be forgiven for asking yourself, why not...what is he scared of?
I'm afraid the reader has to draw his or her own conclusions but I know that if it was my brother who was wrongly accused I would be leading the campaign for justice.
Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.
Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.
While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.
On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.
In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
Context is everything.
-
Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.
Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.
While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.
On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.
In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
Context is everything.
Aye, the question was about why Shane hasn't spoke out since.
-
Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.
Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.
While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.
On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.
In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
Context is everything.
Where are the facts in this? Whose facts are these?
SM did not see his brother, he did not hear his brother nor smell any burnt pies.
Don't forget that very small time frame of just over 10mins - to finish cooking dinner, plating it up, eating it and both boys leaving at approx: 5.30pm
Strange they never saw each other then?
The changing of statements three times in that first week - changed due to being prompted by others
The one real fact that does stand out here is:
Your stance on first statements has changed dramatically?
What happened to those first statements being law! you know the ones that are actually telling the truth, best recall and all that? - Can't have it both ways Faithlilly?
Argued in court - really? does not happen.
DF may have tried to argue points for him - failed.
DF - so, Just because you never saw your brother, doesn't mean he wasn't at home, is that correct - "yes"
Diverts away of course from the Q? - Where is SM, where is his Dad - why are they not shouting from the rooftops?
Why are the innocence campaigners asking everyone else to do the dirty work for them?
IMO it would matter not if SM suddenly started shouting from the rooftops - the evidence was damming.
It was clear he had no memory of much of anything - suddenly doesn't return after 17yrs.
Where was SM also when CM claimed to be living in squalor? No electricity, running water and failing health? Really?
If this were true and not some scam - Where was SM? why was he leaving his mother to live in squalor?
One would almost get the impression that all is not well with the Mitchels - where truth is concerned?
After all - "context is everything"
-
Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.
Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.
While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.
On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.
In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
Context is everything.
Hi there. It has been a while since I have posted, been a bit of a lurker. But this post has made me come out from hibernation.
Few questions regarding this.
You say these are facts.
Can you forward me to sources that back what you are saying up?
I'm especially interested, in Shane being stopped.
By how many police cars? Was it 4 or 5?
How many police were in each car?
Where in Midlothian did this stop happen?
Was this stop, witnessed by any members of the public?
Is Shane, the source of this information? When has he come out and stated of his experience's from his treatment from the police. If not, who is? And can you link me to it.
Also, a 6-hour interrogation of relentless questions. What exactly was asked of him? How do you know this? And is this information online? I will take news clippings, any kind of impartial information, that suggests this was the case.
Thank you.
-
not only does she not apply this to luke's brother or dad, she makes it clear it's off-limits to question this
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277 (https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277)
why?
We all know why and that is because they have made it crystal clear that they do want any involvement.
-
Don’t you think Mitchell’s murder conviction has already exposed him and his mother’s lies?
Well it is clear that the conviction by default renders Corinne Mitchell a liar. Beggars the question as to why she wasn't prosecuted for perjury on that basis?
Was it contrary to the public interest?
-
In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?
Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.
Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder? More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.
-
Well it is clear that the conviction by default renders Corinne Mitchell a liar. Beggars the question as to why she wasn't prosecuted for perjury on that basis?
Was it contrary to the public interest?
Now there is a question.
And the perverting the course of justice charge was also dropped for both Corrine and Shane. Why charge them when they weren’t going to try them? Pressure and giving a dog a bad name would be my guess.
-
Where are the facts in this? Whose facts are these?
SM did not see his brother, he did not hear his brother nor smell any burnt pies.
Don't forget that very small time frame of just over 10mins - to finish cooking dinner, plating it up, eating it and both boys leaving at approx: 5.30pm
Strange they never saw each other then?
The changing of statements three times in that first week - changed due to being prompted by others
The one real fact that does stand out here is:
Your stance on first statements has changed dramatically?
What happened to those first statements being law! you know the ones that are actually telling the truth, best recall and all that? - Can't have it both ways Faithlilly?
Argued in court - really? does not happen.
DF may have tried to argue points for him - failed.
DF - so, Just because you never saw your brother, doesn't mean he wasn't at home, is that correct - "yes"
Diverts away of course from the Q? - Where is SM, where is his Dad - why are they not shouting from the rooftops?
Why are the innocence campaigners asking everyone else to do the dirty work for them?
IMO it would matter not if SM suddenly started shouting from the rooftops - the evidence was damming.
It was clear he had no memory of much of anything - suddenly doesn't return after 17yrs.
Where was SM also when CM claimed to be living in squalor? No electricity, running water and failing health? Really?
If this were true and not some scam - Where was SM? why was he leaving his mother to live in squalor?
One would almost get the impression that all is not well with the Mitchels - where truth is concerned?
After all - "context is everything"
An excellent post, I couldn't have put it better myself. It seems Faith has become quite the apologist for Sandra Lean.
-
In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?
Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.
Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder? More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.
Sandra Lean's version of events leaves much to be desired. The story is constantly changing but one fact doesn't change and hasn't done so for over 17 years and that is that Shane Mitchell's evidence was so wooly you could drive a coach and horses through it.
If he is brave enough to speak up let him do so publicly now and deny it all. Let him state categorically for all to see that Luke was definitely at home the afternoon Jodi Jones was murdered.
Let him state publicly that the police pressurised him into tell lies.
I guarantee he won't do it though and what's more, I know why!
-
An excellent post, I couldn't have put it better myself. It seems Faith has become quite the apologist for Sandra Lean.
I apologise for nobody but if that’s what you want to believe then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to stop you.
I do admire Sandra. For almost 18 years she has dealt with the blatant misogyny I have witnessed on these boards and still fought on. That takes some steely determination.
You claim that Sandra quotes selectively then quote newspaper articles as fact....newspapers that condemned you too. It really would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious issue.
-
In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?
Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.
Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder? More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.
Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?
I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?
Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it. Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?
For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case.
-
I apologise for nobody but if that’s what you want to believe then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to stop you.
I do admire Sandra. For almost 18 years she has dealt with the blatant misogyny I have witnessed on these boards and still fought on. That takes some steely determination.
You claim that Sandra quotes selectively then quote newspaper articles as fact....newspapers that condemned you too. It really would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious issue.
You obviously don't know much about her then.
-
Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?
I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?
Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it. Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?
For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case.
All I read these days from Mitchell exponents is that there is no evidence, these idiots need to get a grip imo.
It appears the longer this goes on the more the defence story is manipulated to suit their own agenda. There are some things though that even Sandra Lean can't spin. I haven't followed this case from the start but one needs to be really thick not to see what went on.
The last application to the SCCRC according to Lean and Corinne Mitchell would see Luke freed within months. The SCCRC wouldn't even refer the documents to the court of appeal they were so ridiculous.
When in a hole with a shovel...stop digging.
-
Sandra Lean's version of events leaves much to be desired. The story is constantly changing but one fact doesn't change and hasn't done so for over 17 years and that is that Shane Mitchell's evidence was so wooly you could drive a coach and horses through it.
If he is brave enough to speak up let him do so publicly now and deny it all. Let him state categorically for all to see that Luke was definitely at home the afternoon Jodi Jones was murdered.
Let him state publicly that the police pressurised him into tell lies.
I guarantee he won't do it though and what's more, I know why!
Is the ‘why’ because he was implicated in some way?
Does Shane Mitchell know more about the events of that evening than he’s ever let on?
‘He said he was extremely shaken up and could not remember a single thing about the day Jodi was killed.
Mr Mitchell said his memory had been affected after a problem with drugs a few years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm
‘The court heard Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on 4th July 2003 claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother...’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
-
All I read these days from Mitchell exponents is that there is no evidence, these idiots need to get a grip imo.
It appears the longer this goes on the more the defence story is manipulated to suit their own agenda. There are some things though that even Sandra Lean can't spin. I haven't followed this case from the start but one needs to be really thick not to see what went on.
The last application to the SCCRC according to Lean and Corinne Mitchell would see Luke freed within months. The SCCRC wouldn't even refer the documents to the court of appeal they were so ridiculous.
When in a hole with a shovel...stop digging.
I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.
I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?
But it seems like you're not allowed to question any of this. It then gets deflected into, you're the one that has to provide sources, but any media clippings are not good enough? Sandra's word is gospel and that's the end of it. It is the same deflection tactics that they have used since day jot. Are people seriously this naive?
You are absolute 100% right that after all this time and many appeals the SCCRC, although i think the SCCRC needs some reform. They can see right though the Mitchell camp. Which suggests to me, that this is no longer about Luke's innocence, he is just a pawn used to promote something else. These arms and legs these stories have grown are just to attract a new audience to milk.
-
I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.
I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?
What about if he was a suspect?
-
I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.
I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?
But it seems like you're not allowed to question any of this. It then gets deflected into, you're the one that has to provide sources, but any media clippings are not good enough? Sandra's word is gospel and that's the end of it. It is the same deflection tactics that they have used since day jot. Are people seriously this naive?
You are absolute 100% right that after all this time and many appeals the SCCRC, although i think the SCCRC needs some reform. They can see right though the Mitchell camp. Which suggests to me, that this is no longer about Luke's innocence, he is just a pawn used to promote something else. These arms and legs these stories have grown are just to attract a new audience to milk.
These individuals cannot debate the case without resorting to name calling and insults. At least faithlilly has the decency to stay with it and try to make a case for Luke Mitchell. I fear she has picked a loser though. 8(8-))
-
Won’t answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?
Stonewalling and withdrawing because you’ve hit a chord over Shane Mitchell yet has no problem bullying the Jones family and others into disclosing personal and intimate details regardless of the psychological damage it may cause them?
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173
“It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.
⬆️
-
What about if he was a suspect?
Indeed. Was he a suspect?
-
Indeed. Was he a suspect?
Suspicion did fall on him yes
-
Suspicion did fall on him yes
Ok.
I still need to know how this story has been told, and weather, because SM was a suspect is the reason that this police operation came about. I kind of get the impression, this story has come, is to explain SM change of statement and to reinforce the claim he was the victim of the bully boy tactics of the police. Since the original poster has not come back to me, do you know where I can find, where this story has been written or said?
-
Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?
I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?
Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it. Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?
For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case.
Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.
BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.
-
Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.
BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.
Sandra Lean isn’t the only person with access to the court papers
-
Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.
BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.
Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.
Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into the case, whether she turns out to be right or wrong.
-
Ok.
I still need to know how this story has been told, and weather, because SM was a suspect is the reason that this police operation came about. I kind of get the impression, this story has come, is to explain SM change of statement and to reinforce the claim he was the victim of the bully boy tactics of the police. Since the original poster has not come back to me, do you know where I can find, where this story has been written or said?
The original poster knows the truth of the claim. It is up to you whether you want to believe it, research it or immediately reject it as you appear to have done.
-
Sandra Lean isn’t the only person with access to the court papers
Of course not but I believe she is the only individual who has published excerpts.
-
Indeed. Was he a suspect?
Two males who were drug users and whose story were different and yes he was a suspect until his alibi was corroborated.
-
Of course not but I believe she is the only individual who has published excerpts.
It is illegal to publish court statements in Scotland.
-
Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.
Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into the case, whether she turns out to be right or wrong.
There are a lot of people who have been taken in by that rubbish Ch5 documentary, it's not their fault that they have been misled because that is what it amounts to.
Mitchell was identified at both ends of Roan's Dyke path by independent witnesses. First he was seen arguing with a young girl, presumed to have been Jodi, at the Easthouses end of the path. Later after the murder he was seen by that gate on the Newbattle Road. It all adds up, no other people came forward to say they were there, only Mitchell was in the frame
-
It is illegal to publish court statements in Scotland.
I believe it’s whole statements not excerpts.
-
I believe it’s whole statements not excerpts.
You can quote extracts, he said...she said, but not entire documents yes.
-
Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.
Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into the case, whether she turns out to be right or wrong.
She appears to be the preferred choice when information on the case is needed.
-
You can quote extracts but not entire documents yes.
That’s what I said.
-
She appears to be the preferred choice when information on the case is needed.
Sandra Lean's version of events can't be trusted. She only makes known that which suits her agenda.
-
Sandra Lean's version of events can't be trusted. She only makes known that which suits her agenda.
Sandra Leans interpretation of events cannot be and should not be trusted
Take for example the JF BS with the condom *&^^&
-
Sandra Lean's version of events can't be trusted. She only makes known that which suits her agenda.
She does very much the same in other cases too
-
Sandra Lean's version of events can't be trusted. She only makes known that which suits her agenda.
Fortunately not everyone believes that and while she’s getting invited on nationwide television, others have to make do with bitching impotently about her in a dark corner of the internet.
-
Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.
Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into the case, whether she turns out to be right or wrong.
A lot of people are suddenly arguing for his innocence having watched a very one-sided documentary, and it seems like they weren't paying attention at the time of the trial or any of the appeals.
Lean has knowledge of the case because she's been on it from the beginning - except for the occasional falling out, maybe.
Insight, though? Not so sure about that.
-
Fortunately not everyone believes that and while she’s getting invited on nationwide television, others have to make do with bitching impotently about her in a dark corner of the internet.
She could be imvited to make a speech at the Oscars, the fact is Luke Mitchell is still in prison and there he is likely to stay for the forseeable future.
-
She could be imvited to make a speech at the Oscars, the fact is Luke Mitchell is still in prison and there he is likely to stay for the forseeable future.
Sure we all know this is about Sandra Lean and not Luke Mitchell. After the failed campaigns for Simon Hall, Adrian Prout and Gordon Parks nobody who knows anything about miscarriages of justice cases will ever take her seriously again. The woman has given MOJ advocacy a bad name imo. She should stick to writing bad fairy stories imo.
-
Sure we all know this is about Sandra Lean and not Luke Mitchell. After the failed campaigns for Simon Hall, Adrian Prout and Gordon Parks nobody who knows anything about miscarriages of justice cases will ever take her seriously again. The woman has given MOJ advocacy a bad name imo. She should stick to writing bad fairy stories imo.
There are several people taking her very seriously.
-
There are several people taking her very seriously.
Anyone whose opinion actually counts for owt?
-
in a dark corner of the internet.
Funny you should mention that. That is exactly what she has been doing for many years, particularly active around 2012/13. It first came to my attention when she infested a football forum, Hearts one I believe, when the topic arose on a thread there. To the point she is having a conversation with her other accounts on there. Thankfully many posters seen though it. And that just one forum, many more.
Anyway, did you ever find the source, of what she said regarding SM apprehension?
-
Shane believes in his brother's guilt.
-
Shane believes in his brother's guilt.
His actions or at least his inactions would certainly appear to suggest so.
-
She appears to be the preferred choice when information on the case is needed.
The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.
-
His actions or at least his inactions would certainly appear to suggest so.
He's told people I know and trust that his brother's guilty. I can get his phone number if anyone here wants to ask him for themselves.
-
Shane believes in his brother's guilt.
Do you have a source?
-
The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.
Or knowledge is power.
-
He's told people I know and trust that his brother's guilty. I can get his phone number if anyone here wants to ask him for themselves.
I think that’s kinda why he keeps in the background, so random strangers don’t call him.
-
Sure we all know this is about Sandra Lean and not Luke Mitchell. After the failed campaigns for Simon Hall, Adrian Prout and Gordon Parks nobody who knows anything about miscarriages of justice cases will ever take her seriously again. The woman has given MOJ advocacy a bad name imo. She should stick to writing bad fairy stories imo.
Well---------sometimes, I read these threads, and I get the impression it's more about Sandra Lean than Luke Mitchell !!
-
He's told people I know and trust that his brother's guilty. I can get his phone number if anyone here wants to ask him for themselves.
I'm sure he'd be absolutely delighted!
-
I'm sure he'd be absolutely delighted!
@)(++(*
-
My opinion is that actions speak louder than words and Shane's absolute inertia as far as the ongoing campaigns mounted on Luke's behalf are concerned is deafening.
I don't think he harbours one iota of doubt whether reasonable or not regarding his brother's guilt - if he had, I think he would have said so.
-
He's told people I know and trust that his brother's guilty. I can get his phone number if anyone here wants to ask him for themselves.
I would like it.
-
My opinion is that actions speak louder than words and Shane's absolute inertia as far as the ongoing campaigns mounted on Luke's behalf are concerned is deafening.
I don't think he harbours one iota of doubt whether reasonable or not regarding his brother's guilt - if he had, I think he would have said so.
That's the way I look at it. Even turning up at some of the public events would have been a start. It's not just Shane though, the same applies to Luke's father.
-
That's the way I look at it. Even turning up at some of the public events would have been a start. It's not just Shane though, the same applies to Luke's father.
The two closest male relatives are not giving him the benefit of the doubt - but while Luke's father was at a distance - Shane was right in the centre of the action.
He knew what went on in the house on the night Jodie was slaughtered having been privy to discussion about the agreed narrative to be spun for the police. Eventually he didn't go along with it then and has been sensible enough to stick with the facts as he knew them to be.
-
Has Sandra/Corinne/Luke thought about what's going to happen with regards to an alibi in the unlikely event of a retrial? It will collapse at the same hurdle.
-
Has Sandra/Corinne/Luke thought about what's going to happen with regards to an alibi in the unlikely event of a retrial? It will collapse at the same hurdle.
I think his best bet would be to concentrate on the future and get his act together in preparation for parole board hearings if or when he becomes entitled to do so.
I think neither his mother nor Sandra Lean are best equipped to assist him towards that goal.
-
All posters are reminded to keep comments amicable and to the point. Information provided to support debate should be accompanied by a link where possible. Please abide by the rules which have been developed for everyone's benefit. TY
-
He's told people I know and trust that his brother's guilty. I can get his phone number if anyone here wants to ask him for themselves.
If it wasn’t for your second sentence, I would have believed you. Has he honestly told people you know and trust that his brother is guilty?
-
If it wasn’t for your second sentence, I would have believed you. Has he honestly told people you know and trust that his brother is guilty?
Desperate times !
-
If it wasn’t for your second sentence, I would have believed you. Has he honestly told people you know and trust that his brother is guilty?
Actions speak louder than words and Shane's actions (or lack of) since giving his testimony at the trial would allow a particular presumption to be made.
Three people in the Mitchell house know what went on there in the immediate aftermath of Jodi's horrible death ~ Shane is one of them.
-
I’ve been asking about Shane for years and it’s always the same reply, one side saying he freely admits his brothers guilt and the other side saying he supports his brother but is not involved in the campaign. We can not take anyone’s word for it and now Sandra is point blank refusing to discuss Luke’s brother or dad, which appears she has been told not to or decided best not to speak about them. You can’t help wonder why. This is the most publicly the case has had in years and for them to stay quiet at this time, I’m sorry to say, looks bad on Luke as now everyone is asking and wondering if they believe his innocence. A simple one line statement is all it would take if they do support him. If they don’t then silence speaks volumes to me.
-
I’ve been asking about Shane for years and it’s always the same reply, one side saying he freely admits his brothers guilt and the other side saying he supports his brother but is not involved in the campaign. We can not take anyone’s word for it and now Sandra is point blank refusing to discuss Luke’s brother or dad, which appears she has been told not to or decided best not to speak about them. You can’t help wonder why. This is the most publicly the case has had in years and for them to stay quiet at this time, I’m sorry to say, looks bad on Luke as now everyone is asking and wondering if they believe his innocence. A simple one line statement is all it would take if they do support him. If they don’t then silence speaks volumes to me.
You may well be right. On the other hand, they might just want to keep well away from any publicity about the case.
Whether they believe in his innocence or not has little bearing on whether or not he is innocent or guilty, IMO.
If Shane believes his brother is guilty, why doesn't he say so?
-
You may well be right. On the other hand, they might just want to keep well away from any publicity about the case.
Whether they believe in his innocence or not has little bearing on whether or not he is innocent or guilty, IMO.
If Shane believes his brother is guilty, why doesn't he say so?
I agree and after everything both Sandra and his mum have been through with threats etc I totally understand them wanting to keep out of it all. But the fact remains this is currently in the public eye, therefore so are they. They don’t need to get involved, only confirm they believe luke to be innocent and support the independent review. That would help Luke case maybe get more support and notice, also stop so many questions maybe. If Shane believe Luke is guilty why would he come forward publicly to admit this. It would cause so much pain and humiliation for his mum, why would he do that. Luke is in prison, if Shane thinks he is guilty he is where he should be. No need to say anything.
You are right it does not prove anything what they believe. But it would help as they are the people who knew him best. What they remember would also be of interest, What does Shane remember about that evening. Do they remember him having a parka before the murder. But no way we will find out the answer to that either I don’t think. It’s just my opinion by staying silent it is undoing the good work Sandra and his mum have done for years and now finally getting notice for. I have always been on the fence, not able to make my mind up on his innocence or guilt, Shane’s silence is pushing me over the fence toward guilty for the first time in the 10 years I’ve been looking into this case.
-
I agree and after everything both Sandra and his mum have been through with threats etc I totally understand them wanting to keep out of it all. But the fact remains this is currently in the public eye, therefore so are they. They don’t need to get involved, only confirm they believe luke to be innocent and support the independent review. That would help Luke case maybe get more support and notice, also stop so many questions maybe. If Shane believe Luke is guilty why would he come forward publicly to admit this. It would cause so much pain and humiliation for his mum, why would he do that. Luke is in prison, if Shane thinks he is guilty he is where he should be. No need to say anything.
You are right it does not prove anything what they believe. But it would help as they are the people who knew him best. What they remember would also be of interest, What does Shane remember about that evening. Do they remember him having a parka before the murder. But no way we will find out the answer to that either I don’t think. It’s just my opinion by staying silent it is undoing the good work Sandra and his mum have done for years and now finally getting notice for. I have always been on the fence, not able to make my mind up on his innocence or guilt, Shane’s silence is pushing me over the fence toward guilty for the first time in the 10 years I’ve been looking into this case.
So what people seem to want is for Shane to answer questions that, if important, the police would have asked him 18 years go.
If you haven’t read Sandra’s book can I ask you that you do. Shane was treated appallingly by the police. Questioned aggressively for 6 hours without access to legal counsel. He faced a jail sentence for simply telling the truth. We don’t know if even now he has been warned that if he tells the truth now he will be charged with perjury. If that’s the case who can blame him for staying quiet?
-
So what people seem to want is for Shane to answer questions that, if important, the police would have asked him 18 years go.
If you haven’t read Sandra’s book can I ask you that you do. Shane was treated appallingly by the police. Questioned aggressively for 6 hours without access to legal counsel. He faced a jail sentence for simply telling the truth. We don’t know if even now he has been warned that if he tells the truth now he will be charged with perjury. If that’s the case who can blame him for staying quiet?
I have read Sandras book, Shane’s treatment by the police and in court was disgusting. I’m not asking him to say anything about the case, although I’d love if he did, all I’m asking is he confirms he supports Lukes case and the independent review.
-
He may be estranged from his family for all we know, got away from it all and managed to get on with his life. Last thing he wants is to be dragged into all this again. But imo If he is not sure it was Luke, Like many of us, then imo he is being selfish by not speaking out on his support of an independent review, if He has managed to get on with his life, his brother has been locked up for almost 20 years, this could be Luke’s best chance to be heard. If on the other hand he thinks Luke is where he should be then he should keep quiet and get on with his life and I wish him all the best for the future.
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #1200 on: August 15, 2012, 04:58:PM »
The "original wording" of Shane's statement was not as it has been posted here. Indeed, the whole watching porn thing did not even arise until April 2004, so it couldn't possibly have been mentioned in any of the original statements.
Shane's first statement was pretty straightforward - it was just an ordinary evening until he heard Jodi was missing, and then within a couple of hours, that she was dead. He had no recollection of the earlier part of the evening - nothing unusual had happened, so nothing stood out for him. Initially, he said that Luke had "probably" been in, because Luke cooked the dinner, so Shane assumed he would have done so on the Monday evening - he just couldn't remember anything about it.
"probably" - That is pretty much it from that first statement, the word "probably" Of course Luke was "probably" in at some point, stands to reason.
Simple fact is though, that when this statement had been taken SM did not see his brother that Monday evening around dinner time, nothing now can change that. "he just couldn't remember anything about it."
He didn't simply regain his memory when his mother put the notion in his head around the "burnt pies"
IF SM had been absolutely sure of seeing his brother, even after prompting by his mother - there is nothing that would have stopped him from making this clear in abundance. IMO. From then until the present day, not to suddenly appear out of the woodwork and make these claims now?
There you have it - one of the most important factors as to why suspicion fell upon LM.
Of LM asking his mother if Shane was there? as they hadn't really thought about being asked that?
Did LM and CM with having no previous dealings with the law - fall at this very first hurdle with believing/hoping that by simply saying the two of them were together having dinner that this would simply be enough.
Remember the time frame if LM is Jodi's killer.
He meets with his girlfriend - whatever happens in the ensuing time that results in murdering her, first and foremost he needs a story.
That first phone call at 5.32pm - Reality being here that he does not know what may still be on Jodi's mother phone, certain though that she will have known Jodi was going to meet with him.
I don't buy into this "why alert" to the fact she is missing - there simply is no choice here, that phone call has to be made, there is no answer and he has to phone back - it needs to be known that he is "wondering where she is?"
The phone call and answer is done - Where Mr Ovens states he said "she has left to meet you" then nothing for the remainder of the evening - speaks volumes. IMO
Of a girl whom was prohibited from walking this path alone - to LM knowing this, yet keeping well back from it after 5.40pm
Remember how well hidden this girl has been left - If there had been a report of her been missing at this point, how serious would it have been taken?
Half an hour or so late from meeting with her boyfriend around dinner time?
The time frame for police coming, statements as so forth -
The chance of her being discovered - out of his hands, yet hidden well enough?
Yet - when reported missing at 10.49pm that evening she was found some 40mins later ?
The first person to offer to search Roansdyke path is LM?
-
‘The court heard Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on 4th July 2003 claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother...’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
Full para
‘The court heard that Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on July 4, 2003, claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother, before leaving to meet Jodi that evening. He has previously told police he was at home until 5.30pm or 5.40pm
Excerpt from one of Luke Mitchell’s police statements
‘She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.”
-
I have read Sandras book, Shane’s treatment by the police and in court was disgusting. I’m not asking him to say anything about the case, although I’d love if he did, all I’m asking is he confirms he supports Lukes case and the independent review.
Truly what difference would it make? Make a few internet posters who doubt Luke’s innocence believe in him? TBH if by now you don’t believe that the case against Luke was not proven beyond reasonable doubt then I don’t think you’ll ever believe that his conviction is unsafe.
-
"probably" - That is pretty much it from that first statement, the word "probably" Of course Luke was "probably" in at some point, stands to reason.
Simple fact is though, that when this statement had been taken SM did not see his brother that Monday evening around dinner time, nothing now can change that. "he just couldn't remember anything about it."
He didn't simply regain his memory when his mother put the notion in his head around the "burnt pies"
IF SM had been absolutely sure of seeing his brother, even after prompting by his mother - there is nothing that would have stopped him from making this clear in abundance. IMO. From then until the present day, not to suddenly appear out of the woodwork and make these claims now?
There you have it - one of the most important factors as to why suspicion fell upon LM.
Of LM asking his mother if Shane was there? as they hadn't really thought about being asked that?
Did LM and CM with having no previous dealings with the law - fall at this very first hurdle with believing/hoping that by simply saying the two of them were together having dinner that this would simply be enough.
Remember the time frame if LM is Jodi's killer.
He meets with his girlfriend - whatever happens in the ensuing time that results in murdering her, first and foremost he needs a story.
That first phone call at 5.32pm - Reality being here that he does not know what may still be on Jodi's mother phone, certain though that she will have known Jodi was going to meet with him.
I don't buy into this "why alert" to the fact she is missing - there simply is no choice here, that phone call has to be made, there is no answer and he has to phone back - it needs to be known that he is "wondering where she is?"
The phone call and answer is done - Where Mr Ovens states he said "she has left to meet you" then nothing for the remainder of the evening - speaks volumes. IMO
Of a girl whom was prohibited from walking this path alone - to LM knowing this, yet keeping well back from it after 5.40pm
Remember how well hidden this girl has been left - If there had been a report of her been missing at this point, how serious would it have been taken?
Half an hour or so late from meeting with her boyfriend around dinner time?
The time frame for police coming, statements as so forth -
The chance of her being discovered - out of his hands, yet hidden well enough?
Yet - when reported missing at 10.49pm that evening she was found some 40mins later ?
The first person to offer to search Roansdyke path is LM?
So many assumptions in this one post but yet again.
Let’s start with this one.
‘Of a girl whom was prohibited from walking this path alone - to LM knowing this, yet keeping well back from it after 5.40pm’
Demonstrably untrue as her sister JaJ verified in a statement.
The timeframe? A noise heard from behind the wall by a cyclist informed time of death. A noise that neither JF or GD heard even though they were in the area at the time. No forensic evidence regarding time of death eg body temperature. Nothing but the much hoped for opportunity to put Luke in the frame.
-
Truly what difference would it make? Make a few internet posters who doubt Luke’s innocence believe in him? TBH if by now you don’t believe that the case against Luke was not proven beyond reasonable doubt then I don’t think you’ll ever believe that his conviction is unsafe.
Luke needs all the help he can get, every little helps and the support of his family goes a long way imo. But the only thing that would really help at the moment would be new evidence. If the dna is not released for retesting then I don’t see a way forward. No idea why it’s so hard to get stuff released for testing.
-
I’ve been asking about Shane for years and it’s always the same reply, one side saying he freely admits his brothers guilt and the other side saying he supports his brother but is not involved in the campaign. We can not take anyone’s word for it and now Sandra is point blank refusing to discuss Luke’s brother or dad, which appears she has been told not to or decided best not to speak about them. You can’t help wonder why. This is the most publicly the case has had in years and for them to stay quiet at this time, I’m sorry to say, looks bad on Luke as now everyone is asking and wondering if they believe his innocence. A simple one line statement is all it would take if they do support him. If they don’t then silence speaks volumes to me.
This question will never go away. As long as they continue with the story of alibi, burning pie SM taking his upstairs, then the question will always remain. And now it has been brought into the limelight on national TV, more questions need answered.
This he should be left alone stuff, does not wash with me any more. I would agree, if this rule applied to the others, who's names were splashed all over national TV and on many podcasts on YouTube. But it seems like one rule for one.
The fact of the matter is, SM failed to corroborate the story of alibi under oath. Game over.
-
So many assumptions in this one post but yet again.
Let’s start with this one.
‘Of a girl whom was prohibited from walking this path alone - to LM knowing this, yet keeping well back from it after 5.40pm’
Demonstrably untrue as her sister JaJ verified in a statement.
The timeframe? A noise heard from behind the wall by a cyclist informed time of death. A noise that neither JF or GD heard even though they were in the area at the time. No forensic evidence regarding time of death eg body temperature. Nothing but the much hoped for opportunity to put Luke in the frame.
Have you read the statements Faithlilly - JuJ's, all of JaJ's, Jodi's friends? All of the evidence led in court? In fact, have you read everyone's statements?
Common sense yet again would tell us - That if a person uses one or two small areas from multiple statements to show as proof that something was
"demonstrably" untrue then your demonstrably untrue is Poppycocks.
AS;
Where are AT's questions to these witnesses? - where are these witnesses answers? Why are they not shown?
Relatively simple common sense here - both have access to everything, it's called fair play - it's called a trial.
Why was the very factor of "not using this path" introduced by these witnesses in their statements?
So if you have knowledge of "all" of the statements, their full context - then you will be able to answer these two questions.
Had Jodi Jones been told by her mother not to use the path alone?
Lets's again use more common sense here and ask - why did Jodi's mother not want her to use this path?
The obvious answers yet again by using just a fraction of common sense is - yes and reason's to why would have been given, as,
Common sense yet again - Information is given, the police ask questions around it, answers are given.
So, I had said Jodi had been prohibited from using the path - this is true is it not, and again, if you have access to everything you will know that there is further verification of this from other witnesses?
LM would have known that this ban was in place - true.
LM most definitely did claim not to be near/at Roansdyke path at all until late that night.
Specifically so - by stating that he had at point point walked as far as "Barrondale cottage" an no further.
Assumptions? - LM claimed to have left his house at 5.30
LM met with the boys in the Abbey at 7.30pm approx:
Two hours. - there are no assumptions here, these are times given by himself and verification from the boys of the time of meeting as 7.30.
approx:
Two hours. Witnessed by F&W at the gate just yards from the entrance to this path. appox: 5.40pm
Nothing for approx 20mins: Is there enough time here for LM to get home, a quick change of jkt and shoes and be at the entrance of the estate for the next sighting at 6pm? 20mins
It took LM 7-mins to get from his house to the path later that night So even IF he had went down Newbattle R'd, easily done in around 10mins. But common sense would tell us he needed just a little bit more time.
There is, and this is no assumption yet again - a shortcut through the woods which take you out into the bottom half of the estate in which he stayed.
Off of Newbattle R'd. LM stayed in the bottom half of this estate.
6pm until 6.15pm approx : there are three sightings of LM around the estate entrance, two by boys from school one a motorist.
Then nothing - for 1hr and 15mins approx: Do you not find this surprising?
IF as the prosecution contend - the sighting by F&W was just after the murder, at the gate.
Then three sightings in the space of about 15mins where the contention is of putting alibi in place - to be seen
It fits perfectly does it not? as, If he had in fact been on this Road and just into the Abbey for nearly 120mins he would have been seen far more times?
The Abbey is not just a college it is also grounds to an industrial estate. So not just the traffic from Newbattle R'd to contend with but also that of those coming and going from this Abbey.
-
This question will never go away. As long as they continue with the story of alibi, burning pie SM taking his upstairs, then the question will always remain. And now it has been brought into the limelight on national TV, more questions need answered.
This he should be left alone stuff, does not wash with me any more. I would agree, if this rule applied to the others, who's names were splashed all over national TV and on many podcasts on YouTube. But it seems like one rule for one.
The fact of the matter is, SM failed to corroborate the story of alibi under oath. Game over.
So it’s tit for tat is it? Rather an immature way to look at things.
Failed to corroborate rather than denying Luke was there. There is an ocean of difference between the two.
-
Have you read the statements Faithlilly - JuJ's, all of JaJ's, Jodi's friends? All of the evidence led in court? In fact, have you read everyone's statements?
Common sense yet again would tell us - That if a person uses one or two small areas from multiple statements to show as proof that something was
"demonstrably" untrue then your demonstrably untrue is Poppycocks.
AS;
Where are AT's questions to these witnesses? - where are these witnesses answers? Why are they not shown?
Relatively simple common sense here - both have access to everything, it's called fair play - it's called a trial.
Why was the very factor of "not using this path" introduced by these witnesses in their statements?
So if you have knowledge of "all" of the statements, their full context - then you will be able to answer these two questions.
Had Jodi Jones been told by her mother not to use the path alone?
Lets's again use more common sense here and ask - why did Jodi's mother not want her to use this path?
The obvious answers yet again by using just a fraction of common sense is - yes and reason's to why would have been given, as,
Common sense yet again - Information is given, the police ask questions around it, answers are given.
So, I had said Jodi had been prohibited from using the path - this is true is it not, and again, if you have access to everything you will know that there is further verification of this from other witnesses?
LM would have known that this ban was in place - true.
LM most definitely did claim not to be near/at Roansdyke path at all until late that night.
Specifically so - by stating that he had at point point walked as far as "Barrondale cottage" an no further.
Assumptions? - LM claimed to have left his house at 5.30
LM met with the boys in the Abbey at 7.30pm approx:
Two hours. - there are no assumptions here, these are times given by himself and verification from the boys of the time of meeting as 7.30.
approx:
Two hours. Witnessed by F&W at the gate just yards from the entrance to this path. appox: 5.40pm
Nothing for approx 20mins: Is there enough time here for LM to get home, a quick change of jkt and shoes and be at the entrance of the estate for the next sighting at 6pm? 20mins
It took LM 7-mins to get from his house to the path later that night So even IF he had went down Newbattle R'd, easily done in around 10mins. But common sense would tell us he needed just a little bit more time.
There is, and this is no assumption yet again - a shortcut through the woods which take you out into the bottom half of the estate in which he stayed.
Off of Newbattle R'd. LM stayed in the bottom half of this estate.
6pm until 6.15pm approx : there are three sightings of LM around the estate entrance, two by boys from school one a motorist.
Then nothing - for 1hr and 15mins approx: Do you not find this surprising?
IF as the prosecution contend - the sighting by F&W was just after the murder, at the gate.
Then three sightings in the space of about 15mins where the contention is of putting alibi in place - to be seen
It fits perfectly does it not? as, If he had in fact been on this Road and just into the Abbey for nearly 120mins he would have been seen far more times?
The Abbey is not just a college it is also grounds to an industrial estate. So not just the traffic from Newbattle R'd to contend with but also that of those coming and going from this Abbey.
But Jodi did use the path, alone, and her sister has verified that. Further it is obvious that if JaJ knew that Jodi walked the path alone so would Luke.
And, admittedly, you do tell a good tail but unfortunately your evidence is lacking.
The eyewitness evidence is problematic to say the least. AB said the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka, F&W disagree and how the identification by F&W was allowed to be introduced in court considering it provenance heaven alone knows.
-
Then nothing - for 1hr and 15mins approx: Do you not find this surprising?
I always wondered if he went back to the body.
-
I always wondered if he went back to the body.
It’s very possible he did - the next door neighbour saw him walk past the window at around 10pm
Evidence of the Mitchell’s next door neighbour Mr Frankland
‘The same night, he also saw Luke Mitchell walking in the street as he settled down to watch television at about 2200 BST http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072447.stm
-
I always wondered if he went back to the body.
I think that is possible for two reasons- some of the mutilation of Jodi's body was carried out post mortem
- making sure he hadn't overlooked anything which might link him to the scene
-
I think that is possible for two reasons- some of the mutilation of Jodi's body was carried out post mortem
- making sure he hadn't overlooked anything which might link him to the scene
How ‘post’ is post mortem?
Something that linked him to the scene? What like DNA? Well he certainly scrubbed the scene well and managed to leave the DNA of others.
-
I think that is possible for two reasons- some of the mutilation of Jodi's body was carried out post mortem
- making sure he hadn't overlooked anything which might link him to the scene
⬇️
Could the saliva from the crime have come from Mia when Luke took her out for a walk earlier in the night?
How many witnesses reported seeing Luke Mitchell taking Mia out for a walk ?
-
I think that is possible for two reasons- some of the mutilation of Jodi's body was carried out post mortem
- making sure he hadn't overlooked anything which might link him to the scene
I agree. As Parky has explained. There is time unaccounted for, throughout that evening. He had unfinished business to attend to, at the body IMO.
-
⬇️
How many witnesses reported seeing Luke Mitchell taking Mia out for a walk ?
"Could the saliva from the crime have come from Mia when Luke took her out for a walk earlier in the night?"
I don't have in depth knowledge of the forensics taken from Jodi and the scene except that there was none which wouldn't have been expected to be there which rather negates the desperation there has been to link numerous named individuals or strangers to the crime.
It has always been my opinion that by ensuring that he was present with her relations when Jodi's remains were found Luke's intention was to get more satisfaction by witnessing and enjoying their reaction and distress.
Perhaps having the dog with him when finding Jodi might have served to explain any hair or pawprints she might have left on an earlier occasion but I've not given it any thought and therefore have no idea if anything like that happened.
-
"Could the saliva from the crime have come from Mia when Luke took her out for a walk earlier in the night?"
I don't have in depth knowledge of the forensics taken from Jodi and the scene except that there was none which wouldn't have been expected to be there which rather negates the desperation there has been to link numerous named individuals or strangers to the crime.
It has always been my opinion that by ensuring that he was present with her relations when Jodi's remains were found Luke's intention was to get more satisfaction by witnessing and enjoying their reaction and distress.
Perhaps having the dog with him when finding Jodi might have served to explain any hair or pawprints she might have left on an earlier occasion but I've not given it any thought and therefore have no idea if anything like that happened.
‘White stains’ are referred to here https://m.imgur.com/9CToK*
And there’s reference to ‘saliva’ here https://m.imgur.com/uzKcB*
(Source: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg332084.html#msg332084)
*Note:No idea if these diagrams are accurate btw
-
I agree. As Parky has explained. There is time unaccounted for, throughout that evening. He had unfinished business to attend to, at the body IMO.
If you listen to Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English although she says he was gone
“Two seconds” she appears to be suggesting Luke was out of the house with Mia at around 10pm or even when he phones JuJ’s at 10.40
Corrine states:
“So it’s must have been his curfew was 10 same as herself it must have been around about 9ish or something like that and he arrived home and I went gosh you’re early and he went has Jodi not been and I went no has she phoned no ugh wonder where the hell she is I went Luke she’s a young girl she’ll be in somebodies house yipping and completely forgot I said boyfriends come way down the line when it comes to wee girls talking um um eh
So then he got a phone call from Jodi’s mother and no he got a text right toad get up the road you’re grounded because by this time it’s past her curfew so he phoned her and said she’s not here so she said what do you mean she’s not here she never came down he said I’ve been with my friends and she’s never come down my mum says she’s not been at the door so she went well I’m gonna phone round all her friends and all the rest of it so left it at that and then there was another phone call and Luke came to me and went mum erm Judas organising a search party were going out looking for her I went not at this time of night you’re not young man
and he went I’m going out looking for her end of no argument so I went well you’re taking the dog so cos this time it was late so off he went and
he’d taken Mia out cos I said go and save your mums old legs and take madam out for her last pee for the evening and he was away two seconds of course by this time he’d got the phone call from Judy
(Starts at approx 6:00 during James English interview)
-
It’s very possible he did - the next door neighbour saw him walk past the window at around 10pm
Evidence of the Mitchell’s next door neighbour Mr Frankland
‘The same night, he also saw Luke Mitchell walking in the street as he settled down to watch television at about 2200 BST http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072447.stm
What was Mitchell doing outside at 10pm if it was his curfew and if he was out with Mia when he was contacted by JuJ’s this takes the time to around 10.40
The “two seconds” Corrine refers to is looking more like 40 minutes
-
If Corrine claims to have told Luke he’s not going out ” at this time of night” but indicates he’s out walking Mia when he’s contacted by JuJ - he’s already out “at this time of night” - 10.40pm
She appears to have feigned concern
So when Luke took Mia out for her last walk of the evening did he do so without taking a torch?
-
- some of the mutilation of Jodi's body was carried out post mortem
[/b]
Is this definitely true?
-
Is this definitely true?
Pathologist Prof Busuttil concluded deep cuts on her left breast and right arm had been inflicted after death, as well as detailing the killer wounds.
It is very definitely true had it not been, I would not have posted it as the fact it is as reported at Michell's trial.
-
Pathologist Prof Busuttil concluded deep cuts on her left breast and right arm had been inflicted after death, as well as detailing the killer wounds.
It is very definitely true had it not been, I would not have posted it as the fact it is as reported at Michell's trial.
Horrific - all the more important for the person responsible to be locked up.
-
Horrific - all the more important for the person responsible to be locked up.
The catalogue of injuries sustained by Jodi does make for horrific reading and I think had probably been the stuff of the perpetrator's phantasy for some time.
-
"Could the saliva from the crime have come from Mia when Luke took her out for a walk earlier in the night?"
I don't have in depth knowledge of the forensics taken from Jodi and the scene except that there was none which wouldn't have been expected to be there which rather negates the desperation there has been to link numerous named individuals or strangers to the crime.
It has always been my opinion that by ensuring that he was present with her relations when Jodi's remains were found Luke's intention was to get more satisfaction by witnessing and enjoying their reaction and distress.
Perhaps having the dog with him when finding Jodi might have served to explain any hair or pawprints she might have left on an earlier occasion but I've not given it any thought and therefore have no idea if anything like that happened.
Luke was making his way to Jodi’s mum’s house while looking for Jodi on the way. He had no idea that he would meet the other search party.
Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend’s semen wouldn’t have been expected to be at the murder site and actually on the murder victim ...but it was. Also several DNA profiles from men who haven’t been identified.
-
Luke was making his way to Jodi’s mum’s house while looking for Jodi on the way. He had no idea that he would meet the other search party.
Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend’s semen wouldn’t have been expected to be at the murder site and actually on the murder victim ...but it was. Also several DNA profiles from men who haven’t been identified.
Glad that's that cleared up then - "not expected to be at the murder scene" No one more surprised than SK himself.
What I'm more interested in here is the usual spraff - "several DNA profiles from men who haven’t been identified."
LM - it is claimed left absolutely no DNA of himself at the crime scene - correct?
Impossible for him to have committed this murder and left no trace - correct?
Therefore - MK, GD,JF, JaF, RG, [Name removed] and the list of the other convicted people whom Ms Lean claims carried out similar attacks left none of their DNA at the crime scene - so all equally ruled out,- yes?
Let's talk about the one singular sperm head on the trainer - be a good start - yes?
And we revert back to SK - it wasn't his sperm head, his DNA profile, was it? Didn't belong to any of the others either.
But that same futile point of applying these sperm heads to the time of the murder - millions of sperm heads less than 5 sperm heads found? from multiple areas.
Which tells us with common sense and clarity - that it was not deposited at the time of this murder.
This murder took place in a woodland - On a recent You Tube blog, filmed at the actual locus in the woods there is an empty condom wrapper. - Are you surprised that there was a singular sperm head found on footwear?
JaF - when his DNA was taken it flagged up an alert - straight to this case, as the DNA obtained is stored in a data base.
Two things here, one it most certainly was not RG. (for multiple reasons) but neither was it any of the others, going by your very reasoning alone.
There is a difference between DNA being extracted to show up as being Male in origin to actually having a profile?
For example - ones with "no reportable" result.
I'll come onto profiles - partial in particular in another post. Not "the 20p" scenario? but the lottery one?
-
Does anyone have a link that contains Shane’s statements verbatim? An official transcript or excerpts from it? Did Shane give two statements in July 2003 and then another when he was interrogated in April 2004? In his first statement in July 2003, did he say he saw Luke in the kitchen and then subsequently change it a couple of days later, saying he couldn’t be sure if he had seen Luke in the house?
-
LM - it is claimed left absolutely no DNA of himself at the crime scene - correct?
Is it not the case that there actually was DNA from LM found, but that is was deemed inadmissible due to LM and Jodi having an intimate relationship?
-
Does anyone have a link that contains Shane’s statements verbatim? An official transcript or excerpts from it? Did Shane give two statements in July 2003 and then another when he was interrogated in April 2004? In his first statement in July 2003, did he say he saw Luke in the kitchen and then subsequently change it a couple of days later, saying he couldn’t be sure if he had seen Luke in the house?
What is known is that Shane changed his first statement after failing to include information as to his own whereabouts on the day Jodi was murdered. He later admitted that his mother had influenced his first statement in respect of Luke being at home.
What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't. Clearly in such a small house two brothers would have known if the other were in the house.
If Luke was at home when Jodi was murdered why not say so? Why all the confuscation?
(Note: Under Scots Law it is illegal to publish witness statements.)
-
I'm sure SM said that, because of what he was up to up the stairs at the time, he was actually listening for anyone coming in downstairs, as I imagine you probably would.
So, even though he was actively listening for people in the house, he still says LM wasn't there.
-
What is known is that Shane changed his first statement after failing to include information as to his own whereabouts on the day Jodi was murdered. He later admitted that his mother had influenced his first statement in respect of Luke being at home.
What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't. Clearly in such a small house two brothers would have known if the other were in the house.
If Luke was at home when Jodi was murdered why not say so? Why all the confuscation?
(Note: Under Scots Law it is illegal to publish witness statements.)
I don’t think that’s really fair, Shane said he did not know if Luke was home, that’s not another way of saying he wasn’t, you could argue the opposite too on that logic, just another way to say he was.
I live in a flat and there has been a few times I thought my partner had gone out only for me to get the fright of my life when he popped his head in the door, also a number of times I thought he was in and was shouting through to him only to find out he had popped out, to garden/ shops, wherever and even called out to let me know and I did not hear.
Therefore it’s possible for someone not to be sure if another person is home imo and experience.
-
I don’t think that’s really fair, Shane said he did not know if Luke was home, that’s not another way of saying he wasn’t, you could argue the opposite too on that logic, just another way to say he was.
I live in a flat and there has been a few times I thought my partner had gone out only for me to get the fright of my life when he popped his head in the door, also a number of times I thought he was in and was shouting through to him only to find out he had popped out, to garden/ shops, wherever and even called out to let me know and I did not hear.
Therefore it’s possible for someone not to be sure if another person is home imo and experience.
No that doesn't cut mustard imo. Shane clearly stated that he was looking at porn on his computer with the bedroom door open so that he would hear anyone come in. Nobody did!
Add to this the claim by Luke that he was in the kitchen cooking dinner and burnt it. Does anyone really expect us to believe that in those circumstances Shane was still sitting upstairs completely oblivious as to what was going on downstairs? I think not.
-
Glad that's that cleared up then - "not expected to be at the murder scene" No one more surprised than SK himself.
What I'm more interested in here is the usual spraff - "several DNA profiles from men who haven’t been identified."
LM - it is claimed left absolutely no DNA of himself at the crime scene - correct?
Impossible for him to have committed this murder and left no trace - correct?
Therefore - MK, GD,JF, JaF, RG, [Name removed] and the list of the other convicted people whom Ms Lean claims carried out similar attacks left none of their DNA at the crime scene - so all equally ruled out,- yes?
Let's talk about the one singular sperm head on the trainer - be a good start - yes?
And we revert back to SK - it wasn't his sperm head, his DNA profile, was it? Didn't belong to any of the others either.
But that same futile point of applying these sperm heads to the time of the murder - millions of sperm heads less than 5 sperm heads found? from multiple areas.
Which tells us with common sense and clarity - that it was not deposited at the time of this murder.
This murder took place in a woodland - On a recent You Tube blog, filmed at the actual locus in the woods there is an empty condom wrapper. - Are you surprised that there was a singular sperm head found on footwear?
JaF - when his DNA was taken it flagged up an alert - straight to this case, as the DNA obtained is stored in a data base.
Two things here, one it most certainly was not RG. (for multiple reasons) but neither was it any of the others, going by your very reasoning alone.
There is a difference between DNA being extracted to show up as being Male in origin to actually having a profile?
For example - ones with "no reportable" result.
I'll come onto profiles - partial in particular in another post. Not "the 20p" scenario? but the lottery one?
There was an unidentified partial DNA profile that had elements of Luke’s DNA but probably half off the men in Midlothian too.
There was a full DNA profile that matched SK.
How long do sperm heads survive in the open air?
-
There was an unidentified partial DNA profile that had elements of Luke’s DNA but probably half off the men in Midlothian too.
Half the men in Midlothian? What's that supposed to mean?
-
Horrific - all the more important for the person responsible to be locked up.
I couldn’t agree more.
-
Is it not the case that there actually was DNA from LM found, but that is was deemed inadmissible due to LM and Jodi having an intimate relationship?
There was DNA from Jodi on a pair of trousers found in an overnight bag Luke took to his dad’s that was disregarded.
-
No that doesn't cut mustard imo. Shane clearly stated that he was looking at porn on his computer with the bedroom door open so that he would hear anyone come in. Nobody did!
That’s where the waters turn muddy imo, it has been said he was not looking at porn it was pop ups (and other thing in Sandras book about how he was not able to clearly put his side across on the stand) I remember back then online the pop ups where a nightmare so feel that is possible. That’s why I’d love to hear from Shane to unmuddy the water on that point, was he looking at cars or porn. I know that’s never going to happen tho.
-
What is known is that Shane changed his first statement after failing to include information as to his own whereabouts on the day Jodi was murdered. He later admitted that his mother had influenced his first statement in respect of Luke being at home.
What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't. Clearly in such a small house two brothers would have known if the other were in the house.
If Luke was at home when Jodi was murdered why not say so? Why all the confuscation?
(Note: Under Scots Law it is illegal to publish witness statements.)
By his corrected second statement Shane had also been reminded that he had been fixing his friend’s car so was home late, information he had not included in his first statement but was later verified.
Context is everything.
-
That’s where the waters turn muddy imo, it has been said he was not looking at porn it was pop ups (and other thing in Sandras book about how he was not able to clearly put his side across on the stand) I remember back then online the pop ups where a nightmare so feel that is possible. That’s why I’d love to hear from Shane to unmuddy the water on that point, was he looking at cars or porn. I know that’s never going to happen tho.
A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when. Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.
-
A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when. Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.
Shane was also accused in an interview of visiting gay sites. There was no evidence for that either. This was about humiliation not truth.
-
A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when. Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.
Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”
If that’s correct that could be the case.
-
Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”
If that’s correct that could be the case.
Of course if he wasn’t looking at pornographic sites there would be no need for Shane to be listening out for anyone being in the house.
-
Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”
If that’s correct that could be the case.
What Sandra says in her book is not evidence. Her book has been written to support her opinion.
-
What Sandra says in her book is not evidence. Her book has been written to support her opinion.
True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.
-
What Sandra says in her book is not evidence. Her book has been written to support her opinion.
The extracts from police statements and court testimony are.
-
True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.
not an overt lie perhaps but she is not qualified to interpret the computer evidence as if she were an expert witness (nor the dna evidence for that matter - she has previously talked on blue forum about all kinds of interpretations of the DNA evidence gathered, about how a semen sample came back as female and how this shows the forensics were all over the place, a "fact" which was widely repeated, before being corrected on why this might have appeared to have been the case)
Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.
-
not an overt lie perhaps but she is not qualified to interpret the computer evidence as if she were an expert witness (nor the dna evidence for that matter - she has previously talked on blue forum about all kinds of interpretations of the DNA evidence gathered, about how a semen sample came back as female and how this shows the forensics were all over the place, a "fact" which was widely repeated, before being corrected on why this might have appeared to have been the case)
That’s ludicrous!
-
True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.
You seem to hold Sandra Lean in some awe which I'm afraid I don't share.
-
You seem to hold Sandra Lean in some awe which I'm afraid I don't share.
Not sure how you get that from me saying I don’t think she would lie, I’m certainly not in awe of her but I do have respect for her standing up for something she believes and doing her best to get something done about it, despite all the rubbish she gets for it. It wouldn’t be me that’s for sure.
-
Not sure how you get that from me saying I don’t think she would lie, I’m certainly not in awe of her but I do have respect for her standing up for something she believes and doing her best to get something done about it, despite all the rubbish she gets for it. It wouldn’t be me that’s for sure.
Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.
I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.
The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?
I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.
-
Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.
I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.
The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?
I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.
I think it helps to know what Shane actually said in court. He argued repeatedly that investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave to them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
-
Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.
I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.
The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?
I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.
Corrine may well say that Donald Findlay wouldn't allow Luke to take the stand, well Donald Findlay was being paid to defend Luke that's what he would've done and If it was with one arm tied behind his back by luke choosing to take the stand that's what he would've done. If luke was determined to take stand and prove his innocence there's not a thing Donald findlay couldve done to stop him. I'M not saying he should've taken stand to prove his innocence. That's not for him to do. Its up to AD to prove his guilt. Which he did.
-
Corrine may well say that Donald Findlay wouldn't allow Luke to take the stand, well Donald Findlay was being paid to defend Luke that's what he would've done and If it was with one arm tied behind his back by luke choosing to take the stand that's what he would've done. If luke was determined to take stand and prove his innocence there's not a thing Donald findlay couldve done to stop him. I'M not saying he should've taken stand to prove his innocence. That's not for him to do. Its up to AD to prove his guilt. Which he did.
I agree.
Donald Findley was one of Scotland's leading defence lawyers who, I think we can be certain, knew exactly what he was doing by keeping his client off the stand.
The evidence as presented in court convicted Mitchell and the evidence was strong enough to see his appeals overturned.
-
Corrine may well say that Donald Findlay wouldn't allow Luke to take the stand, well Donald Findlay was being paid to defend Luke that's what he would've done and If it was with one arm tied behind his back by luke choosing to take the stand that's what he would've done. If luke was determined to take stand and prove his innocence there's not a thing Donald findlay couldve done to stop him. I'M not saying he should've taken stand to prove his innocence. That's not for him to do. Its up to AD to prove his guilt. Which he did.
In fact we know he didn’t, at least with, possibly, a sizeable number of the jury.
-
I agree.
Donald Findley was one of Scotland's leading defence lawyers who, I think we can be certain, knew exactly what he was doing by keeping his client off the stand.
The evidence as presented in court convicted Mitchell and the evidence was strong enough to see his appeals overturned.
As it was with Steele, Campbell, Hill, Conlon, Rowe....right until their convictions were quashed at, yet another, appeal.
Miscarriages of justice will continue to be perpetrated as long as people like you continue to support the heavily weighted system that we have now.
-
can you imagine the criticism findlay would have got if he allowed luke to take the stand?
exposing a cocky 15 year old to the an experienced member of the crown prosecution?
they would have been tripping him up and ripping him a new one in no time.
so yes, its no wonder findlays strong recommendation was that he didnt take the stand
I agree.
Donald Findley was one of Scotland's leading defence lawyers who, I think we can be certain, knew exactly what he was doing by keeping his client off the stand.
The evidence as presented in court convicted Mitchell and the evidence was strong enough to see his appeals overturned.
-
can you imagine the criticism findlay would have got if he allowed luke to take the stand?
exposing a cocky 15 year old to the an experienced member of the crown prosecution?
they would have been tripping him up and ripping him a new one in no time.
so yes, its no wonder findlays strong recommendation was that he didnt take the stand
I think you’re absolutely right. Putting an emotionally immature, frustrated, terrified child up against a prosecutor with years of experience of dismantling adult defendants, often through well established ‘tricks, would have been absolutely disastrous for Luke.
-
can you imagine the criticism findlay would have got if he allowed luke to take the stand?
exposing a cocky 15 year old to the an experienced member of the crown prosecution?
they would have been tripping him up and ripping him a new one in no time.
so yes, its no wonder findlays strong recommendation was that he didnt take the stand
Apparently cocky he is without a doubt but fortunately he didn't have to take the stand to condemn himself out of his own mouth, when Shane didn't go along with the alibi Corrine had colluded with him, that only put the tin lid on it for him.
-
Apparently cocky he is without a doubt but fortunately he didn't have to take the stand to condemn himself out of his own mouth, when Shane didn't go along with the alibi Corrine had colluded with him, that only put the tin lid on it for him.
And what did Shane say about the time Luke took Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
Corrine states:
“So it’s must have been his curfew was 10 same as herself it must have been around about 9ish or something like that and he arrived home and I went gosh you’re early and he went has Jodi not been and I went no has she phoned no ugh wonder where the hell she is I went Luke she’s a young girl she’ll be in somebodies house yipping and completely forgot I said boyfriends come way down the line when it comes to wee girls talking um um eh
So then he got a phone call from Jodi’s mother and no he got a text right toad get up the road you’re grounded because by this time it’s past her curfew so he phoned her and said she’s not here so she said what do you mean she’s not here she never came down he said I’ve been with my friends and she’s never come down my mum says she’s not been at the door so she went well I’m gonna phone round all her friends and all the rest of it so left it at that and then there was another phone call and Luke came to me and went mum erm Judas organising a search party were going out looking for her I went not at this time of night you’re not young man
and he went I’m going out looking for her end of no argument so I went well you’re taking the dog so cos this time it was late so off he went and
he’d taken Mia out cos I said go and save your mums old legs and take madam out for her last pee for the evening and he was away two seconds of course by this time he’d got the phone call from Judy
(Starts at approx 6:00 during James English interview)
-
Miscarriages of justice will continue to be perpetrated as long as people like you continue to support the heavily weighted system that we have now.
‘Miscarriages of justice’ or innocence fraud?
‘Definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘victim’ change over time, in part, precisely because certain events and/or forms of behaviour that cause harm are promoted and demoted in the discursive struggle between the defenders of the existing CJS arrangements and critics who want to change/reform them.(Naughton 2003)
-
‘Miscarriages of justice’ or innocence fraud?
‘Definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘victim’ change over time, in part, precisely because certain events and/or forms of behaviour that cause harm are promoted and demoted in the discursive struggle between the defenders of the existing CJS arrangements and critics who want to change/reform them.(Naughton 2003)
A wrongly convicted person is a wrongly convicted person. That definition doesn’t change.
-
Miscarriages of justice will continue to be perpetrated as long as people like you continue to support the heavily weighted system that we have now.
‘Miscarriages of justice’ or innocence fraud?
‘Definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘victim’ change over time, in part, precisely because certain events and/or forms of behaviour that cause harm are promoted and demoted in the discursive struggle between the defenders of the existing CJS arrangements and critics who want to change/reform them.(Naughton 2003)
A wrongly convicted person is a wrongly convicted person. That definition doesn’t change.
‘Wrongly convicted’ or a miscarriage of justice and what’s the difference between the two?
-
‘Wrongly convicted’ or a miscarriage of justice and what’s the difference between the two?
You tell me?
-
You tell me?
You stated,
‘Miscarriages of justice will continue to be perpetrated as long as people like you continue to support the heavily weighted system that we have now’
and then
‘A wrongly convicted person is a wrongly convicted person. That definition doesn’t change’
What’s the difference between the two definitions - given it’s you who used them interchangeably
-
What was Mitchell doing outside at 10pm if it was his curfew and if he was out with Mia when he was contacted by JuJ’s this takes the time to around 10.40
The “two seconds” Corrine refers to is looking more like 40 minutes
According to Derek Morris for L&B police who carried out tests on Luke Mitchell’s mobile phone SIM card the text message from JuJ’s was recorded at 10.41 and read,
“2 wks grounding toad.. say bye to Luke”
-
Is this definitely true?
What did the report of the other pathologist say?
-
What did the report of the other pathologist say?
It seems he said it was true.
-
It seems he said it was true.
I agree
Isn’t it interesting though how the other pathologist didn’t appear on the frontline Scotland BBC doc and only Prof Busuttil did
It was Prof Busuttil who suggested during Mitchell murder trial - when asked by Donald Findlay whether or not there were any suggestion of replicating the injuries of Elizebeth Short - ‘some similarities perhaps superficial similarities’ yet the other pathologist concluded there were no forensically significant similarities
-
It seems he said it was true.
Said what was true?
-
I agree
Isn’t it interesting though how the other pathologist didn’t appear on the frontline Scotland BBC doc
Are you saying that the Crown’s pathologist who did appear was being dishonest?
-
Are you saying that the Crown’s pathologist who did appear was being dishonest?
What does Prof Busuttil say about his evidence given during Mitchell’s murder trial?
Does he say he was dishonest ?
-
What does Prof Busuttil say about his evidence given during Mitchell’s murder trial?
Does he say he was dishonest ?
It’s you who appears to need corroboration for Prof Busuttil’s piece in the Frontine Scotland documentary.
What did he say in court about the similarities of the injuries to the Black Dahlia case?
-
Said what was true?
Post mortem mutilation.
-
What did he say in court about the similarities of the injuries to the Black Dahlia case?
⬇️
when asked by Donald Findlay whether or not there were any suggestion of replicating the injuries of Elizebeth Short - ‘some similarities perhaps superficial similarities’ yet the other pathologist concluded there were no forensically significant similarities
-
It’s you who appears to need corroboration for Prof Busuttil’s piece in the Frontine Scotland documentary.
If Prof Busuttil was dishonest when he gave his evidence during Mitchell’s murder trial then that’s on him
The jury however heard evidence from another pathologist who didn’t agree there were forensically significant similarities
-
If Prof Busuttil was dishonest when he gave his evidence during Mitchell’s murder trial then that’s on him
Also known as perjury btw
-
In fact we know he didn’t, at least with, possibly, a sizeable number of the jury.
It is fact that AD proved Luke’s guilt that's why he got a guilty verdict! You say possibly a sizeable number of jury weren't convinced of his guilt. It equally could have been 1 juror who didn't think he was guilty .How many thought he was innocent isn't really relevant as enough to convict thought he was
-
Post mortem mutilation.
Thank you.
-
If Prof Busuttil was dishonest when he gave his evidence during Mitchell’s murder trial then that’s on him
The jury however heard evidence from another pathologist who didn’t agree there were forensically significant similarities
So two pathologists agreed that there were no significant similarities between Jodi’s injuries and that of the Black Dhalia.
Glad we got there in the end.
-
It is fact that AD proved Luke’s guilt that's why he got a guilty verdict! You say possibly a sizeable number of jury weren't convinced of his guilt. It equally could have been 1 juror who didn't think he was guilty .How many thought he was innocent isn't really relevant as enough to convict thought he was
It could have been one, it could have been seven. The point being that at least to a percentage of the jury the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt....and this after Luke was subjected to virtually wall to wall negative publicity.
I suppose the unfairness of the majority verdict is why English courts insist on a unanimous one.
-
It could have been one, it could have been seven. The point being that at least to a percentage of the jury the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt....and this after Luke was subjected to virtually wall to wall negative publicity.
I suppose the unfairness of the majority verdict is why English courts insist on a unanimous one.
they don’t.
-
So two pathologists agreed that there were no significant similarities between Jodi’s injuries and that of the Black Dhalia.
Glad we got there in the end.
No
The crowns pathologist said under oath there were ‘some similarities perhaps superficial similarities’
Then seemingly changed his mind by the time of the BBC frontline doc
-
they don’t.
Main article: Juries in England and Wales
In the past a unanimous verdict was required.
This has been changed[62] so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10–2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#England_and_Wales_2
-
Where is Shane Mitchell and why doesn’t he speak out?
Kevin Walker - Jodi’s uncle (Jan 2005)
“We will not and cannot speak after today of the effect on us individually and as a family.
It was a truly evil murder and one of the most appalling crimes that any of us can remember
To do so would only feed the evil that has caused our grief. The family has had to bare its soul to ensure that justice could prevail.
This has meant being totally honest about all aspects of our lives and it is a pity that that honesty was not being shown by other parties involved in the investigation."
And it clearly still isn’t ⬇️
not only does she not apply this to luke's brother or dad, she makes it clear it's off-limits to question this
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277 (https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277)
why?
-
Main article: Juries in England and Wales
In the past a unanimous verdict was required.
This has been changed[62] so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they may reach a verdict by a 10–2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to succeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#England_and_Wales_2
Thank you Brietta, I stand corrected.
I wonder if the jury in Luke’s case settled on a majority verdict that would have been accepted in England?
-
If you listen to Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English although she says he was gone
“Two seconds” she appears to be suggesting Luke was out of the house with Mia at around 10pm or even when he phones JuJ’s at 10.40
Corrine states:
“So it’s must have been his curfew was 10 same as herself it must have been around about 9ish or something like that and he arrived home and I went gosh you’re early and he went has Jodi not been and I went no has she phoned no ugh wonder where the hell she is I went Luke she’s a young girl she’ll be in somebodies house yipping and completely forgot I said boyfriends come way down the line when it comes to wee girls talking um um eh
So then he got a phone call from Jodi’s mother and no he got a text right toad get up the road you’re grounded because by this time it’s past her curfew so he phoned her and said she’s not here so she said what do you mean she’s not here she never came down he said I’ve been with my friends and she’s never come down my mum says she’s not been at the door so she went well I’m gonna phone round all her friends and all the rest of it so left it at that and then there was another phone call and Luke came to me and went mum erm Judas organising a search party were going out looking for her I went not at this time of night you’re not young man
and he went I’m going out looking for her end of no argument so I went well you’re taking the dog so cos this time it was late so off he went and
he’d taken Mia out cos I said go and save your mums old legs and take madam out for her last pee for the evening and he was away two seconds of course by this time he’d got the phone call from Judy
(Starts at approx 6:00 during James English interview)
Corrine Mitchell’s claim to James English of saying to Luke “not at this time of night you’re not young man” also doesn’t fit with what Luke told police his mother had said to him
“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm
-
Why doesn't Shane Mitchell speak out if his brother is innocent?
Maybe he will
-
Corrine Mitchell’s claim to James English of saying to Luke “not at this time of night you’re not young man” also doesn’t fit with what Luke told police his mother had said to him
“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm
It must have been the trauma. It makes you remember things that didn’t happen....apparently.
-
In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.
Context is everything.
Can you publish the transcripts of Shane’s questioning in court to show the context - word for word - alongside his police witness statement
-
Can you publish the transcripts of Shane’s questioning in court to show the context - word for word - alongside his police witness statement
There is absolutely no way anything will be published: - Those endless questions that would arise. Of the blatant misrepresentation - of making up these witness accounts at will.
SM - one would dread to think what he may come up with - If he were to pop up out of the woodwork now. Arguing on the stand indeed. - nonsense.
With or without his mother getting him on board. - he only made the situation worse. For these changes asked for from his mother. Prior to CM being captured on CCTV. Were made to fit exactly in with the story concocted by LM and his mother. Completely on the basis of her arriving home minutes after 5pm. Her normal time of around 5.05pm. Of the pleasantries exchanged, of every inch of the dinner tale suddenly remembered. The tatties, the mashing, the pies and so forth - the killer part of course, of speaking to his mother on her arrival home. At around 5.05pm. Of then going upstairs again, to wait on the call that dinner was ready. - And bang! The CCTV. caught indeed? Still fine though, until bang again - that call to the Jones household at 5.32pm. And there with absolute clarity - we know that everything about it was made up. - Drawn to SM being manipulated by the police - no, it was his mother who manipulated him. Drawn to, well someone had to have cooked, they had dinner - no, the only thing had was prawns. Drawn to this lovely summer weather, of CM being cooped up all day (in a business that involves mainly outside work). Of enjoying the sunshine out on the patio, eating dinner. - no, it was miserable weather. Given LM's clothing to the letter T, of the discussion had. --------And we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that everything else was concocted.
Of LM arriving home (claimed) an hour earlier than his curfew (witnessed at 10pm) - asking his mother, again, once before claiming to head into the Abbey and on his arrival home "has Jodi been?" And that complete OTT explanation. Of Jodi being a girl, gabbing with friends for 3hrs. Getting caught up elsewhere and of LM's claimed acceptance. No worry ---- Of this girl who most definitely did not make any habit of not arriving. And the tangled web of lies just keeps giving. - For CM states clearly there were no firm plans to meet anyway? So twice we have these claims of LM asking his mother, had she arrived, and of LM idling away - simply waiting on someone, whom he only 'may' have been meeting? - Caught in their own web, continuously.
-
There is absolutely no way anything will be published: - Those endless questions that would arise. Of the blatant misrepresentation - of making up these witness accounts at will.
Maybe Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne’s police witness statements will be published in full by one of [Name removed]’s family members ?
-
There is absolutely no way anything will be published: - Those endless questions that would arise. Of the blatant misrepresentation - of making up these witness accounts at will.
SM - one would dread to think what he may come up with - If he were to pop up out of the woodwork now. Arguing on the stand indeed. - nonsense.
Not by Sandra Lean no
-
SM - one would dread to think what he may come up with - If he were to pop up out of the woodwork now. Arguing on the stand indeed. - nonsense.
With or without his mother getting him on board. - he only made the situation worse. For these changes asked for from his mother. Prior to CM being captured on CCTV. Were made to fit exactly in with the story concocted by LM and his mother. Completely on the basis of her arriving home minutes after 5pm. Her normal time of around 5.05pm. Of the pleasantries exchanged, of every inch of the dinner tale suddenly remembered. The tatties, the mashing, the pies and so forth - the killer part of course, of speaking to his mother on her arrival home. At around 5.05pm. Of then going upstairs again, to wait on the call that dinner was ready. - And bang! The CCTV. caught indeed? Still fine though, until bang again - that call to the Jones household at 5.32pm. And there with absolute clarity - we know that everything about it was made up. - Drawn to SM being manipulated by the police - no, it was his mother who manipulated him.
8((()*/ *&^^&
-
Drawn to, well someone had to have cooked, they had dinner - no, the only thing had was prawns. Drawn to this lovely summer weather, of CM being cooped up all day (in a business that involves mainly outside work). Of enjoying the sunshine out on the patio, eating dinner. - no, it was miserable weather. Given LM's clothing to the letter T, of the discussion had. --------And we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that everything else was concocted.
8((()*/
‘Every time she opens her mouth she lies’
Corinne Mitchell to James English
-
Of LM arriving home (claimed) an hour earlier than his curfew (witnessed at 10pm) - asking his mother, again, once before claiming to head into the Abbey and on his arrival home "has Jodi been?" And that complete OTT explanation. Of Jodi being a girl, gabbing with friends for 3hrs.
During her sons murder trial she referred to [Name removed]’s asthma or ‘breathing attack’ ⬇️
Corinne Mitchell - trial evidence
She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.
“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.
“Yes, it did,” she replied.
She said they thought perhaps Jodi had gone to a friend’s house or had been grounded.
“How would you describe the way he was reacting to the fact she hadn’t turned up?” Mr Turnbull asked.
Mrs Mitchell replied: “I think more miffed that she hadn’t turned up.”
Asked whether he had seemed anxious, she said: “Not at that point, no.” She said he then went up to his bedroom before taking the dog for a walk.
Later that evening the police told her that Jodi Jones was dead. She denied she then said to police: “Is Luke a suspect?”
Mrs Mitchell explained she would not have said that, because she thought at that stage Jodi had died an accidental death. “I worried that she might have left her inhaler and suffered a breathing attack.”
His gran provoked disgust in 2007 for trying to sell Mitchell’s story to our sister paper, the Sunday Mail.
In a letter sent via Corinne, she said she wanted “to tell her side of the story”.
Guetta wrote:.
‘On a cold day, I’ve seen him buttoning up her coat because she suffered from asthma and she had an inhaler.”https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1112662
-
Getting caught up elsewhere and of LM's claimed acceptance. No worry ---- Of this girl who most definitely did not make any habit of not arriving. And the tangled web of lies just keeps giving. - For CM states clearly there were no firm plans to meet anyway? So twice we have these claims of LM asking his mother, had she arrived, and of LM idling away - simply waiting on someone, whom he only 'may' have been meeting? -
‘Every time she opens her mouth she lies’
-
Caught in their own web, continuously.
8((()*/
As is Sandra Lean
-
Luke deleting texts and call history
“He had no recollection of deleting texts. We now know that the call history was deleted just after 12.30am on July 1st - when the phone was in the possession of the police. We also know a text was sent from Luke's phone in this same time period and, although Luke was later grilled about "checking his voicemail" while standing on the path, waiting for the police, the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it . Since the police clearly interfered with the phone by deleting the call record and allowing a text to be sent while the phone was in their possession, we can never be sure if it was Luke who deleted the earlier texts or not. All we have are his police statements that he had no recollection of doing so - from that, the police questioned him about what reasons he might have had for deleting them. Fair enough, you'd think, but that was exactly the line of questioning they used when questioning him about why he thought Jodi hadn't turned up. Luke tried to think of various reasons and they later used that against him to suggest he was "lying." (Phone records and interview transcripts available
Of course he didn’t *&^^&
What about the texts ? ⬇️
Text message from Corrine to Luke Mitchell - 1st July 12.29am
"You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you."
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452488.html#msg452488
”I'm sorry, I seem to have caused a bit of a misunderstanding. Of the incoming voicemail call on Luke's phone that night, I said“I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on, but got his voicemail - the timings given in her statement and both her and Luke's phone records all matched up. My point was that the police deliberately lied about Luke "checking his voicemail" when the log is clearly labelled "incoming."
All of the police assertions regarding the phone calls, texts, etc, were put to Luke in the Section 14 interrogation 6 weeks after the murder. By then, the police had the phone logs - they also recovered a text from Corinne to Luke saying, "Right, you tell me right now what's going on - I'm coming up to get you" (not recovered from Luke's phone).
Corrine Mitchell
“You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you”
Sandra Lean
“Right, you tell me right now what's going on - I'm coming up to get you”
*&^^&
-
What vehicle was Shane Mitchell driving on the night of [Name removed]’s murder and on what date was his vehicle seized by police and forensically searched ?
-
What vehicle was Shane Mitchell driving on the night of [Name removed]’s murder and on what date was his vehicle seized by police and forensically searched ?
There's very little information available about Shane Mitchell's whereabouts on 30/06/03. Could you point me in the direction of some information please? Also, have you seen the comments attached to this?
https://youtu.be/3oM1k6HupIc
-
There's very little information available about Shane Mitchell's whereabouts on 30/06/03.
Does anyone know if Luke ever drove Shane’s car like he apparently did Corinne’s?
-
There's very little information available about Shane Mitchell's whereabouts on 30/06/03. Could you point me in the direction of some information please? Also, have you seen the comments attached to this?
https://youtu.be/3oM1k6HupIc
I haven't been able to find out much about Shane at all. He seems to keep well away from the limelight (don't blame him).
I take with a pinch of salt anything I read on You Tube, although, I will admit to being interested.
-
I haven't been able to find out much about Shane at all. He seems to keep well away from the limelight (don't blame him).
I take with a pinch of salt anything I read on You Tube, although, I will admit to being interested.
I understand what you're saying but a lot of people do take YouTube seriously so I think it's important for that reason.
-
There's very little information available about Shane Mitchell's whereabouts on 30/06/03. Could you point me in the direction of some information please? Also, have you seen the comments attached to this?
https://youtu.be/3oM1k6HupIc
Usual rubbish. Seen it on the documentary, read it in the book. So Mitchell must be innocent. Not understanding, or not willing to understand, that what they have watched/read is only 5% of what this case is about. They lack the common sense to investigate farther. They are the same types to cry that covid is a hoax, getting jab is just being microchip, that trans people are infringing there rights blah blah. What theses types can't do, is focus on innocence, without pointing the finger at others. That is where Lean comes in and the misinformation she infects there brains with. How many times do you read, these types shouting about moped at walls? Not true. Or about changed statements? How many times did the Mitchell's change there's? How about Mitchell's clothes ripped off him by the police? Not true, he handled them over. I could go on. One thing they will never mention though, is SM >> GAME OVER.
-
Does anyone know if Luke ever drove Shane’s car like he apparently did Corinne’s?
I wonder what LM wasn't allowed to do as a fourteen year old.
-
I wonder what LM wasn't allowed to do as a fourteen year old.
Why did his mother apparently give him the keys to her motor?
Grace McLean
He said: 'What happened to Jodi was so ironic because the Thursday before she died we were all talking about what records we would want played at our funeral.' I could picture him that night, talking in the bedroom with Jodi - taking a perverse pleasure in knowing the fate that awaited her.
He said police took a lock knife from him after being tipped off by friends.
But he added: 'The bloke who said this is a fantasist. Another of his friends told police Jodi and I were arguing all the time. But that's not true. We never had a cross word.' Mitchell also denied he was taunting police when he left a note with flowers for Jodi which quoted from Kurt Cobain's journals: 'The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came.' He said: 'The only reason I left it was because she loved that line. I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else.' It was the first time in our interview that Mitchell spoke of any affection for Jodi. But then, to change the subject, he spent ten minutes talking about newly learned computer skills - just like any other teenage boy - before asking his mother for the keys to her 4x4 Land Rover.
Then, nonchalantly, he walked outside, started up the engine and drove at high speeds around nearby waste ground. It seemed, yet again, that Mitchell was playing at being an adult.
When he returned, he told his mother he was going to see his friend Laura and, since it was on my way, I offered to give Mitchell a lift.
-
That Grace McLean quote is proper chilling.
-
That Grace McLean quote is proper chilling.
Yes it is
As is killer Luke Mitchell’s blatant lie of ⬇️
I wanted to be with Jodi and nobody else.
And I strongly suspect if you ‘turn that on it’s head’ he didn’t want Jodi🌻 to be with anybody else *&^^&
-
Usual rubbish. Seen it on the documentary, read it in the book. So Mitchell must be innocent. Not understanding, or not willing to understand, that what they have watched/read is only 5% of what this case is about. They lack the common sense to investigate farther. They are the same types to cry that covid is a hoax, getting jab is just being microchip, that trans people are infringing there rights blah blah. What theses types can't do, is focus on innocence, without pointing the finger at others. That is where Lean comes in and the misinformation she infects there brains with. How many times do you read, these types shouting about moped at walls? Not true. Or about changed statements? How many times did the Mitchell's change there's? How about Mitchell's clothes ripped off him by the police? Not true, he handled them over. I could go on. One thing they will never mention though, is SM >> GAME OVER.
I’ve investigated further and I still think that Luke has not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, don’t think Covid is a hoax, don’t believe they implant a microchip when you have your vaccine and think trans people have infringed no one’s rights so bang goes your theory.
-
Usual rubbish. Seen it on the documentary, read it in the book. So Mitchell must be innocent. Not understanding, or not willing to understand, that what they have watched/read is only 5% of what this case is about. They lack the common sense to investigate farther. They are the same types to cry that covid is a hoax, getting jab is just being microchip, that trans people are infringing there rights blah blah. What theses types can't do, is focus on innocence, without pointing the finger at others. That is where Lean comes in and the misinformation she infects there brains with. How many times do you read, these types shouting about moped at walls? Not true. Or about changed statements? How many times did the Mitchell's change there's? How about Mitchell's clothes ripped off him by the police? Not true, he handled them over. I could go on. One thing they will never mention though, is SM >> GAME OVER.
I don't think that Covid-19 was a hoax. I got the vaccine for it and many others. [Name removed] did change her statement. I never said ripped; what I said was that one only takes fingernail scrapings from victims and from suspected perpetrators, let alone clothing. I think that the police bullied SM; I also think that both sides have said things about his testimony that were not entirely true. As for pointing fingers, I advise letting the forensics identify persons of interest.