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 August 15, 2012, 02:00:34 AM

Title: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 02:00:34 AM
Just to let you know Mat, the photograph which has been posted on the blue forum as depicting Luke Mitchell on the day of the murder is yet another misrepresentation of the facts.

The photo (reproduced below) is actually a Polaroid taken by Lothian & Borders Police several weeks after the murder of Jodi Jones and used in a line-up with other photos for the benefit of potential witness identification.

This photo does not relate to the day of the murder and the taking of it raises many questions as to police procedures.

(http://i.imgur.com/AJYar.jpg)

Luke Mitchell in August 2003.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 03:03:29 PM
Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 03:47:52 PM
The obvious difference between Andrina failing to identify Luke in court and Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh managing to do so is simply explained by logic. Andrina didn't see Luke that day but Messrs Fleming and Walsh did.

If only one of the women had seen Luke lurking around at a wooden gate on the main road just a few yards from where Jodi was slaughtered then. I would have been concerned but both women saw him and were able to give a near perfect description of him and how he was dressed.  The other bit of evidence which falls nicely into place is that at this very moment in time ie 5.42pm on 30 June 2003, Luke Mitchell was not seen where he said he was.  It was only some 10 minutes later that he was seen further along the road as he attempted to create an alibi.

There is no way two boys who looked similar in appearance and who wore the same clothes could have been in the same area at the exact same time.  There only ever was one lad and his name is Luke Mitchell.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

This is just a short synopsis from memory.

I believe if there ever was a murder case where the police were grossly incompetent that it is this case. The SOCO female officer sent to the scene was so fat that she couldn't get over the wall and so retreated leaving sampling to much later.  The Victim's body was not covered in order to protect potential forensic clues from being lost to the elements. The police allowed a local who later became a suspect to traipse all around the murder scene with his dogs on the basis that they could track the perpetrator.  They allowed the bin men to empty all the bins without checking the contents.  The pathologist who attended the scene did so when it was far too late to properly determine the time of death.

As far as DNA is concerned and this is most surprising, none belonging to Jodi was found on Luke and none belonging to Luke was found on Jodi even though they had been together at school earlier that day.  There was a partial profile obtained which could have been from Luke but in any event could have been there completely innocently.  DNA was found at the scene from swabs taken from the t-shirt which Jodi had worn. This DNA was recovered from a sperm stain on the t-shirt. This was explained away as the DNA belonged to Jodi's sisters boyfriend and it was the sisters t-shirt which Jodi had borrowed earlier.  Several other profiles both full and partial were obtained from the victim and her clothing but never matched to anyone.

The so-called alibi is very weak and to be honest, disturbing.  Luke's elder brother Shane stated in evidence that he was the first one home that afternoon and that he went to his bedroom where he surfed porn sites on his computer.  He told the court that he would never do that if there was anyone else at home.  He said that he kept the bedroom door open so that he could hear his mother or brother come home.  He stated that he never saw or heard anyone in the house that day until his mother came in at 5.15pm.  Internet records established that his computer was used between 4.50 and 5.15pm.  When asked again in court about his brothers presence in the house he stated that he could have been there but he didn't see him. It should also be noted that when Shane went to the police station to make a statement initially that he failed to mention his brother being in the house. After speaking with his mother he went back later and changed his statement saying that he had forgotten that his brother had made dinner for the family that afternoon but he still hadn't seen him.  When asked about this omission at trial he said that he had a bad memory caused by drug abuse!

For Luke's part, he did not give evidence, his mother now says that he was badly represented by Donald Findlay QC.  In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner.  He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs.

For the mothers part, Corinne Mitchell gave a statement and also testified at the trial. She told of returning home at 5.15pm to find Luke brandishing some broccoli.  She also says that Shane came down for his dinner before returning back up to his bedroom. She stated that Luke left the family home after 5.30pm although I have seen posts by Corinne which puts this as late as 5.40pm...remember the sighting by Messrs Fleming and Walsh half a mile away at 5.42pm!

It should also be noted that both Shane and Corinne were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice but these charges were later withdrawn. During the trial Corinne was also warned by the prosecutor of the consequences of committing perjury as she testified about Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.

The alibi is certainly a problem for the defence and one which will be difficult to overcome. I have often wondered why, if Luke was in the family home that afternoon, was necessary for Shane to make such a song and dance about it?   If he was there, why not just say so? >@@(*&)


 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 04:55:13 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess somene told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my que to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Joanne on August 15, 2012, 06:25:53 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 06:40:55 PM
Its seems you think rather highly of yourself mat as SL did not post simply to rebuke your interest or to simply highlight this case. The fact that it continues to be eroded by simple misrepresentation by the owner of this site stands to give "PR" as you state to the case, its what we strive for as having the case in the publics mind can only help.

John took it upon himself to try and belittle the blue forum again by highlighting our misrepresentation as he puts it but once again he has been shown to be so far out when it comes to this crime that its a wonder people like yourself even begin to listen to him.

It has now been corrected and as a matter of fact to show how wrong he was the picture he went on about being 9.5 months old was in fact  6 weeks old. I do wonder why he continues when he knows very little of the crime in question

John 2/10 must do better.

You lot are so transparent and deffo so predictable.  If you cannot provide any evidence of Mitchell's innocence then go on the offensive and attack everyone else. Gordo, nugnug and Sandra L are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to think I once fell for their crap.  The problem for them is that I know the case inside out, I know their flaws and weaknesses and I know when they are promoting bullshit as they are over on the blue forum.

Let's face it Mitchell's entire campaign depends on blaming other innocent bystanders for the crime. I have no doubt the CCRC will reject their Application because it is based on nothing more than wild theories and supposition.  If Luke Mitchell had one reliable witness who could place him at or near his home at the time of the murder he would be a free man today. The other big question of course is how a school boy who always walked home with his peers just so happened to become invisible on that particular day?

Another point worth mentioning is that Mitchell had used his knife previously to threaten a young girl and put her in fear of her life. Was this event a practice run coming just weeks before he cut Jodi's throat for real and cut it so brutally that it was nearly severed?

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 09:00:36 PM
Its seems you think rather highly of yourself mat as SL did not post simply to rebuke your interest or to simply highlight this case. The fact that it continues to be eroded by simple misrepresentation by the owner of this site stands to give "PR" as you state to the case, its what we strive for as having the case in the public mind can only help.

John took it upon himself to try and belittle the blue forum again by highlighting our misrepresentation as he puts it but once again he has been shown to be so far out when it comes to this crime that its a wonder people like yourself even begin to listen to him.


You lot are so transparent and deffo so predictable.  If you cannot provide any evidence of Mitchell's innocence then go on the offensive and attack everyone else. Gordo, nugnug and Sandra L are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to think I once fell for their crap.  The problem for them is that I know the case inside out, I know their flaws and weaknesses and I know when they are promoting bullshit as they are over on the blue forum.

Let's face it Mitchell's entire campaign depends on blaming other innocent bystanders for the crime. I have no doubt the CCRC will reject their Application because it is based on nothing more than wild theories and supposition.  If Luke Mitchell had one reliable witness who could place him at or near his home at the time of the murder he would be a free man today. The other big question of course is how a school boy who always walked home with his peers just so happened to become invisible on that particular day?

Another point worth mentioning is that Mitchell had used his knife previously to threaten a young girl and put her in fear of her life. Was this event a practice run coming just weeks before he cut Jodi's throat for real and cut it so brutally that it was nearly severed?

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

Just to know that Sandra Lean is the one behind the website tells you all you need to know and will ever need to know. The fact that she's too busy with so many cases shows the thoroughness that she approaches her cases with. I am not shocked by her comments or by her delusion of grandeur. She probably hasn't had the time to fully inform herself of the case - which is the same rubbish they throw at me - since she is so busy with multiple cases.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 09:01:52 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 09:21:11 PM
As far as the multiple cases are concerned the vast majority are stagnant in the water.   They are only window dressing for the WAP site, a means to an end.  Most of the people who have put their trust in WAP will be disappointed in the end because not even super woman could get them off the hook.  They are fighting a lost cause with one hand tied behind their backs.

You only need to look at who is actually running WAP.  An unemployed former mussel farmer from Lerwick whose only claim to fame is that he was found 'not proven' of molesting his ex wife and of murdering their baby daughter in a double arson attack at their home...I ask you?  Would you even buy a second hand car from such a clown?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on August 15, 2012, 09:24:54 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*

In that case it is definately going downhill fast from now on.  Grahame reminds me of the master of the Titanic, hopeful to the bitter end and then content to go down with his ship.   8)-)))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 15, 2012, 09:52:42 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*

In that case it is definately going downhill fast from now on.  Grahame reminds me of the master of the Titanic, hopeful to the bitter end and then content to go down with his ship.   8)-)))

Master Bates?    >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

She was a friend of the Mitchell family Joanne, she just sort of got involved.  Then along came Middleton with his case and she got involved with him too and formed the Wrongly Accused Person Org.  The rest as they say is history.   8)--))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:32:16 PM
And it is worth pointing out to Gordo that the error in relation to the photo originated on the blue forum where it was wrongly claimed that the Luke Mitchell mugshot was taken on the day of the murder.

I didn't see clueless OnceSaid or anyone else rush to correct the error?

So much for accuracy and completeness but then again it is the Jeremy Bamber forum where fantasies abound.  Sandra Lean should feel right at home there!   @)(++(*

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 11:36:56 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

Thanks, Joanne. :)


And it is worth pointing out to Gordo that the error in relation to the photo originated on the blue forum where it was claimed that the Luke Mitchell mugshot was taken on the day of the murder.

So much for accuracy and completeness...at least I can amend my posts accordingly.   @)(++(*




I don't know why they are saying that the photo confusion was you, John. That information came from FreeWillieGage
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 15, 2012, 11:41:30 PM
I have stressed that the poster who came up with that was one advocating Lukes guilt and most probably one of your own crew on here or more likely yourself.

I must applaude you on your efforts at correcting us with your own inaccuracies but then again I have never claimed
Quote
The problem for them is that I know the case inside out,
.  Lets call a spade a spade here and just admit you made an arse of yourself here today John, it wasn't pleasant to watch but It will highlight to everyone including your own initiates just how falible your are.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:54:16 PM
I am away from the office at the moment and my huge database of information and links which is why I erred on the date that photo was taken by the police.  There is a much better picture of Luke Mitchell however taken on the very day of Jodi's funeral when he was giving an interview to James Matthews of Sky News. 

I can certainly vouch for the date of this photo!

3rd September 2003.

(http://i.imgur.com/Rd2ln.jpg)

Luke Mitchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 12:01:13 AM
I have stressed that the poster who came up with that was one advocating Lukes guilt and most probably one of your own crew on here or more likely yourself.

I must applaude you on your efforts at correcting us with your own inaccuracies but then again I have never claimed
Quote
The problem for them is that I know the case inside out,
.  Lets call a spade a spade here and just admit you made an ar.. of yourself here today John, it wasn't pleasant to watch but It will highlight to everyone including your own initiates just how fallible your are.

Oh but I would be the first to admit this.  As I explained, I cannot have everything to hand when I am away from home.  I corrected the post accordingly as we don't want new readers being misled now do we?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:01:54 AM
Wait a min here John as didn't you come back to me with the idea that Luke had to have been arrested to have had a photo taken and used in a photo gallery ID? This surely would have been written through your own personal experiences of the judicial system I would have thought. Its certainly not something you would have had to refer to notes or files to make sure that any post you wanted to make would be factual!!!

I wonder was it just a case of you seeing an opportunity to belittle the Mitchell camp? an opportunity too great to miss by not being at your office, well you may want to keep those files close at hand more often John as it will stop this type of thing happening in the future as I'm not sure how many more of these occurrence's you could take.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 16, 2012, 12:07:28 AM
So John mixes up a picture, corrects the information - and is slated for it? Hmmm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 12:10:25 AM
Wait a min here John as didn't you come back to me with the idea that Luke had to have been arrested to have had a photo taken and used in a photo gallery ID? This surely would have been written through your own personal experiences of the judicial system I would have thought. Its certainly not something you would have had to refer to notes or files to make sure that any post you wanted to make would be factual!!!

I wonder was it just a case of you seeing an opportunity to belittle the Mitchell camp? an opportunity too great to miss by not being at your office, well you may want to keep those files close at hand more often John as it will stop this type of thing happening in the future as I'm not sure how many more of these occurrence's you could take.

There is something very odd about the taking of that Polaroid picture.  The police couldn't have taken it without Luke's permission so I wonder what was the reason given to him or the appropriate adult who attended with him?

I bet they didn't tell him that they wanted it in order to show it to a potential witness.   >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:15:34 AM
So John mixes up a picture, corrects the information - and is slated for it? Hmmm.

If only he had Enigma......
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:20:16 AM
Its is a large Hmmmm when he goes on to describe himself as knowing the case inside out, I didn't need any notes myself to realise that what he had posted this morning was inaccurate but then again I don't know the case inside out!!

Quote
If only he had Enigma......
I really am lost... but then again just how lost am I
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:24:36 AM
Its is a large Hmmmm when he goes on to describe himself as knowing the case inside out, I didn't need any notes myself to realise that what he had posted this morning was inaccurate but then again I don't know the case inside out!!

Quote
If only he had Enigma......
I really am lost... but then again just how lost am I

Possibly as lost as Mike when he flounders about, bamboozling people with Ali Bongo, Z and Enigma.

Not to mention Sheila barking like a dog, Sheila's arm, grainy sunlight......at this point I always feel like the little boy in the Emperor's New Clothes.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:28:27 AM
I can't believe that Mike has 2 pieces of evidence that would, at least, further JB's case, but he chooses to sit on them like some massive, constipated chicken. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man"? What about cometh the evidence, cometh JB having something new and helpful to present? Is it some weird game? Puh.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:29:36 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:34:31 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:38:56 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!

To put it in very simplistic terms, why would anyone else have murdered Jodi?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:55:03 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!

To put it in very simplistic terms, why would anyone else have murdered Jodi?

I find it reminiscent of the Joshua Davies/Rebecca Aylward murder.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 01:05:01 AM
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 03:36:09 AM
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.

But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.

The trial hears that an examination of Shane's computer revealed that it had been used to view pornographic websites between 4.53pm and 5.16pm.

Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.

Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.

Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.

He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'

In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'

Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Angelo222 on August 16, 2012, 10:29:35 AM
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.

The answer to this is that his older brother by 7 years had a knife collection, something which Luke undoubtedly tried to emulate.  The family also went camping often and the larger knife was used for various things associated with that activity. Corinne Mitchell has said that she didn't allow him free access to the Bowie knife and kept it hidden under a bag of dry dog feed.  The living in squalor and the refusal to change his clothing regularly has been put down to his age but raises many questions concerning parental care.  The buying and selling of cannabis and the smoking of it by a 14 year old child also raises many questions.  The urine in the bottles in the bedroom only started after the murder and has been explained as a psychological reaction to the intrusion and trauma he suffered following the discovery of Jodis remains.

Luke was a spoiled child and Corinne has excused this by reason that she tried to make it up to him for the loss of his father from the parental home.  Whether she was successful is another question?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 10:57:51 AM
I suggested some time ago that the Mitchell's offer a reward for information but this was received with some hostility.  I always wondered at that reaction, anyone who was genuinely interested in procuring witnesses would do all and anything to achieve that end but not Corinne Mitchell. They rolled out all ther old excuses why offering a reward would not be appropriate but I still fail to see how any of these reasons could ever trump the need to get an innocent lad out of prison.  If you had something to hide however, that would be another story!    8(0(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 02:42:17 PM
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 03:49:52 PM
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!

But that is where you are so wrong.  The offer of a reward in several of our cases had the desired effect.  That's more than I would say a couple of junk science polygraph tests and blaming every other male in Easthouses and surrounds have brought to the Luke Mitchell case.  Terry Mullins must be raking it in now, he should team up with that other showman Derek Acorah.  Oh I forgot, Acorah was revealed as a fraud by Sky TV.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

That junk science happens to be at this moment under research as to it used with allowing child abuser's and rapist's from coming into our society., something I would have thought would have had your utmost backing!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 04:19:05 PM
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

That junk science happens to be at this moment under research as to it used with allowing child abuser's and rapist's from coming into our society., something I would have thought would have had your utmost backing!

Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

In any event I have issued a formal challenge to any polygraph tester including Mr Mullins.  I can prove your science is fake! 

I wonder how many will put their hats in the ring or their careers on the line?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 04:43:00 PM
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

That's your assessment and I have to agree, if however it was found to be of use even to those who believe as you do that it a junk science and therefore nothing to fear and proves helpful in allowing offenders the chance to be intergrated back into society then does it fail to be a junk science.

 What fear should there be to offenders who feel they have been rehabilitated in taking a test that may see the freed from the confinement? Fear would surely equal guilt!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 04:48:39 PM
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

That's your assessment and I have to agree, if however it was found to be of use even to those who believe as you do that it a junk science and therefore nothing to fear and proves helpful in allowing offenders the chance to be intergrated back into society then does it fail to be a junk science.

 What fear should there be to offenders who feel they have been rehabilitated in taking a test that may see the freed from the confinement? Fear would surely equal guilt!

Because the test is flawed.  You will have liars passing and those who give honest answers failing.  That in itself is totally unacceptable.

We will see how many so-called experts are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:53:58 AM
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.

Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )

Here are two examples from wrongly accused. I have changed the persons name with identified male. Now this has been pointed out before so look carefully, In the semen sample Jodi is there first, in the blood sample identified male is there first. Now these samples mean that amongst the profile of Jodi Jones blood was DNA belonging to a male, these were in fact both semen. The sample of semen can not be Jodi Jones!!!! This is what I mean about being careful. The semen full profile has been known since the beginning of the trial, there is no new evidence here that there was also blood.

Bottom line...don't be fooled by deceptive descriptions.    8(0(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 02:05:42 AM
It should also be noted that Steven Kelly's alibi for earlier that day was by his father, now deceased. Jodi's sister Janine met up with him later and they were together all evening. 

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: James on August 19, 2012, 02:16:09 AM
The Mitchells and Sandra Lean have had ten years to concoct some sort of cock and bull story to back up their innocence claims.   The more I read about Sandra Lean the more ridiculous she sounds to me.   @)(++(*

It should also be noted that Steven Kelly's alibi for earlier that day was by his father, now deceased. Jodi's sister Janine met up with him later and they were together all evening. 

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 02:29:00 AM
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 02:51:35 AM
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: James on August 19, 2012, 03:00:00 AM
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 03:02:33 AM
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?

Exactly James so by inference there is no evidence that any blood belonging to Stephen Kelly was found on anything at the scene of the murder. Just more wishful thinking on behalf of the Mitchell camp.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 10:57:34 AM
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 11:10:59 AM
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:49:49 PM
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.

Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.  Saying that it was highly likely that a DNA profile came from blood just doesn't cut it.  Either it did or it didn't and it is most obvious that your information provider Sandra Lean doesn't know the answer to this.

The only evidence which has been universally accepted is that there was a DNA profile found on Jodis t-shirt which was owned by her sister Janine who was then in a relationship with Stephen Kelly.  As this t-shirt was borrowed by Jodi just before the murder it has also been accepted that the semen stain was deposited on it quite innocently and had nothing at all to do with the assault on Jodi.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.

The end game Gordon is that only two DNA profiles recovered from the murder scene were identified.  They belonged to Jodi and Stephen.  Several other profiles both full and partial remain to be identified and these included a partial profile relating to Luke Mitchell himself which is not really surprising given that they had been together in some capacity earlier that day.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 20, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:39:31 AM
Quote
Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.

Even although this is in direct contrast to your initial believe that the sightings by F&W proved that Luke didn't have the time to do just that!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:41:35 AM
Quote
odi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Haven't you just tried to chastise me ragarding making assumptions, what was it you said again oh yeah! Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 16, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 16, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!


Sandra Lean is an expert at manipulating facts to suit her own agenda.   
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 16, 2012, 08:56:26 PM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?

Would that be the same expert opinion that got him convicted in the first place?   8)--))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 19, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?



The trouble with you Gordo is that you talk the greatest shite.  sorry admin   8(8-))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 10:35:09 AM
The police found bottles of Mitchell's urine stored in his bedroom. Sandra Lean suggests he started doing this AFTER he had murdered. Where is her proof for this?

"Pattern 3 Compulsivity- The killer may suffer from some type of obsessive compulsive disorder. This obsession will cause him to commit the same crime over and over again. It will first appear in the second developmental stage of serial killing, the trolling phase where the killer drives or walks around for hours looking for the perfect victim. It will also be evident at the crime scene the killer will have a compulsion to hide a body in a certain place or commit certain acts of post -mortem mutilation. It’s also the reason the killer will keep items from each of his victims
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/cjrp/traits.html

It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 10:42:38 AM

Sandra Lean is an expert at manipulating facts to suit her own agenda.

"Explaining his motivation, Mr Binstead said: “I had contemplated writing the book for some years because I had always been fascinated by the mysterious and unique case of Gordon Park.

“What finally provoked me into actually putting pen to paper was a 2015 book 'No Smoke!

The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.

“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”

Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.

He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-Lady-in-the-Lake-murder-conviction-5999268a-951e-413c-9ed6-9562fdc5819f-ds


"NO Smoke" Should be Revised or Withdrawn - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on November 25, 2017, 12:41:36 PM
...and still no word on why Luke Mitchell would request books on satanism




"A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463



"Religious beliefs" - were these the same "religious beliefs" he held before murdering [Name removed]?  *&^^&


Dupers delight springs to mind  *&^^&



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2019, 11:39:19 PM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

Quote
In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner. He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on June 24, 2019, 11:58:51 PM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2019, 12:08:49 AM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

Indeed, the language of manipulation

Interesting to note Sandra Lean says here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y @ approx 44.02

 “it’s all designed to undermine the credibility of the information”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 11:47:05 AM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

What I find interesting is she’s had several years to address her misinformation regarding Simon Halls confession.

It appears to me it’s more beneficial to her agenda for doubt to remain as opposed to accepting she was conned.

Simon Hall and the others who knew about the Zenith burglary (whom she liaised with in order to carry out research for the chapter in her book “No Smoke”) failed to disclose their knowledge on this vital piece of information to her.

Yet when she learns about it she says:

In Feb 2013 she stated to me:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years


Let’s not forget - “Criminology is the study of crime, order and criminal justice. It considers a broad range of topics related to offending and victimisation, including their causes, social impact and prevention.

I’d be really interested to hear how she thinks I should have “handled Simon’s confession to the other burglary.”

there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.”

She concluded it was “detrimental to public support for Simon” and “a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.”

All of which I found extremely telling. 

For example; indicative of a lack of insight and no thought whatsoever or consideration for me or indeed what the consequences of said “confession” meant in the grand scheme of things.

Which, on its own, should be a red flag for people like Corrine Mitchell.

This is factual evidence of how Sandra Lean ticks. She claims to be a “truthseeker” but I have long disbelieved this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 01:08:42 PM
Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.

He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-Lady-in-the-Lake-murder-conviction-5999268a-951e-413c-9ed6-9562fdc5819f-ds

IMO all those people who have been taken in by Sandra Lean should put their bias to one side and not allow the fact the above statements are written by a retired prosecutor to get in the way of their judgement.

He makes valid points!

completely eclipsed” to the detriment of others.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

Still none the wiser to the time Luke Mitchell phoned and spoke to his gran. Was it 4.15 or 4.25pm or 4.50pm?

And can Corrine Mitchell remember what make of pies they were? Was it one pie between them or smaller individual pies? Don’t think that fact has been established? Where did she usually buy her pies? What were their favourite pies?

And was it a chicken pie or a steak pie? What did each of their witness statements say? Did one say steak and the other chicken for example?

If we can find out the type of pie(s), we can find out how long they would have taken to cook instead of guessing the length of time it takes to cook a pie.

Much of my research on the length of time it takes averaged around the 45-50 minute mark.

It might also be helpful if we can find out the make and model of the cooker used to cook said pies as well, as some ovens take longer than others. Was it an electric over, gas etc?

And did Luke put it on the top shelf as has been suggested? Where would he normally put food when he was cooking it in the oven? What shelf? Did the shelves get moved around on a regular basis or did they stay the same, as with many households?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 01:40:48 AM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

Quote
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.

Not according to Luke Mitchell it wasn’t!

Quote
In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner. He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs.

But Shane Mitchell said didn’t say anything to Luke about the burnt pie because he didn’t want to insult him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 01:55:09 AM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173

“I've said for many years, there's a huge possibility that this was a stranger murder (as in, the killer didn't know Jodi personally

In contradiction to any alleged “punishment killing” then?

Who’s misleading who? Corrine Mitchell or Sandra Lean or both?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 02:40:43 PM
My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

Guess it’s dependent on the personality of the person caught within the lies

Self-deception
The works of philosopher Alfred R. Mele have provided insight into some of the more prominent paradoxes regarding self-deception. Two of these paradoxes include the self-deceiver's state of mind and the dynamics of self-deception, coined the "static" paradox and the "dynamic/strategic" paradox, respectively.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception


A 2016 study here https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4426.epdf of what happens in the brain when you lie found that the more untruths a person tells, the easier and more frequent lying becomes. The results also indicated that self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 07, 2019, 10:02:05 AM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


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

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

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



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


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

 
Dr Sandra Lean

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




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 12:10:56 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


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

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

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



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


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

 
Dr Sandra Lean

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


Could this help your work? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgIwfl4MBk


”The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative


Stephanie Hall has very valid points here. Obviously I have no doubts about Ben Geen, absolutely none whatsoever. But the “miscarriage of justice movement” does make mistakes because it is human and a human system, and humans and human systems do make mistakes. I think myself about the case of José Booij who, though herself certainly innocent, I am sure, was a very complex and unusual person with her own narcissism, and so blinded by the injustice that was done to her, that she blindly manipulated anyone who (she thought) might possibly be able to come to her aid. Who wouldn’t, in her situation?

To whom a disaster befalls it makes no difference whether they were innocent victims or evil perpetrators.

We have to remember that, in the penultimate analysis, *we are all narcissists*. We have to keep being reminded of Kant’s categorical imperative. It’s not built into our own brain/mind system. It was an invention, not a discovery. We have to choose to follow it. (We have to decide for ourselves, moreover, who we are going to include in the category “other people”. Immanuel Kant, for instance, probably excluded women and possibly also people of different “race” to his own).


Professor Richard Gill (with permission from the author to share with whoever may find it useful)

The above was in response to the following https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2019/05/11/the-clues-that-point-to-barry-georges/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 03:35:47 PM
I’m not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story"

This part of the response I find interesting for varying reasons but for another time maybe
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 11:45:31 PM
My study just now is the play on 'words'

This is taking a liberty  *&^^&

Justice campaigner: The Herald 15 Sep 2018ROZLYN LITTLE
“DOCTOR Sandra Lean has dedicated her career to defending those who have been wrongfully convicted.
A mother of two daughters, she had a quiet but content life, running her own business in the town of Dalkeith.
But that all changed when the area was rocked by the brutal murder of 14-year old Jodi Jones in June 2003.
The teenager was discovered in woodland behind Newbattle High School – the same school that her eldest attended. At the heart of the crime was the accusation that 14-year old Luke Mitchell, Jodi’s boyfriend, was the murderer.
The murder would take Lean in an unexpected direction, as she sought to understand the events which were unfolding on her doorstep. After doubts that Mitchell was the killer, she began to investigate, leading to the publication of her first book about miscarriages of justice.
She then gained her PHD in criminal justice, becoming a fully qualified paralegal at the same time as finishing her thesis, all the while campaigning for those wrongfully convicted.
She is currently assisting the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, to launch a new appeal for the release of Mitchell, who was convicted of the murder of Jones.
She said: “My girls went to Newbattle High School and they walked along the path which runs at right angles to the path where Jodi was found. And the more I saw, the more I thought, ‘are my kids safe walking that path to school? Have they gone after the wrong guy?”
“I want to know, I want to be absolutely sure that they’ve got the right guy, so I know my girls are safe and that the person that did this is not still hanging about in those woods.”
Initially, she was surprised at how quickly suspicion fell on Mitchell and decided to turn away from local gossip. She was convinced of his innocence in 2009, when she first gained access to his case files.
She said: “There were at least half a dozen people who were people of interest. For example, people with previous histories of violently attacking women. These people all had a history. They were in the system, and usually when something like that happens, they trawl the system looking for people who have committed similar crimes. That’s just a standard thing. And yet they didn’t do it in this case. And you’re just left thinking, why?”
Dr Lean is back compiling evidence alongside other experts to launch a third appeal for Mitchell.
She says: “It’s wrong and it needs to be put right because it could be any one of us. And to sit where Jodi’s mum is sitting now, 15 years down the line, not knowing the truth. That cannot be acceptable.”
Along the way, she has faced criticism and even death threats from members of the local community. Some call her disrespectful for her work, but she says. “I don’t think it’s disrespectful to seek the truth under any circumstances.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 09, 2019, 09:42:51 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 04:11:17 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.

Information the police had around 16 years ago. Around the same 16 years ago when Corrine Mitchell heard on the grapevine in Midlothian that there was a women who knew nothing about the CJS but thought her son might be innocent. Go figure.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 05:27:24 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that point was in one of the 30-40 boxes presented to and knocked back by the SCCRC! (She gained access to the files in 2009).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 11:56:25 PM
And you can bet your bottom dollar that point was in one of the 30-40 boxes presented to and knocked back by the SCCRC! (She gained access to the files in 2009).

She removed 29 boxes of evidence from the charity’s Glasgow office this week.
Read more at https://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/luke-mitchells-mum-blasts-charity-for-lack-of-support#JcY2Txc7YFyQB83e.99

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 10, 2019, 03:31:57 PM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

“Paltering is the active use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression. Across 2 pilot studies and 6 experiments, we identify paltering as a distinct form of deception. Paltering differs from lying by omission (the passive omission of relevant information) and lying by commission (the active use of false statements). Our findings reveal that paltering is common in negotiations and that many negotiators prefer to palter than to lie by commission. Paltering, however, may promote conflict fueled by self-serving interpretations; palterers focus on the veracity of their statements (“I told the truth”), whereas targets focus on the misleading impression palters convey (“I was misled”). We also find that targets perceive palters to be especially unethical when palters are used in response to direct questions as opposed to when they are unprompted. Taken together, we show that paltering is a common, but risky, negotiation tactic. Compared with negotiators who tell the truth, negotiators who palter are likely to claim additional value, but increase the likelihood of impasse and harm to their reputations.

“We identify paltering as a distinct form of deception. Unlike lies by omission, paltering involves the active use of statements to create a false impression. Unlike lies by commission, paltering involves the use of truthful statements to mislead others. Importantly, paltering readily enables self-serving assessments of morality. By contrast, if discovered, targets harshly judge palterers who actively misled them. This contrast identifies a broken mental model. How greatly this broken model matters depends on how likely paltering is likely to be discovered relative to other deception tactics. Most importantly, we identify paltering as not only a distinct form of deception, but also a widely employed tactic in negotiations.
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000081.pdf
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 05:28:50 AM
What reason would the police have for deleting Luke Mitchell’s texts?

What time did he initially phone the police?

(The police operator who took Luke’s call asking police to come quickly noted, “The laddies in a right states”) (Excerpt from No Smoke)

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452391.html#msg452391

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

Saying he said “he had no recollection of deleting texts” doesn’t mean he didn’t.

What did this text allegedly sent by police say exactly and who was it sent to?

Could an explanation for this simply be the police logged the wrong time down for the time they seized the phone?

What time did police log Luke getting in the Land Rover and seizing his phone and what time did they arrive at the station?  Do all the times tally up? What officer logged the time? Had he been to the crime scene? Was the officer in a state of shock?

He also claims that when police arrived at the murder scene he was asked to take an officer to the body.
“I couldn’t. I couldn’t bring myself to go back over the wall,” said Mitchell. “Then an officer put me in the back of a police Land Rover and took my phone off me.”
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505

Did the police actually take him phone when in got in the Land Rover or is this a figure of speech? What do police notes/logs suggest?

Are there police statements stating an officer accidentally deleted Luke’s texts?

And what time period? 12.30am onwards? What time exactly?

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
“Texts on both Judy’s and Luke’s phone had been erased, so there is nothing to prove what was said in those texts. However, if this was the first point at which Luke became aware that he would be seeing Jodi that night (Since she was still “grounded”) an important issue arises. There are only 11-16 minutes between those texts being exchanged, and the sighting by Andrina Bryson at the Easthouses end of the path. It is not possible for Luke to have made the journey, on foot, from his home to the Easthouses end of the path in that time. Yet, what reason would he have, prior to that time, to be anywhere near the path? He believed he was not meeting Jodi because she had been grounded. .
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:34:01 AM
“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

Evidence her daughter had told her she’d be with Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 01:27:41 PM
Further evidence of WAP putting out disingenuous and misleading information into the public domain

“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

THE Jodi Jones murder trial was told yesterday that the record of Luke Mitchell's phone had been wiped out hours after the schoolgirl died.

A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted, along with Judith Jones's attempt to contact her daughter to tell her she was "grounded" for staying out late.

Derek Morris, 56, from Lothian and Borders Police technical support unit, said he had carried out tests on Mr Mitchell's mobile phone the day after Jodi's death.

Mr Morris said the phone's record of last numbers dialled showed only one call instead of the usual 10. It was to Mr Mitchell's mother at 39 minutes past midnight. "That was the only one listed. He must have deleted the call register and started again, " said Mr Morris.

Records from the mobile phone company listed a call from Mr Mitchell's mobile to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight. Mr Morris said he thought the records had been deleted between the two calls.

“Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.

Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".

In questioning, Mr Findlay and Mr Morris agreed that text messages on Jodi's mother's mobile had also been deleted and there was nothing unusual about people doing that.

Alan Turnbull QC, for the prosecution, told the jury that before the Crown case closes, probably some time next week, he would be asking experts about a computer found in the bedroom of Shane Mitchell, Mr Mitchell's brother.

The court has heard that someone made a 22-minute internet connection from the Mitchell home in Newbattle, Dalkeith, just before 5pm on June 30, 2003.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

Most of the information on the WAP forum at the time came from Luke Mitchell. Information he and his mother had given Sandra Lean in order to help her write the chapter in her book.

Sandra Lean didn’t get sight of the working case files until sometime in 2009/10.

Meaning Sandra Lean had an opportunity to correct misleading information in the public domain as early as 2009/10.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:38:09 PM

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

What date is Sandra Lean referring to when these questions are being posed to Luke? His first interview as a witness or the times he was interviewed as a suspect?

And Donald Findlay QC and his team failed to spot this but Sandra Lean has?

And David Morris from L&B tech support also didn’t notice this? Or are Luke Mitchell’s supporters claiming he was also part of some conspiracy?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:45:17 PM
Most of the information on the WAP forum at the time came from Luke Mitchell. Information he and his mother had given Sandra Lean in order to help her write the chapter in her book.

Sandra Lean didn’t get sight of the working case files until sometime in 2009/10.

Meaning Sandra Lean had an opportunity to correct misleading information in the public domain as early as 2009/10.

What was happening with the Luke Mitchell case around this time and what was going on with regards WAP and Billy Middleton etc.

Why the need by Sandra Lean to attempt a distraction with this? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383377.html#msg383377

Sandra Lean stated:

”It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 05:47:55 PM
 Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Quote
Yes, Sandra most certainly is! I do not have an "extremely strong relationship" with Corinne, she is not "my friend,"  or my "best buddy." My reasons for continuing with Luke's case have nothing to do with any relationship I have with Corinne - good or bad.

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:09:19 PM
Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.

Quite!

8 days before attending the COA, whilst I was in probably one of the most volatile and vulnerable positions I’ve ever experienced in my life, the pair of them chose to do this!?!

In a blatant attempt at damage limitations because THEY had been exposed!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:53:31 PM
Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.

I suspect a conversation has been had amongst them, cards have been put on the table, and Corrine Mitchell has gone for it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 07:10:11 PM
Nugnug states: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452502.html#msg452502 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452502.html#msg452502)
thats not a refution its just insult.

seems you cant refute my point.

why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them

why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.

come on whats the nser to that


It’s basic logic, if only he and the rest of them understood the people within the case and could see past the BS.

Jodi was a private individual; she deleted her messages to Luke so that her mum wouldn’t see them.

The Joneses and extended family were and are a close knit, loving and private family. If Jodi’s mum did delete her messages it was done to protect her privacy. It’s normal for people to delete messages. The fact she handed her phone to the police shows she had nothing to hide. She would not have known if the police could have retrieved all the data or not.

The other fact of course is none us know what the make and models of the phones were and what there capabilities were at the time nor the capabilities of L&B police and their data retrieval systems at the the time.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:20:06 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452488.html#msg452488
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

This isn’t a deliberate lie it’s a lie of commission. I very much doubt they would have been interviewing him with their call logs on the table in front of them, and him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 11:11:04 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 12:25:47 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.

It appears to me Sandra Lean is using the Luke Mitchell case as a mere means, just as she appears to have done in the Simon Hall case.

She is not concerned with how Luke Mitchell’s guilt will impact on and effect all those around him, she merely wants to use the case in a personal attempt to expose the CJS.

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452332.html#msg452332

I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.

Maybe before writing her 2nd book and demanding answers of others in her alleged search for the truth it would have been an idea for her to explain to the rest of us (Also searching for the truth) how it came to be she made the decision to go into partnership with Billy Middleton (And at the time she did) and to tell us all where the charity monies ended up?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.0

She didn’t resign until April 2013.

From:​ S​andra Lean
Sent:​ Friday, April 05, 2013 5:37 PM To:​ ​Billy Middleton
Subject:​ WAP
Dear Billy,
Please accept this email as notification of my resignation as a director of the Wrongly Accused Person charity
I have been unwell for some time now, and the stress of worrying about ​the accounts situation, in particular​, is something I cannot cope with at the moment, so I feel it is best if I simply resign, and concentrate on regaining my health.
Kind regards Sandra

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.msg524659#msg524659

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199

http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.htm

Sandra Lean stated in January 2011:
Throughout my involvement with the Wrongly Accused and Convicted, I have acted with honesty, integrity and transparency, and that will continue to be the case. I have the truth on my side, and nothing can change that. I am aware that the attacks will continue, and I have neither the time, energy, nor inclination to continually refute them.

For almost 8 years, I have done what I have done voluntarily, and at my own expense. I ask for nothing in return – this was my choice, and continues to be my choice. For those who wish to see my reputation destroyed, or to have me go away, crushed by their incessant attacks, I have just one message – not a chance. Do your worst – you will not stop me from doing what I do. In the words of Dr Wayne Dyer, what you think of me is none of my business. If I bow to your opinion of me, I become your version of me. Why would I want to do that?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8119.0
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 06:44:16 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/

Quote
“The prosecution are fond of inferring that the defendant was at the scene of a crime, based on Cell Site Analysis. We are often able to show the court that the defendant could also have been in a number of other places, as the serving cell covered a large geographical area.”


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 06:48:08 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.

Yep
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 12:34:41 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg

The Lerwick fire station offered room in its yard as well as the use of two hose reel jets.”
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2019/07/01/car-wash-raises-cash-for-mri-appeal/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 02:40:33 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.

During her podcast with JE Sandra Lean mentions “copycat murder”

Was “copycat murder” ever mentioned during Luke Mitchell trial?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 13, 2019, 03:45:26 PM
Quote
During her podcast with JE Sandra Lean mentions “copycat murder”

Was “copycat murder” ever mentioned during Luke Mitchell trial?



Not that I am aware of? resemblance to which is not of the same strength of meaning as "copycat". to infer copycat, easier to dismantle evidence showing in retrospect of the the Manson dvd. IMO
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:08:00 PM


Not that I am aware of? resemblance to which is not of the same strength of meaning as "copycat". to infer copycat, easier to dismantle evidence showing in retrospect of the the Manson dvd. IMO

Neither am I

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 07:02:42 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.

According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

“A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 07:38:38 PM
According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

“A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago

”over a decade ago” not 16 years ago

interesting
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:00:56 PM
According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago

And the new book contains a “a full review of the case” then states “The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:14:14 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg

”Poor Billy! His mum designs a hat she thinks might sell a dozen of, them it goes global. He has pattern design, online marketing, photography, website and Facebook to deal with and now knitting. They say it’s relaxing and therapeutic Billy. Good luck!

https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=2032398537069879_2032426683733731&count=2&curr&pc=1&ft_ent_identifier=2032398537069879&gfid=AQAOXmMv905xYCPh
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
There are so many lies being told in this case so thought it was worth pointing out about the family liaison officer.

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

So the Mitchell’s or Luke had the whole of the following day to dispose of incriminating evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 15, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
There are so many lies being told in this case so thought it was worth pointing out about the family liaison officer.

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

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

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

Luke being out of the house, witnessed yet lied regarding length of time. Shane out and about that evening also.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 08:35:38 AM
Had most of the night of the 30th, any other time of the Liaison officer not being present (not there 24/7) Media used as another reason prohibiting any disposal.

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

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

Maybe because it had been taken away from the crime scene and burnt
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 01:12:03 PM
“Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.” [54]
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:24:22 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


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

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

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



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


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

 
Dr Sandra Lean

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


There’s no doubting it’s intentional Parky
https://exploringyourmind.com/7-ways-identify-master-manipulator/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:36:10 PM
Fake news, also known as junk news or pseudo-news, is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media or online social media.

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

Fake news is a neologism[1][19][21] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media[1] or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate [/i]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:45:41 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


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

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

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



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


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

 
Dr Sandra Lean

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


Misinformation or disinformation?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 03:12:13 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


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

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

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



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


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

 
Dr Sandra Lean

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


So much for transparency
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 05:19:31 PM
Podcast with James English and Sandra Lean and discussion at beginning re lie detectors

Neither of them knew what the questions were gonna be they didn’t know until the day the guy turned up to do the test and they were done I think two months apart so there wasn’t even an opportunity for them to discuss potential answers because they had no idea what was gonna be asked
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 05:43:48 PM
Is nugnug claiming to have heard the interviews? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452828.html#msg452828

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

The fifth passage relied upon appeared at pages 39 to 40 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant had been asked about what he had said to David High when he met him and why he appeared to know that David High had said to the police that the appellant had said to him that Jodi was not coming out on the night in question. The fact was that the appellant had not agreed that he had said this at all. In any event, there had been no overbearing behaviour on the part of the interviewers at that point.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 05:51:59 PM
“[144] Further, the appellant had said to Judith Jones that he had thought that Jodi had been "grounded".
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 12:15:33 PM
@ approx 11.28 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI

Corrine Mitchell says;

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

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

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

If you say something that Findlay doesn’t like he’d slam his fist down on the desk and say, ‘It’s my way or no way, laddy!’”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4298552/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-trial-lawyer-mum-corrine-james-english-anything-goes-innocent/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Findlay says: “I do worry. I worry about what is happening during a trial. I tend to take work home with me, and after a trial if the client has been convicted then I worry that perhaps I could or should have done better.

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

“But some things I have looked at can be quite distressing, involving dead children and so on.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 25, 2019, 01:14:28 AM
Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

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


Will post source later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 25, 2019, 05:44:01 PM
Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

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


Will post source later.

Did SL’s spiel re her interests and hobbies remind you of the Carol Felstead case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 27, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
G30
Quote
Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis
[/b].


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

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

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

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on July 31, 2019, 04:34:12 PM
G30 .


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

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

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

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

Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 01, 2019, 12:02:55 PM
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

I am compiling a list of comments and sources when I get home from holiday.  The report came from a post by 'Jigsawman' from the Fact & Myth site.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 01, 2019, 01:39:22 PM
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and the penalties for breaching same. Please keep posts amicable and constructive and above all, on topic. TY
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 04, 2019, 12:41:28 PM

Quote
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL
Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 09:19:32 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 10:12:27 AM
Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.


What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 10:55:08 AM

What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?

I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 11:46:28 AM
I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.

Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]


It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 12:05:27 PM



It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.

My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 12:13:09 PM
My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.

Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 01:28:38 PM
Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?

Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 03:32:19 PM
Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."


SL is picking up on the word 'shampoo' She is not disputing her reference to the police doctors report on 'smelling washed'. She is, as your are?, putting forth that I am taking things out of context. (pushing out misinformation) You asked a question about proof of 'shampoo'. I gave an answer of 'similarity'  - IF (IMO) some ones hair 'smells' washed, it would give the 'impression' one had 'smelled' shampoo.

I therefore apologized to yourself for using the word 'shampoo'. However, what SL may take from 'her' comment on this, 'smelled washed,' is neither here nor there. IF she is correct, that the police doctor did indeed say LM's hair smelled washed, it is up to us, as individuals to deduce what we may from it. For me, that although his hair had been dirtied over the evening, it had at some point been washed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Rusty on August 05, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on August 05, 2019, 08:24:17 PM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

I don’t think it matters who baz is, what they are saying is spot on imo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 06, 2019, 08:37:21 AM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

Voldemort?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 06, 2019, 12:34:11 PM
Voldemort?
(&^&

 Slytherin,  Those cunning folk use any means, To achieve their ends.     8)--)) *%87
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 01:46:25 AM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:04:51 AM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks

Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:12:59 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s need updating also

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:17:54 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

2011
“The murder trial began at the High Court in Glasgow on 1 February this year, making it the longest criminal trial with a single accused in Scottish legal history.
The jury took less than four hours to convict Webster.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/malcolm-webster-guilty-of-killing-first-wife-and-attempted-murder-of-his-second-1-1648802
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:37:12 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

2005
“The Jodi Jones murder case is, it has been said, the longest Scottish murder trial against a single accused.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 01:06:43 PM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks

Sandra Lean Sept 2018
“This would be the biggest embarrassment possibly ever for the Scottish police.
It was such a big case, the longest trial of a single accused in Scottish history. He was 14 years old when they first targeted him.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16868077.crime-experts-fight-to-clear-luke-mitchell/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2019, 12:15:44 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Any luck with this Parky?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 08, 2019, 10:49:41 AM
Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


The fly in the ointment for me sort of speak is the guy who boasted in prison that he killed Jodi Jones. Alan Roberts was a predator with learning difficulties who used the cycleways around Edinburgh regularly. He would go out on his bicycle armed with a rape kit which he could used to gag and restrain his victim. He was eventually caught and convicted, it was after this that he made the confession to a fellow prisoner. The police and Mitchell's defence team were told of Robert's confession at the time, he was thereafter interviewed in HMP Edinburgh by Lothian & Borders Police. I have always wondered if the unknown DNA found at the murderscene was ever cross checked against Robert's DNA. One would have thought that Mitchell's then defence team would have followed up on these things.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/rape-kit-man-begins-life-sentence-for-sex-attack-1-1047688

On the other hand, there is evidence that Luke Mitchell had the opportunity to carry out the murder, at least three independent witnesses place him near the murderscene, he also had the perfect escape route back to his house without being seen walking along the main road. He had a history of cannabis abuse and had previously threatened another girl with a knife. All very sinister imo.


Q1. Sandra Lean has a history of forgetting things but to be fair she usually apologises and retracts later.

Q2. Sandra Lean takes so much for granted when she categorically claims that no clothes were burned. She has no special inside knowledge what occurred, she wasn't there, she is merely repeating the Mitchell story.  There was ample opportunity to dispose of items during the many hours following the murder when Luke Mitchell was allegedly playing in the woods.

Q3. Sandra Leans criticism of the police for allegedly not acquiring the mobile phone analysis of Luke's phone movements on the night of the murder is warranted but the failure of the defence to do so is inexcusable. The old legal aid excuse just doesn't wash IMO.  Luke Mitchell could very well have been seen with Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path, his mobile phone being in his jacket pocket. After all, he was seen at the other end of the path shortly after Jodi's murder by two independent witnesses in a car.

Q4. Sandra Lean claims that there was no forensic evidence linking Luke Mitchell to the crimescene or the crimescene to him. Given that it rained on the crimescene on the night following the murder it was to be expected that valuable forensic evidence would be washed away. The police failure to protect the crimescene is well documented, even the first forensic officer to attend the scene was so fat she couldn't get over the wall to inspect the body...what a shambles.  Forensics failed to identify any DNA connecting Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones despite the fact that they were together earlier in the school day...failures all around agreed.

Q5. Fair point on the polygraph but as it is a fake science imo, I see it as being of limited use. There are exceptions of course, one being the Prout case when following a failed polygraph, Adrian Prout confessed to murdering his wife.

Q6. Repeat reference to contaminated crimescene covered in Q4 above.

Q7. I agreed that the police interview of 14-year-old Luke Mitchell was disgraceful but that doesn't render him not guilty. Sandra Lean suggests that Luke's conviction should be quashed merely because of the way in which he was interviewed, effectively a technical overturning of his conviction. This in itself smaks of sheer desperation imo.

Q8. Further reference to lack of forensics linking Luke Mitchell to the crimescene.

Q9. Sandra Lean suggests that old school defence lawyer Donald Findlay QC failed to grasp the extent to which the media involvement in the case affected the outcome.  He certainly cost an arm and a leg for all his failed efforts!

Q10. Sandra Lean questions the alibi provided in respect of Jodi's sister's boyfriend and other Jones family members. This blaming of others as a means to exonerate Luke Mitchell has been a consistent element of her involvement in the case.

She refers to the condom which found near the crimescene and again points out that there was no forensic connection to Luke Mitchell. She draws attention again to the police forensic failings and alleges that they intentionally briefed that the condom was unconnected to Jodi's murder.

Q11. Sandra Lean denies that she had blamed others for the murder of Jodi Jones but the documented online record speaks for itself. Sandra Lean claims that she is irrelevant in the case and is only the messenger...hmm

Q12. Sandra Lean claims to do what she does for Jodi's family just as much as for Luke's as neither have got justice. That is Sandra's opinion.

Q13. The question as to why only Luke Mitchell was treated as a suspect when others had been on the path the night that Jodi was murdered yet none of them were taken in for questioning that night, had their clothing taken for analysis or were subjected to a physical examination by a police doctor. Sandra Lean is right to ridicule the police actions but again, this has no relevance to Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 08, 2019, 04:05:19 PM
Contd.

Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


Q14. Sandra Lean's response to the question as to why the Mitchell Alsatian Mia didn't find Jodi's body the first time she and Luke Mitchell walked past it is extremely convoluted. I would take the claim that the dog could be 'put into tracker mode' with a very big pinch of salt. In any event, Luke Mitchell had just walked along the path and found nothing whatsoever untoward, why on earth would he do anything differently on the way back unless he knew where Jodi's remains lay.

Q15. This question touches on Luke Mitchell's use of cannabis.  Immediately, Sandra goes into defensive mode and instead of answering the question posed, she goes off at a tangent to ask why the other cannabis users weren't investigated too.  I refer back to the James English interview at this point when Sandra Lean stated that Luke was a normal student with no issues. Is it normal for a 14-year-old schoolboy to be using his bedroom to weigh and package cannabis to be sold to other schoolchildren?  Clearly yet another large pinch of salt required.

Q16. This question touches on Luke's use of cannabis and how psychosis may have played a part in Jodi's murder. Sandra Lean again goes into a defensive mode pointing out that someone very close to Jodi, her brother actually, was allegedly on the highest prescription for psychosis even though he was a regular cannabis user.

Q17. This question was posed by someone who apparently knew Sandra Lean's daughters and had met Luke and his mother at the caravan park. They claim that his goth look made him stand out and an obvious target of police interest.  Sandra Lean rubbishes this observation yet she claims not to have known Luke or his mother prior to the murder.

Q18. This respondent asks why Sandra Lean only puts out facts and information favourable to Luke Mitchell. I think we all know the answer to that one.

Q19. This responded claimed that Sandra Lean has a motive and that is to prove that Luke Mitchell has no case to answer.  I wonder where he or she got that idea from?

Q20. This question relates to disclosure and the basis on which an appeal can be made. Sandra Lean states that only new evidence which has surfaced since the initial trial can be used in an appeal. She asks how Donald Findlay can defend against something he doesn't know about?

Q21. This from someone who knew a policeman who worked on the case. Claims that the moment he heard about the murder he knew that Luke Mitchell was involved. Also claims that he told his own son to keep away from Mitchell at school. Sandra Lean replies that this is the problem with this case, many claims but no context, no evidence, nothing.  Could this be another instance where Sandra Lean is blind to incriminating evidence?

Q22. Raises the claim that convicted rapist Robert Greens might have been the killer. Sandra Lean states that the police refused to give an answer when asked if Greens had been investigated with respect to Jodi's murder.

Q23. Asks why Luke didn't show emotion. Sandra Lean explains that he was warned not to show emotion as he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. She goes on to explain that Mitchell was on strong medication, the purpose of which was to stifle such emotions.

Q24. Respondent asks why Sandra Lean stopped working on the case?  Sandra states that she stopped working bon it in 2014 but started again in 2016. She explains that when the SCCRC refused to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the evidence she had presented that she felt that there was nowhere left to go.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: WakeyWakey on September 09, 2019, 01:01:04 AM
Look like your reply broken John.

Contd.

Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


Q14. Sandra Lean's response to the question as to why the Mitchell Alsatian Mia didn't find Jodi's body the first time she and Luke Mitchell walked past it is extremely convoluted. I would take the claim that the dog could be 'put into tracker mode' with a very big pinch of salt.

regarding this


Q11. Sandra Lean denies that she had blamed others for the murder of Jodi Jones but the documented online record speaks for itself. Sandra Lean claims that she is irrelevant in the case and is only the messenger...hmm


i share your doubt here. woiuld like to be able to establish with certainty prior links to the acccused family but havent ben able to concretely yet.  i was one of those cockburn street youths of years 2002 or about then and remember sandras daughter and luke being pals. (he sold me hash once lol) seems very likely to me that they all knew each other even then
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2019, 11:29:07 PM
"Explaining his motivation, Mr Binstead said: “I had contemplated writing the book for some years because I had always been fascinated by the mysterious and unique case of Gordon Park.

“What finally provoked me into actually putting pen to paper was a 2015 book 'No Smoke!

The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.

“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”

Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.

He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-Lady-in-the-Lake-murder-conviction-5999268a-951e-413c-9ed6-9562fdc5819f-ds


"NO Smoke" Should be Revised or Withdrawn - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html

Described as full and frank”, Mr Binstead's book – A Very Cumbrian Murder – provides an exhaustive review of the evidence that convicted Park, pointing out that he was paid £50,000 by a national newspaper for an interview about the case.
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16759455.former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-lady-in-the-lake-murder-conviction/

Gordon Park was paid £50,000 for an interview with the Mail on Sunday https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SZeFTLPGtigC&pg=PT274&lpg=PT274&dq=gordon+park+paid+£50,000+for+interview&source=bl&ots=iBPefMrN2F&sig=ACfU3U1kk7RnLjGHQFTgnmdPYlOY_U30zA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7ofy[Name removed]MDlAhXzoXEKHbn8CSIQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=gordon%20park%20paid%20£50%2C000%20for%20interview&f=false
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on October 29, 2019, 09:54:53 AM
Look like your reply broken John.

regarding this

i share your doubt here. woiuld like to be able to establish with certainty prior links to the acccused family but havent ben able to concretely yet.  i was one of those cockburn street youths of years 2002 or about then and remember sandras daughter and luke being pals. (he sold me hash once lol) seems very likely to me that they all knew each other even then
Did Ms Lean not take one of her daughters to visit with Luke in prison?
I vaguely remember something around this - of Ms Lean making a point, that of her firm belief in his innocence.
That in taking her daughter, it was not something she would do, if having doubts about his guilt. I thought it rather odd,
that she would just tag her daughter along, that this visit perhaps was for her daughter - to visit their friend.

It also seemed rather odd - that Ms Mitchell in September 2003, would just hear of this woman who believed in Luke's innocence,
subsequently arriving at Ms Leans door.
Were Luke and her daughter - still seeing each other after this girl was murdered? This friendship therefore bringing Ms Mitchell to Ms Leans door?
Did this friendship, the trust that her daughter may have had in Luke, kickstart Ms Leans involvement?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 29, 2019, 04:48:15 PM
Did Ms Lean not take one of her daughters to visit with Luke in prison?
I vaguely remember something around this - of Ms Lean making a point, that of her firm belief in his innocence.
That in taking her daughter, it was not something she would do, if having doubts about his guilt. I thought it rather odd,
that she would just tag her daughter along, that this visit perhaps was for her daughter - to visit their friend.

It also seemed rather odd - that Ms Mitchell in September 2003, would just hear of this woman who believed in Luke's innocence,
subsequently arriving at Ms Leans door.
Were Luke and her daughter - still seeing each other after this girl was murdered? This friendship therefore bringing Ms Mitchell to Ms Leans door?
Did this friendship, the trust that her daughter may have had in Luke, kickstart Ms Leans involvement?

Interesting theory Parky?

No idea, however the daughter to which you refer has been vocal about Luke Mitchell and has posted on the forum/s in the past.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on February 19, 2021, 06:37:09 PM
Stephen Bennett Retweeted
Claire C
@xMrsCCx
I did always find this an interesting case, for such an awful murder, doesn't make sense for there to be no DNA of his at the scene; but there was her sister bfs on her T-shirt! He passed a lie detector test for another programme #jodijones #lukemitchell
https://mobile.twitter.com/xMrsCCx/status/1362693458289430528

http://www.stephenabennett.com/about/index/

Stephen Bennett
@hello_bennett
Police Scotland satisfied they caught the right man in the Jodi Jones murder.  'Murder in a Small Town', Wed 24th / Thurs 25th, Channel 5 at 9pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/hello_bennett/status/1362778284589780998


https://www.thenational.scot/news/19103764.jodi-jones-murder-police-scotland-satisfied-luke-mitchell-killer/

Jodi Jones murder: Police Scotland 'satisfied' Luke Mitchell is killer
POLICE Scotland say they are "satisfied" they caught the right man in connection with the 2003 muder of Jodi Jones.

The force’s defence comes ahead of a new documentary on the killing of the Dalkeith teen, which suggests Luke Mitchell might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He’s protested his innocence ever since his arrest as a 14 year old.

Two former police detectives hired by a new Channel 5 documentary, Murder in a small town, say they believe the now 32-year old man is innocent.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2021, 10:39:38 PM
Stephen Bennett Retweeted
Claire C
@xMrsCCx
I did always find this an interesting case, for such an awful murder, doesn't make sense for there to be no DNA of his at the scene; but there was her sister bfs on her T-shirt! He passed a lie detector test for another programme #jodijones #lukemitchell
https://mobile.twitter.com/xMrsCCx/status/1362693458289430528

http://www.stephenabennett.com/about/index/

Stephen Bennett
@hello_bennett
Police Scotland satisfied they caught the right man in the Jodi Jones murder.  'Murder in a Small Town', Wed 24th / Thurs 25th, Channel 5 at 9pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/hello_bennett/status/1362778284589780998


https://www.thenational.scot/news/19103764.jodi-jones-murder-police-scotland-satisfied-luke-mitchell-killer/

Jodi Jones murder: Police Scotland 'satisfied' Luke Mitchell is killer
POLICE Scotland say they are "satisfied" they caught the right man in connection with the 2003 muder of Jodi Jones.

The force’s defence comes ahead of a new documentary on the killing of the Dalkeith teen, which suggests Luke Mitchell might be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He’s protested his innocence ever since his arrest as a 14 year old.

Two former police detectives hired by a new Channel 5 documentary, Murder in a small town, say they believe the now 32-year old man is innocent.


Of course the police say they are ‘satisfied’. I’m sure the police in the Birmingham Six case said exactly the same thing, many times.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 01, 2021, 01:02:46 PM
Is there a thread on the changing of the 3 witness statements?

Luke Mitchell ‘repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased’

Mitchell duped the 3 family members over his dogs reaction

Suspect they hadn’t actually seen Mia react and their initial statements were based on what Luke had told them as opposed to what they’d actually seen

And this wasn’t realised until a later date

[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on March 01, 2021, 01:48:58 PM
Is there a thread on the changing of the 3 witness statements?

Luke Mitchell ‘repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased’

Mitchell duped the 3 family members over his dogs reaction

Suspect they hadn’t actually seen Mia react and their initial statements were based on what Luke had told them as opposed to what they’d actually seen

And this wasn’t realised until a later date

[15] The first key concerned the discovery of the deceased's body. Of the search party it was the appellant who first went through the "V" point. The Crown asked the jury to accept the evidence of the other members of the search party to the effect that he had gone straight to the "V" as the party moved down the path, that he did not progress beyond this point before returning to it and that he knew to look left and to explore further in that direction as soon as he climbed through the gap. The inference was that he already knew where the body was located. This explanation was to be contrasted with the appellant's account at police interview when he had stated that, having gone some distance past the "V", he had been alerted by the dog to something behind the wall at that point, had retraced his steps and then climbed through the gap.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The question was often asked as to why Mia (Mitchell family trained tracker Alsatian) didn't find Jodi's scent on the first pass as Luke and she walked along the dirt path to meet up with the Jones family?

Surely anyone looking for a missing girlfriend would follow any and all indications given by their tracker dog? And especially so as the V notch in the wall allowed easy access for a young person to climb over.

No, it didn't happen, he walked right past Jodi's body, just feet away and only minutes later supposedly discovered the murder scene with the Jones family in tow. In itself this might not be much but taken with everything else it is damning evidence.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on March 01, 2021, 04:26:32 PM
I think the answer often given was Luke was walking up a dark path at 11 at night so was not allowing the dog to search, so to speak, he was walking quickly up the path. Once he met the search party they suggested going back down the path, I think that’s when he was said to have told the dog to find Jodi. The dog was then meant to have reacted at the wall, so they walked back to the v to see what was on the other side.

So could be a number of reasons the dog did not react on way up, walking too fast, wind not blowing right way, not in tracker mode I think is one they said also
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 17, 2021, 10:01:27 PM
Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.

Hi. I realise I'm two years late here but I'm hoping you're still around, Baz. What about Mr. Frankland?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 21, 2021, 08:46:54 PM
The question was often asked as to why Mia (Mitchell family trained tracker Alsatian) didn't find Jodi's scent on the first pass as Luke and she walked along the dirt path to meet up with the Jones family?

Surely anyone looking for a missing girlfriend would follow any and all indications given by their tracker dog? And especially so as the V notch in the wall allowed easy access for a young person to climb over.

No, it didn't happen, he walked right past Jodi's body, just feet away and only minutes later supposedly discovered the murder scene with the Jones family in tow. In itself this might not be much but taken with everything else it is damning evidence.
Someone asked on a Live once if any of the search party had called out to poor Jodi whilst searching. Dr. Lean said the original three members of the search party hadn't called out Jodi's name despite walking through Easthouses. So I asked if LM had called out Jodi's name at all and I was ignored.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 21, 2021, 10:39:01 PM
Someone asked on a Live once if any of the search party had called out to poor Jodi whilst searching. Dr. Lean said the original three members of the search party hadn't called out Jodi's name despite walking through Easthouses. So I asked if LM had called out Jodi's name at all and I was ignored.

Questions are often missed on lives. Why don’t you join one of the groups and asked again?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 21, 2021, 11:16:58 PM
Questions are often missed on lives. Why don’t you join one of the groups and asked again?
I don't want to join a group and I did ask again. I asked after the Live and I asked again after the update that followed that Live. I was ignored.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 22, 2021, 12:24:24 AM
I don't want to join a group and I did ask again. I asked after the Live and I asked again after the update that followed that Live. I was ignored.

I wouldn’t take it personally.

Have you read Dr Lean’s book? Perhaps the answer’s in that or the reports of the testimony given in court? Of course you could also send your question in an email. I’m sure Dr Lean’s email address should be easy to find.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 22, 2021, 10:08:12 AM
I don't want to go off the thread subject so hopefully this may help to clarify some misinformation.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mums-fury-jodi-jones-documentary-24327016?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 22, 2021, 10:36:32 PM
I wouldn’t take it personally.

Have you read Dr Lean’s book? Perhaps the answer’s in that or the reports of the testimony given in court? Of course you could also send your question in an email. I’m sure Dr Lean’s email address should be easy to find.
Don't stress. I don't take it personally. I've seen that happen to quite a few people.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 22, 2021, 11:03:38 PM
Don't stress. I don't take it personally. I've seen that happen to quite a few people.

Good, I’m glad. Perhaps she mistakenly thought that you were a troll eh?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 02:26:00 PM
Good, I’m glad. Perhaps she mistakenly thought that you were a troll eh?
I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 23, 2021, 03:05:14 PM
I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?

Not you, no.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2021, 04:17:13 PM
I asked a reasonable,  straightforward question. It was a question that had already been asked by someone else but hadn't been answered fully. Uncomfortable questions don't make a person a troll.  That's not what trolling is and given that Dr. Lean has answered some of my other questions before and since then, I don't think me being a troll can be the reason, eh?

Why do you think that Dr Lean would be uncomfortable answering the question? Did you know the answer already?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 06:39:05 PM
Why do you think that Dr Lean would be uncomfortable answering the question? Did you know the answer already?

How could I possibly know the answer already unless you're suggesting I was present at the time? Are you suggesting I was one of the search party or are you saying the information is already in the public domain? What exactly do you mean?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2021, 09:16:58 PM
How could I possibly know the answer already unless you're suggesting I was present at the time? Are you suggesting I was one of the search party or are you saying the information is already in the public domain? What exactly do you mean?

I’m saying none of those things but you seem to feel that she was uncomfortable answering the question you asked. Why would she be?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 10:41:14 PM
I’m saying none of those things but you seem to feel that she was uncomfortable answering the question you asked. Why would she be?


No. You insinuated I already knew the answer. I'll ask again. How could I possibly know the answer?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2021, 11:30:45 PM
No. You insinuated I already knew the answer. I'll ask again. How could I possibly know the answer?

It was a suggestion rather than an insinuation but logic does dictate that for you to think that Dr Lean was uncomfortable answering the question you must have believed that the resulting answer was awkward for her and to believe that you must have known the answer before asking the question.

I have seen this tactic used my times over the years. At best it delivers a hollow victory that leaves the questioner’s lack of debating skill plain for all to see.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 11:40:40 PM
It was a suggestion rather than an insinuation but logic does dictate that for you to think that Dr Lean was uncomfortable answering the question you must have believed that the resulting answer was awkward for her and to believe that you must have known the answer before asking the question.

I have seen this tactic used my times over the years. At best it delivers a hollow victory that leaves the questioner’s lack of debating skill plain for all to see.

And I asked you if you were suggesting I was part of the search party and if the answer to my original question is in the public domain. That's all. You can try to distract and insult all you like. Your "cleverness" is wasted on me. However, this thread isn't titled, Faithlilly and rulesapply having it out so good night.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2021, 11:52:57 PM
And I asked you if you were suggesting I was part of the search party and if the answer to my original question is in the public domain. That's all. You can try to distract and insult all you like. Your "cleverness" is wasted on me. However, this thread isn't titled, Faithlilly and rulesapply having it out so good night.


Sleep tight rulesapply.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 08, 2021, 12:21:20 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Today at 12:07:56 AM
Quote
Might be best if people stop trying to score points off each other from the anniversary of the tragic murder of a young girl at the hands of a psychotic sadistic maniac.

When was the last time anyone posted about the actual case?

Quote
I agree. Most of the discussion on these threads seems to be about Sandra Lean and/or the campaign team, rather than about the actual case!

This has been discussed many times, reasons as to why the writer and new campaigners are at the fore of discussion. The first in making people aware that all is not as it seems with the author. The latter in their deciphering of what has been put out. The horrendous smear campaign that has taken place against innocent people. The criticism of Ms Lean and Co is not a patch on what her work has produced over time upon others.

Where discussion of the actual case/evidence is concerned - it is at all times distracted from by those promoting innocence. One of the main tactics used by that handful of people over time. It starts with the usual, of pulling up some of Ms Leans case as proof against what one is saying to be wrong.Then onto, why should anyone believe you over Ms Lean who has all the answers? Then onto cites, it you can't provide cites then you should be ignored. Then onto mockery. And if one survives all of that it is the blatant distraction of the alter egos. Popping up swaying the topic into other avenues.

It is the very reason that every topic is a mishmash of nonsense at times. It is now allowed to run coherently. For it shows the evidence against LM all too clearly.

Of evidence. First and foremost yet again, that concocted alibi. That went from 40-45 mins to then being squashed into less than 15mins. Then we move onto the claimed time of waiting for Jodi, twiddling ones thumbs. That initially was centered around 30mins. Of LM using the sightings by the boys he knew and person from the estate. Which then turned into 90mins in reality. Until the point in which he phoned the boys for the meet in the abbey.  That those sightings of him by the boys on the bike etc, when confirmed together with the police - amounted to just 20mins.

From this 90mins we can then go into the gaping holes, not of time but of contradictory evidence. We can for this part leave F&W aside. Even to leave AB aside. The point that needs to be discussed here in more depth is that of these claims of Luke simply waiting around. The first part of which is up to that 90mins mark. Starting with this call the Jones house. The house and not the mobile Jodi had used.

We can take from this first of all that this number was not saved into LM's phone. That those texts already exchanged had been deleted. But it is that first and second call to the Jones landline. The first being 5.32 when LM had all but just dialed the number, rang perhaps once and hung up. We know this due to the length in those phone logs. It was this reason that no one in the Jones house heard the phone for it was cut off as quickly as it was dialed. We can put this down to two things. One that LM heard someone and could not take the chance of being heard himself. That he waited until he was sure no one else was around. That he used more time to inflict more injuries, to initially clean himself - we will never know. What we do know is that first real attempt to speak to someone was some 6mins later at 5.38pm. And it is from this call, of being close to 5.45 he was to base his time of initially leaving home at. After dinner around 5.45pm. Here is that first clear contradiction that was to put LM out of his house at 5.30pm For that call had been picked up upon, he was not quick enough in dialing and hanging up.

Onto the time from 5.30pm. Firstly the ludicrous notion that this lad, any lad would simply be twiddling their thumbs, idling away waiting for anyone far less their girlfriend for the best part of 90mins.  When he was to later claim there was no fixed plan to meet in the first instance. That web of deceit which was to firmly trap him. That whilst LM was making these ludicrous claims initially there was clear contradictory evidence coming in to show he was lying. That Jodi had left to meet with him much earlier than this time. That there had been a punishment in place which had only been lifted that day. That Jodi had only contacted one person to make arrangements to meet. That she had told her mother she was leaving to meet with Mitchell, that they would be "mucking around up here". That her mother had also told the police that she had told Jodi not to use this path alone, that she should not have been using it alone. And we have that clear knowledge of this path, of its isolation. The dangers of any young girl using it alone.

For this boy to make claim he had waited a short while and decided to meet with friends. That this short while in turn amounted to 90mins. For that alibi time to be squashed completely by two factors. That of CCTV from 'Morning, Noon and Night', for that first call which did show up to the Jones house at 5.32pm. Which added on time to this claimed wait. For LM to be told by Jodi's father she had already left to meet with him. That there was no plausible explanation in the slightest as to why LM did not walk up to meet with Jodi. That every account told, every other piece of information coming in, exposed the lies being told by the Mitchells. That CD was correct, that try as they might, they could not eliminate LM from the enquiry.

And we do have to add to this of that phone call to the boys. And of phoning them back to hurry them up, demanding to know where they were? It was never simply this case of being in the wrong place, LM was impatient, he needed to be in their company. One can almost say wired up. For he was different that evening, he was a lot cleaner and more kempt than usual. It was not of the norm for him to be phoning them to meet. The very reason he was asked "Where is Jodi?" They were wondering themselves why he had wanted to meet with them and not Jodi. And Ms Lean may tell you that we only have one boys word for LM stating "She is not coming out" She will as with SM not tell you much of anything else that was said or done with them that evening.  Of this unusual request to meet, of Jodi not being with Luke. Of their activities in the woods that evening. Of her claims that LM had not been smoking cannabis that evening. Ignoring all of the evidence around this by going with those blood results, she claims took place between 5-6am on July the first. She knew he had been smoking but needed the insinuation that Jodi had not smoked with him - which was nonsense all along.

And we are met with the most ludicrous repetitive bleats of passing the buck. Of Jodi's parents not being worried therefore why should LM have been concerned? When we know there is absolutely no comparison to be made. it is futile projecting plain and simple. For they were on the blind side of things. They knew not where exactly "up here" the meet was to be. That Jodi could have been waiting on a late LM. That they were not idling the time away solely thinking of this. They had no reason to, and no reason at this point to be concerned. For LM had not phoned back, he had not alerted them to any facts of Jodi not turning up at this point. They were completely in the dark.

And we know without a shadow of a doubt that LM was not idling his time anywhere. That there was no reason for him to walk up an meet with Jodi at this point. That he did not have to be concerned in the slightest about Jodi's safety as she was already dead - He and only he knew this, for he had already left her dead in this woodland. And again these are the areas that were always going to catch him out. For he could not change what had been happening elsewhere in this investigation. Of every  other piece of contradictory evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 08, 2021, 01:14:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Today at 12:07:56 AM
This has been discussed many times, reasons as to why the writer and new campaigners are at the fore of discussion. The first in making people aware that all is not as it seems with the author. The latter in their deciphering of what has been put out. The horrendous smear campaign that has taken place against innocent people. The criticism of Ms Lean and Co is not a patch on what her work has produced over time upon others.

Where discussion of the actual case/evidence is concerned - it is at all times distracted from by those promoting innocence. One of the main tactics used by that handful of people over time. It starts with the usual, of pulling up some of Ms Leans case as proof against what one is saying to be wrong.Then onto, why should anyone believe you over Ms Lean who has all the answers? Then onto cites, it you can't provide cites then you should be ignored. Then onto mockery. And if one survives all of that it is the blatant distraction of the alter egos. Popping up swaying the topic into other avenues.

It is the very reason that every topic is a mishmash of nonsense at times. It is now allowed to run coherently. For it shows the evidence against LM all too clearly.

Of evidence. First and foremost yet again, that concocted alibi. That went from 40-45 mins to then being squashed into less than 15mins. Then we move onto the claimed time of waiting for Jodi, twiddling ones thumbs. That initially was centered around 30mins. Of LM using the sightings by the boys he knew and person from the estate. Which then turned into 90mins in reality. Until the point in which he phoned the boys for the meet in the abbey.  That those sightings of him by the boys on the bike etc, when confirmed together with the police - amounted to just 20mins.

From this 90mins we can then go into the gaping holes, not of time but of contradictory evidence. We can for this part leave F&W aside. Even to leave AB aside. The point that needs to be discussed here in more depth is that of these claims of Luke simply waiting around. The first part of which is up to that 90mins mark. Starting with this call the Jones house. The house and not the mobile Jodi had used.

We can take from this first of all that this number was not saved into LM's phone. That those texts already exchanged had been deleted. But it is that first and second call to the Jones landline. The first being 5.32 when LM had all but just dialed the number, rang perhaps once and hung up. We know this due to the length in those phone logs. It was this reason that no one in the Jones house heard the phone for it was cut off as quickly as it was dialed. We can put this down to two things. One that LM heard someone and could not take the chance of being heard himself. That he waited until he was sure no one else was around. That he used more time to inflict more injuries, to initially clean himself - we will never know. What we do know is that first real attempt to speak to someone was some 6mins later at 5.38pm. And it is from this call, of being close to 5.45 he was to base his time of initially leaving home at. After dinner around 5.45pm. Here is that first clear contradiction that was to put LM out of his house at 5.30pm For that call had been picked up upon, he was not quick enough in dialing and hanging up.

Onto the time from 5.30pm. Firstly the ludicrous notion that this lad, any lad would simply be twiddling their thumbs, idling away waiting for anyone far less their girlfriend for the best part of 90mins.  When he was to later claim there was no fixed plan to meet in the first instance. That web of deceit which was to firmly trap him. That whilst LM was making these ludicrous claims initially there was clear contradictory evidence coming in to show he was lying. That Jodi had left to meet with him much earlier than this time. That there had been a punishment in place which had only been lifted that day. That Jodi had only contacted one person to make arrangements to meet. That she had told her mother she was leaving to meet with Mitchell, that they would be "mucking around up here". That her mother had also told the police that she had told Jodi not to use this path alone, that she should not have been using it alone. And we have that clear knowledge of this path, of its isolation. The dangers of any young girl using it alone.

For this boy to make claim he had waited a short while and decided to meet with friends. That this short while in turn amounted to 90mins. For that alibi time to be squashed completely by two factors. That of CCTV from 'Morning, Noon and Night', for that first call which did show up to the Jones house at 5.32pm. Which added on time to this claimed wait. For LM to be told by Jodi's father she had already left to meet with him. That there was no plausible explanation in the slightest as to why LM did not walk up to meet with Jodi. That every account told, every other piece of information coming in, exposed the lies being told by the Mitchells. That CD was correct, that try as they might, they could not eliminate LM from the enquiry.

And we do have to add to this of that phone call to the boys. And of phoning them back to hurry them up, demanding to know where they were? It was never simply this case of being in the wrong place, LM was impatient, he needed to be in their company. One can almost say wired up. For he was different that evening, he was a lot cleaner and more kempt than usual. It was not of the norm for him to be phoning them to meet. The very reason he was asked "Where is Jodi?" They were wondering themselves why he had wanted to meet with them and not Jodi. And Ms Lean may tell you that we only have one boys word for LM stating "She is not coming out" She will as with SM not tell you much of anything else that was said or done with them that evening.  Of this unusual request to meet, of Jodi not being with Luke. Of their activities in the woods that evening. Of her claims that LM had not been smoking cannabis that evening. Ignoring all of the evidence around this by going with those blood results, she claims took place between 5-6am on July the first. She knew he had been smoking but needed the insinuation that Jodi had not smoked with him - which was nonsense all along.

And we are met with the most ludicrous repetitive bleats of passing the buck. Of Jodi's parents not being worried therefore why should LM have been concerned? When we know there is absolutely no comparison to be made. it is futile projecting plain and simple. For they were on the blind side of things. They knew not where exactly "up here" the meet was to be. That Jodi could have been waiting on a late LM. That they were not idling the time away solely thinking of this. They had no reason to, and no reason at this point to be concerned. For LM had not phoned back, he had not alerted them to any facts of Jodi not turning up at this point. They were completely in the dark.

And we know without a shadow of a doubt that LM was not idling his time anywhere. That there was no reason for him to walk up an meet with Jodi at this point. That he did not have to be concerned in the slightest about Jodi's safety as she was already dead - He and only he knew this, for he had already left her dead in this woodland. And again these are the areas that were always going to catch him out. For he could not change what had been happening elsewhere in this investigation. Of every  other piece of contradictory evidence.

And to add further to this 90mins. Which in reality of LM being on his own was closer to two hours. For he was not in the boys company until 7.30pm. But of those claims of using his mobile at the entrance of his estate. Which he was blind to initially of that first call at 5.32 being logged. Of the claims of SM leaning home shortly after 5.30pm also. Of not seeing his brother when he was exiting the estate. Of believing at this point it was closer to 5.45pm that connection was made. For we also have to factor in here that the phone was in the possession of the police by this point. LM could not accurately know when those calls were made. It was always going to be rough estimates which in effect only highlighted the lies being told from each other. That there had been no LM sitting at the entrance of his estate phoning anyone.

To then throw further exposure into the mix. By claiming to phone his mother prior to meeting with the boys. Whilst he was still on Newbattle Road. Of not only asking her if Jodi had been to the house, but of knowing she was in the garden. And we can add in here of his claims of both his mother and brother having a fire that evening. But to expose here yet again, of those little lies that exposed a lot more. Of Jodi being able to get passed LM to his house in the first instance. To then make claim to telling his mother, to tell Jodi he would be in the Abbey, she would know where? To further claim that the boys got confused of this meeting place. Every lie exposing another. But not only that, of a girl who had been banned from using a path, due to it's isolation and danger. To then make claim she would be wandering deep into the Abbey woodland on her own, exposing herself to more danger. - It as with the alibi only kept LM further into the proverbial shit.

So we have this claimed short wait being around 90mins. And that law of averages yet again. That LM was seen when he had needed to cross Newbattle Road, making his way over to the other side, to the woodland to be out of sight. When that car came along and he had to stop in his tracks. For running, hopping over gates and all else would have looked even more suspicious. To then appear back onto Newbattle Road at a spot he was yet again seen. A spot where he also claimed he had not walked as far to. Where he was first seen with that different jacket on. To then in the space of 20mins be seen by different people, the cyclists he knew who saw him twice. Who had to turn back as one got a puncture. Then nothing, and we can safely say here that LM was not on Newbattle Road for the remainder of this time. We did not need appeals and all else. We can also more than safely say that there were not two people who looked the same that day, together at the same time on that stretch of road. - ludicrous.

And then we can move onto those claims of arriving home just shortly after 9pm. Of his mothers claimed surprise that he was home long before his curfew time. And of that claimed conversation. Of him asking his mother yet again if Jodi had not been yet? Of those false reasons as to why there was no worry. Of Jodi simply getting caught up elsewhere. Elsewhere for over three hours by their reckoning. And we have to apply some common sense here, some reality. Of this mother, rather than requesting her son should contact Jodi or her parents to make sure all was well. that she should simply brush this off. But we know why of course. For we know there was still smoke belching from the Mitchell garden around 10pm. They still could not at this point alert to Jodi being missing. But above all, the conversation around this did not take place at all at this time For LM was not home, he was witnessed arriving home around 10pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 09, 2021, 11:16:08 AM
Then onto mockery. And if one survives all of that it is the blatant distraction of the alter egos. Popping up swaying the topic into other avenues.

A thick skin is definitely required all round.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 25, 2021, 04:16:30 PM
Now that we have reached a point of realising the limitations of What Ms Lean has ever had access to. We have established the type of manipulation used when applying some excerpts verbatim from statements. And to clarify the difference from what is in statements to that which is used at court, produced as evidence. To pick up on something else that needs further clarification. as with the Ovens debacle that appears to be doing the rounds. That of these claims that Jodi had not been grounded, that she had been out prior to the 30th of June.This is an area that was important to the prosecution. To show that the only person outwith Jodi's immediate family at home, who could have known that Jodi was getting out earlier that day, earlier than could have been anticipated was LM. He had been the only person she had contacted prior to leaving home. To telling her mother she was going to meet with him, to be spending the evening "mucking about up here".

Jodi, mid May had been caught bunking school by her sister who reported it to her mother. Jodi was put on a grounding as punishment for this. This first punishment had relaxed and things were pretty much back to normal.

Quote
“Jodi was grounded for skipping school. It was May 14th – I had an exam that day and came home early and caught her skipping school.” Janine Jones, statement
Quote
“Jodi had been grounded, but it had petered out until things went back to normal a few weeks ago” Alice Walker, statement

Jodi's mother was then to discover that she had been using cannabis with Mitchell and again she was put on punishment for this and grounded, and again MItchell was still allowed to visit with Jodi at home. About a week before Jodi's death this full grounding was exchanged for another punishment. Instead of being confined to home, Jodi was set chores to do around the house. The conditions set here, were, that until those chores were completed then Jodi was not allowed out. They were on a day to day basis, each day tasks set, completed then allowed out. Monday the 30th of June was no different when Jodi left for school that morning. That on her arrival home, as other days, she would first have to complete chores chosen by her mother, then allowed out.

Quote
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement

When Jodi arrived home from school that day her mother had broken that good news, that all punishments were lifted, that time again was her own, she was free from any restrictions. Jodi had went upstairs to get changed (out of school clothing). She had borrowed her mothers phone (hers was broken) to contact Mitchell. And left home shortly before 5pm to meet with Mitchell. We know that call the speaking clock was at 4.54, took around two mins to walk to the lane therefore left home in reality around 4.53pm approx.

Therefore, contrary to the misinformation yet again being put out and not corrected. Jodi's mother nor family had been stating that Jodi was fully grounded until Monday the 30th of June. That Ms Lean using tiny excerpts without full context of all the information - mean nothing. In her solo defence, the bias is empty of the actual truth, the full facts from which evidence was led around this, known to both the prosecution and defence at the time was used. That until Jodi had arrived home from school that day she had no idea that she would be allowed out earlier than anticipated, which was after completing chores.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 26, 2021, 11:18:17 AM
So we have this claimed short wait being around 90mins. And that law of averages yet again. That LM was seen when he had needed to cross Newbattle Road, making his way over to the other side, to the woodland to be out of sight. When that car came along and he had to stop in his tracks. For running, hopping over gates and all else would have looked even more suspicious. To then appear back onto Newbattle Road at a spot he was yet again seen. A spot where he also claimed he had not walked as far to. Where he was first seen with that different jacket on. To then in the space of 20mins be seen by different people, the cyclists he knew who saw him twice. Who had to turn back as one got a puncture. Then nothing, and we can safely say here that LM was not on Newbattle Road for the remainder of this time. We did not need appeals and all else. We can also more than safely say that there were not two people who looked the same that day, together at the same time on that stretch of road. - ludicrous.

The only thing that's ever made any sense to me is, one boy, two jackets but I've never heard of any individual who has confirmed Luke Mitchell owned a parka that wasn't later deleted. I've only ever been able to find this.
  https://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURDER+ACCUSED%27S+MUM+TELLS+COURT+OF+ALIBI%3a+Luke+was+at+home+with+me...-a0127039909




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 28, 2021, 10:33:48 AM
As appears usual for Sandra Lean she chooses to continue to attempt to treat [Name removed]’s family members as though they are imbeciles - which they clearly are not!


Sandra Lean
‘I'm aware that someone is posting information in several places saying that there were no defensive injuries because Jodi was knocked unconscious at the very beginning of the attack.  The evidence DOES NOT support this theory - yes, Jodi was hit on the head, but there were massive defensive wounds on her arms, demonstrating that she fought almost to her death. There were bruises and grazes on her hands and dirt and mud were packed under her fingernails, indicative of attempts to crawl or scramble on the ground.
It may be that Jodi's family were told that she was knocked unconscious at the beginning (to spare them the horror of what she actually suffered), however, all of the evidence says otherwise.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: mrswah on July 28, 2021, 05:29:28 PM
As appears usual for Sandra Lean she chooses to continue to attempt to treat [Name removed]’s family members as though they are imbeciles - which they clearly are not!


Sandra Lean
‘I'm aware that someone is posting information in several places saying that there were no defensive injuries because Jodi was knocked unconscious at the very beginning of the attack.  The evidence DOES NOT support this theory - yes, Jodi was hit on the head, but there were massive defensive wounds on her arms, demonstrating that she fought almost to her death. There were bruises and grazes on her hands and dirt and mud were packed under her fingernails, indicative of attempts to crawl or scramble on the ground.
It may be that Jodi's family were told that she was knocked unconscious at the beginning (to spare them the horror of what she actually suffered), however, all of the evidence says otherwise.




I know who is posting that information that you speak of.

I believe SL, and no, I don't think (name removed)'s family are imbeciles, either.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2021, 06:39:06 PM
I know who is posting that information that you speak of.

I believe SL, and no, I don't think (name removed)'s family are imbeciles, either.

Who?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: mrswah on July 28, 2021, 06:47:26 PM
Who?

Have a good read of the comments on You Tube!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 28, 2021, 06:51:46 PM
I know who is posting that information that you speak of.

Who?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 28, 2021, 06:53:05 PM
Have a good read of the comments on You Tube!

YouTube is a big place
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 28, 2021, 07:08:09 PM
I know who is posting that information that you speak of.

I believe SL, and no, I don't think (name removed)'s family are imbeciles, either.

Who?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on July 28, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Have a good read of the comments on You Tube!

I’d rather not.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 28, 2021, 08:36:18 PM
I know who is posting that information that you speak of.

I believe SL, and no, I don't think (name removed)'s family are imbeciles, either.

What stands out around this - is that putting straight by Ms Lean? Which she does, if it means casting dispersion upon posters who are not in the 'camp' so to speak. If they are then any old nonsense is allowed to do the rounds.

I think you are correct as is Nicholas - How could this girls family not know what happened to Jodi. Impossible.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 28, 2021, 10:48:57 PM
What stands out around this - is that putting straight by Ms Lean? Which she does, if it means casting dispersion upon posters who are not in the 'camp' so to speak. If they are then any old nonsense is allowed to do the rounds.

I think you are correct as is Nicholas - How could this girls family not know what happened to Jodi. Impossible.

Of course her poor mother knew as did the rest of Jodi's family. They will know every horrible detail. The police wouldn't shield them from that. They had an absolute right to know and anyone who sat through the trial would have far more information than they probably hoped to have.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 29, 2021, 09:26:23 AM
What stands out around this - is that putting straight by Ms Lean? Which she does, if it means casting dispersion upon posters who are not in the 'camp' so to speak. If they are then any old nonsense is allowed to do the rounds.

I think you are correct as is Nicholas - How could this girls family not know what happened to Jodi. Impossible.

I suspect their knowledge of the case details is far greater than Sandra Lean’s

They really have had to live this for the past 18 years

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 29, 2021, 10:47:14 AM
What stands out around this - is that putting straight by Ms Lean? Which she does, if it means casting dispersion upon posters who are not in the 'camp' so to speak. If they are then any old nonsense is allowed to do the rounds.


Some of the bs being plastered on the FB groups is highly questionable to say the least

I would be interested to know what is behind RM’s thought processes regarding ‘his ex’ being ‘obsessed with him’ and what makes her think his ex wasn’t ‘frightened’  *&^^&

Rosemary McGuigan
SJD His ex? He was 14!! This will be the one who didn't care if he had 5 girls on the go as she was obsessed with him? Doesn't sound like a frightened 'wee lassie'?  Sounds like someone looking for a wee bit of the 'fame' surrounding Luke! As for the 11yr old,who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy? You mention the Eminem song that supposedly was said to police......the very shower who were the ringmasters of this whole circus!  You've been going over the same stuff for days about being 50/50. Would you please just give your theory on how he could possibly have managed this murder? It can't be made any clearer than Jim Nelsons  Alexa Qs & As. and his phone note. You are allowed to think guilty but just tell us how?🤔

And “ As for the 11yr old, who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy?” is telling and indeed appalling  *&^^&



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 30, 2021, 07:09:00 PM
Some of the bs being plastered on the FB groups is highly questionable to say the least

I would be interested to know what is behind RM’s thought processes regarding ‘his ex’ being ‘obsessed with him’ and what makes her think his ex wasn’t ‘frightened’  *&^^&

Rosemary McGuigan
SJD His ex? He was 14!! This will be the one who didn't care if he had 5 girls on the go as she was obsessed with him? Doesn't sound like a frightened 'wee lassie'?  Sounds like someone looking for a wee bit of the 'fame' surrounding Luke! As for the 11yr old,who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy? You mention the Eminem song that supposedly was said to police......the very shower who were the ringmasters of this whole circus!  You've been going over the same stuff for days about being 50/50. Would you please just give your theory on how he could possibly have managed this murder? It can't be made any clearer than Jim Nelsons  Alexa Qs & As. and his phone note. You are allowed to think guilty but just tell us how?🤔

And “ As for the 11yr old, who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy?” is telling and indeed appalling  *&^^&
Didn't that happen at Luke's father's house?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on July 30, 2021, 09:42:07 PM
Some of the bs being plastered on the FB groups is highly questionable to say the least

I would be interested to know what is behind RM’s thought processes regarding ‘his ex’ being ‘obsessed with him’ and what makes her think his ex wasn’t ‘frightened’  *&^^&

Rosemary McGuigan
SJD His ex? He was 14!! This will be the one who didn't care if he had 5 girls on the go as she was obsessed with him? Doesn't sound like a frightened 'wee lassie'?  Sounds like someone looking for a wee bit of the 'fame' surrounding Luke! As for the 11yr old,who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy? You mention the Eminem song that supposedly was said to police......the very shower who were the ringmasters of this whole circus!  You've been going over the same stuff for days about being 50/50. Would you please just give your theory on how he could possibly have managed this murder? It can't be made any clearer than Jim Nelsons  Alexa Qs & As. and his phone note. You are allowed to think guilty but just tell us how?🤔

And “ As for the 11yr old, who the hell puts an 11 yr old in the same bedroom as a 12yr old boy?” is telling and indeed appalling  *&^^&

Luke Mitchell was let down by his parents. 14 year olds don't need adult pals. They need parents.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on August 02, 2021, 09:35:41 PM
Luke Mitchell was let down by his parents. 14 year olds don't need adult pals. They need parents.

The climbing into bed with another child and the threat of violence toward that child happened at Luke's dad's house.  Whoever wrote that post definitely isn't happy with Luke's dad yet seems to be oblivious about the other half of parenting, Corinne's.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 29, 2021, 11:37:54 AM
Polli Neil
Can I ask please in Sandra's book the last chapter the man that confessed. Why was his confession ignored or was it investigated and a false confession.
Was his other crimes similar ???  Why was his confession ignored at yet the murderer who killed rachel nickel when he confessed it was listened to  ??? Why is it different rules for different people.

Sandra Lean
This is actually quite a complicated question to answer, Polli Neil. To start with your first point, why was his confession ignored, or was it investigated and a false confession?

As far as I've ever been able to find out, it was ignored completely. Zero investigation.

His other crimes? Suffice to say a psychiatrist later (as in, after Luke was convicted) reported that he (the psychiatrist) could see no point at which this person would not be a danger to females. I can't say more than that.

The difference between this person and Robert Napper, who eventually confessed to killing Rachel Nickell? Colin Stagg, the man originally "in the frame" for Rachel's murder, was never convicted or even brought to trial, so it was, officially, an unsolved crime. The minute Luke was convicted, it was a closed case - do you see the difference? A confession to an unsolved crime = a newly solved crime for investigators. A confession once there's been a conviction for the same crime  is ... awkward (for investigators).

The fact that the confession in Luke's case came on the first day of his trial was unthinkable - this had been set up as the trial of the century - there was no way, at that point, they were going to put 19 months of media coverage, investigators soundbites to "reassure" the public and thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on the line.

Lianna Mackie
Sandra Lean thank you as always ❤️ I didn’t realise I responded after you, you must have heard my telepathic plea that you’d swoop in on this one 😂

Polli Neil
Sandra Lean thank you for that answer.  It is so upsetting that all my beliefs and things I thought kept myself and my family safe are just fairy tales..

Polli Neil
Sandra Lean is there any hope that an independent review could pursue this confession and maybe get DNA??

Sandra Lean
Polli Neil I believe so. I'm not in a position to influence that any more, but I still believe it could be done, and done properly
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 29, 2021, 11:42:49 AM
Sandra Lean
Just so we're all clear, there are two "confessions" in this discussion. The first, which is supported (in part) by a letter to Luke's legal team many years ago, is from a man who was incarcerated at the time Luke's trial began back in 2004. There was no claim, whatsoever, that this man had any connection with Jodi's family, other than the alleged confession he made, in prison, on the day Luke's trial began. This is the man who, it was later confirmed, was detained in a psychiatric unit.

The second claimed confession has never been supported by any evidence - although there was a report of another confession, I never received a single piece of supporting information (credible or otherwise) to suggest there was any weight to that alleged confession and have always said the report of that alleged confession should never be given weight unless there was something to support it. To this day, there is nothing. Speculating that this second confession even existed, far less who might have been the "confessor" is, with all respect, a return to early 2000s media nonsense.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 29, 2021, 09:05:51 PM
Sandra Lean
Just so we're all clear, there are two "confessions" in this discussion. The first, which is supported (in part) by a letter to Luke's legal team many years ago, is from a man who was incarcerated at the time Luke's trial began back in 2004. There was no claim, whatsoever, that this man had any connection with Jodi's family, other than the alleged confession he made, in prison, on the day Luke's trial began. This is the man who, it was later confirmed, was detained in a psychiatric unit.

The second claimed confession has never been supported by any evidence - although there was a report of another confession, I never received a single piece of supporting information (credible or otherwise) to suggest there was any weight to that alleged confession and have always said the report of that alleged confession should never be given weight unless there was something to support it. To this day, there is nothing. Speculating that this second confession even existed, far less who might have been the "confessor" is, with all respect, a return to early 2000s media nonsense.

Is she referring to Corinne’s comment during the James English podcast?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on August 29, 2021, 10:51:05 PM
Is she referring to Corinne’s comment during the James English podcast?

I don't know but I've seen comments, questions and entire conversations in the comments section on some of SL's videos about another confession discussed by various people about one person in particular who was closely related to Jodi and those comments went unchecked by SL. She answered other questions yet she allowed these vindictive, untrue ramblings to continue. More  than once or twice.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on August 29, 2021, 11:51:18 PM
I don't know but I've seen comments, questions and entire conversations in the comments section on some of SL's videos about another confession discussed by various people about one person in particular who was closely related to Jodi and those comments went unchecked by SL. She answered other questions yet she allowed these vindictive, untrue ramblings to continue. More  than once or twice.

I've mentioned this in those comment sections but I've never had a reply from the organ grinder, only the "others." The standard reply, apart from chaos, misinformation, abuse and attempts at deliberate distraction were, SL doesn't have time to answer EVERY question or comment. OK I get that but shouldn't the harmful lies put about by the "campaigners" be addressed first? This is supposed to be about justice, yeah?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2021, 09:41:40 AM
I've mentioned this in those comment sections but I've never had a reply from the organ grinder, only the "others." The standard reply, apart from chaos, misinformation, abuse and attempts at deliberate distraction were, SL doesn't have time to answer EVERY question or comment. OK I get that but shouldn't the harmful lies put about by the "campaigners" be addressed first? This is supposed to be about justice, yeah?

If she won’t address her own harmful lies it’s unlikely she’ll address the harmful lies of others/campaigners
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2021, 09:43:49 AM
I don't know but I've seen comments, questions and entire conversations in the comments section on some of SL's videos about another confession discussed by various people about one person in particular who was closely related to Jodi and those comments went unchecked by SL. She answered other questions yet she allowed these vindictive, untrue ramblings to continue. More  than once or twice.

Well the (Made up) confession by Corinne Mitchell to James English doesn’t fit with either of Sandra Leans ‘two confessions’ scenarios

Sandra Lean
Just so we're all clear, there are two "confessions" in this discussion. The first, which is supported (in part) by a letter to Luke's legal team many years ago, is from a man who was incarcerated at the time Luke's trial began back in 2004. There was no claim, whatsoever, that this man had any connection with Jodi's family, other than the alleged confession he made, in prison, on the day Luke's trial began. This is the man who, it was later confirmed, was detained in a psychiatric unit.

The second claimed confession has never been supported by any evidence - although there was a report of another confession, I never received a single piece of supporting information (credible or otherwise) to suggest there was any weight to that alleged confession and have always said the report of that alleged confession should never be given weight unless there was something to support it. To this day, there is nothing. Speculating that this second confession even existed, far less who might have been the "confessor" is, with all respect, a return to early 2000s media nonsense.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on September 18, 2021, 11:38:07 AM
Nothing changes the fact that the following statements is a lie. "The search trio all agreed with Luke that his dog alerted to Jodi then changed their minds, and stated he went directly to the break and over"

The search trio from the first to last statement, always stated that Mitchell with his dog went directly to that break in the wall - the clarification was in Luke leading it directly to the break.

Luke Mitchell stated from the off that his dog alerted "some distance past the break, not even 20 yards"clarified to "parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods"

One is not the same as the other, in any shape or form. To back up, from that very first statement that the dog with Mitchell went directly to the break and over, we have - "to the break" "approaching the break" "carrying on at the break" "lead being handed to AW" "going over the break" "dogs head level with the break" "shining his torch to the left" "walking to the left after going over"

It is like having two rooms where there is no visibility from one into the other - it was dark. In the first room we have a window, the dog with Luke go to the window, pulling, anything you like and that dog stands up at the window, then Luke climbs through it - or:

The second room with no window. That the dog bounded to the wall, air sniffing, I had to go back to the previous room where there was a window so I could climb through to outside, to see what the dog had picked up on!

Whatever the dam dog with Luke did at that V whilst coming to it, approaching it - had naff all to do with anything Mitchell made claim to, that is zero. zilch. = that they told the truth from that very first statement, and that the only clarification given was of what Mitchell and his dog had been doing, from the off until reaching that second break. That clarification was, it was Mitchell leading his dog and Mitchell who took the notion to, climb that wall at the Gino break, wander a few steps into the field. Then take himself back in front again. Then come to the second break and this time he climbed the wall again and went over into that woodland.

No going past by the search trio, no Mitchell going back anywhere to access the woods, no dog jumping, pawing away at the wall, air sniffing at any point where there was absolutely  no visibility of that break in the wall. - Mitchell was lying not the search trio, and he was lying from the off.

And we do have to include those ludicrous lies that tie in with - Mitchell distancing himself from any special knowledge of the woods. That he had never been in that wood before, that he did not know that V break existed, that the only reason he knew to go left, to keep going left was due to his dog alerting parallel to where Jodi lay.

Where is this noticing that break for the first time in that evenings account, from Mitchell? How did he notice that first break? High up along the top of the wall, if his dog had it's nose to the ground and  he was following the dogs lead? How did he notice the second break for those same reasons, that he then knew to go back to?- all poppycock, he knew of that break, of both those breaks, and he had been in that woodland many times- so why distance, why lie, why transport himself and that dog some 40ft down that path - well we know why, as with every other lie of Mitchells - he was responsible, plain and simple. Attempting to make it all new, and give the most amazing account of super tracking prowess by that family/business guard dog. -That amazing, they were barely together 7 mins and in that isolated area of that dark woodland, behind that giant 'oak' he described, he found Jodi. And the description just kept on given in that flat effect voice, drawing the attention further upon himself. The clothing, the bobble, right down to those DC shoes.

Mono tone and without emotion - but what of this outstanding proof of a boy who was suffering from shock and trauma?! - "everyone was in hysterics" Asked to clarify, what was everyone doing? Alice was screaming, Janine was screaming, I was retching/puking and Luke was?? "I knew by his shout he had found something bad" How? 'Well we were looking for Jodi and he had found something, just knew it was bad'. That recording "We've found something, I think it's a body, aye well aye I think it could be a body" flat effect and those screams in the background. --------------

And on the latter, it is one of those areas the author attempts to add time onto. Of AW, time to go and get back to the break and all else - AW and JaJ were screaming in the background, that first call was made whilst AW was with her granddaughter!! 

So whilst we can understand the desperation, in attempting to scrape up any truth from Mitchell, attempt to cast doubt upon key witnesses - it does not change the evidence against Mitchell, the evidence he himself gave. And these are not singular, or the odd one or two - it is on repeat, one lie after the other, why?

To claim, that his mother was simply refreshing SM's memory, refreshing it to include the memory she had also lost?! Of not being home, of having her other son have a conversation with her, when she was not even in the house!? Where every lie just opened up another can of worms, that led into further lies having to be told, to shore over each and every new hole! To draw people into concentrating all that was completely irrelevant, of AB's time after the sighting, of the aunts arrival at the school, of JF going to his cousins that day, whilst Jodi was in school and the list goes on - to deflect away from every lie of the Mitchells. We do not know what time SM arrived home at, or indeed the accurate time of him leaving, yet we know that Judith texted her husband before he finished work that day? - But not of what time Mitchells father was first informed and brought into the picture?!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on September 18, 2021, 12:22:39 PM
Well the (Made up) confession by Corinne Mitchell to James English doesn’t fit with either of Sandra Leans ‘two confessions’ scenarios

Someone called Allan Roberts confessed to killing Jodi Jones to his cell mate not long after LM's conviction but SL never mentioned him by name. I've only ever heard her speak of the confession out of context. The confession was always randomly thrown in with Stocky Man or other stories. Later on, she did say on her videos that a prisoner confessed but for a lot of people the damage was already done and every male was getting blamed by the members.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on September 18, 2021, 08:04:29 PM
Nothing changes the fact that the following statements is a lie. "The search trio all agreed with Luke that his dog alerted to Jodi then changed their minds, and stated he went directly to the break and over"

The search trio from the first to last statement, always stated that Mitchell with his dog went directly to that break in the wall - the clarification was in Luke leading it directly to the break.

Luke Mitchell stated from the off that his dog alerted "some distance past the break, not even 20 yards"clarified to "parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods"

One is not the same as the other, in any shape or form. To back up, from that very first statement that the dog with Mitchell went directly to the break and over, we have - "to the break" "approaching the break" "carrying on at the break" "lead being handed to AW" "going over the break" "dogs head level with the break" "shining his torch to the left" "walking to the left after going over"

It is like having two rooms where there is no visibility from one into the other - it was dark. In the first room we have a window, the dog with Luke go to the window, pulling, anything you like and that dog stands up at the window, then Luke climbs through it - or:

The second room with no window. That the dog bounded to the wall, air sniffing, I had to go back to the previous room where there was a window so I could climb through to outside, to see what the dog had picked up on!

Whatever the dam dog with Luke did at that V whilst coming to it, approaching it - had naff all to do with anything Mitchell made claim to, that is zero. zilch. = that they told the truth from that very first statement, and that the only clarification given was of what Mitchell and his dog had been doing, from the off until reaching that second break. That clarification was, it was Mitchell leading his dog and Mitchell who took the notion to, climb that wall at the Gino break, wander a few steps into the field. Then take himself back in front again. Then come to the second break and this time he climbed the wall again and went over into that woodland.

No going past by the search trio, no Mitchell going back anywhere to access the woods, no dog jumping, pawing away at the wall, air sniffing at any point where there was absolutely  no visibility of that break in the wall. - Mitchell was lying not the search trio, and he was lying from the off.

And we do have to include those ludicrous lies that tie in with - Mitchell distancing himself from any special knowledge of the woods. That he had never been in that wood before, that he did not know that V break existed, that the only reason he knew to go left, to keep going left was due to his dog alerting parallel to where Jodi lay.

Where is this noticing that break for the first time in that evenings account, from Mitchell? How did he notice that first break? High up along the top of the wall, if his dog had it's nose to the ground and  he was following the dogs lead? How did he notice the second break for those same reasons, that he then knew to go back to?- all poppycock, he knew of that break, of both those breaks, and he had been in that woodland many times- so why distance, why lie, why transport himself and that dog some 40ft down that path - well we know why, as with every other lie of Mitchells - he was responsible, plain and simple. Attempting to make it all new, and give the most amazing account of super tracking prowess by that family/business guard dog. -That amazing, they were barely together 7 mins and in that isolated area of that dark woodland, behind that giant 'oak' he described, he found Jodi. And the description just kept on given in that flat effect voice, drawing the attention further upon himself. The clothing, the bobble, right down to those DC shoes.

Mono tone and without emotion - but what of this outstanding proof of a boy who was suffering from shock and trauma?! - "everyone was in hysterics" Asked to clarify, what was everyone doing? Alice was screaming, Janine was screaming, I was retching/puking and Luke was?? "I knew by his shout he had found something bad" How? 'Well we were looking for Jodi and he had found something, just knew it was bad'. That recording "We've found something, I think it's a body, aye well aye I think it could be a body" flat effect and those screams in the background. --------------

And on the latter, it is one of those areas the author attempts to add time onto. Of AW, time to go and get back to the break and all else - AW and JaJ were screaming in the background, that first call was made whilst AW was with her granddaughter!! 

So whilst we can understand the desperation, in attempting to scrape up any truth from Mitchell, attempt to cast doubt upon key witnesses - it does not change the evidence against Mitchell, the evidence he himself gave. And these are not singular, or the odd one or two - it is on repeat, one lie after the other, why?

To claim, that his mother was simply refreshing SM's memory, refreshing it to include the memory she had also lost?! Of not being home, of having her other son have a conversation with her, when she was not even in the house!? Where every lie just opened up another can of worms, that led into further lies having to be told, to shore over each and every new hole! To draw people into concentrating all that was completely irrelevant, of AB's time after the sighting, of the aunts arrival at the school, of JF going to his cousins that day, whilst Jodi was in school and the list goes on - to deflect away from every lie of the Mitchells. We do not know what time SM arrived home at, or indeed the accurate time of him leaving, yet we know that Judith texted her husband before he finished work that day? - But not of what time Mitchells father was first informed and brought into the picture?!

Deflection at its best. Does it really matter when Luke’s dad was informed? Does it somehow change what happened before?

The truth rarely needs explaining. That’s why it’s takes me so few words to debunk your disinformation and you so many to perpetrate it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on September 18, 2021, 11:06:28 PM
Well the (Made up) confession by Corinne Mitchell to James English doesn’t fit with either of Sandra Leans ‘two confessions’ scenarios

I forgot to say that on Jibber Jabber Podcast with SL, she specifically said that no one should name anyone who confessed to Jodi's brutal murder for fear of legal reprisals. Suddenly, a staunch self proclaimed supporter of LM posts the name of the confessor, SL is "horrified " and the fans are whipped into a frenzy for weeks. The name of AR is never removed from the comments section though. I suppose the legal implications of naming AR couldn't have been that bad after all but the supporters were stirred and LM's guilt was questioned by many again. No evidence and, apparently, no legal issues either. Looked staged IMO.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on September 19, 2021, 03:51:20 PM
Deflection at its best. Does it really matter when Luke’s dad was informed? Does it somehow change what happened before?

The truth rarely needs explaining. That’s why it’s takes me so few words to debunk your disinformation and you so many to perpetrate it.



Well there we have it, that doctrine again could not be clearer. We have had this "no one gives a dam about the 20 yards" and Now of the father, "Does it change what happened before?" 

Over those years people have consistently been told, leave them alone, the father and brother deserve peace and privacy. No shouting on them to join forces, to "shout from every rooftop"  Where I mentioned him purely for the reason of those aunts of Jodi's, where their presence does not change what happened before. A grandmother phones her eldest daughter, after sitting beside the murdered and mutilated body of her granddaughter. It can not be clearer the why? She had no husband, long since dead and she looked for help to one of her elder children, she was in bits. And you say my mention of the father is deflection?

For years that conspiracy born from those days of the alter ego of the writer - Jigsawman, whom has been on this witch hunt against that family. Feeding people with "it makes no sense" - What does not make sense, and never has, is the lack of support from anyone else in that lads family, father, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends - where are they?

It has forever been those toppers from those days, of nugnug, Gordo, Jigsawman into Angeline and Middleton in whatever alias. Yet in this book, there is no one, no support, nothing but that cry yet again to "get the truth out there" and we have two pages on Jodi's aunts, not a snifter of Mitchells father. All these unanswered questions, of how did they manage to get to the school so quickly! - They stayed in a town called Bonnyrigg which is a 5-10 min drive. The author claims they were in the car park when the search trio were led there by the police, she states why? There is nothing in the defence papers that gives her the answer. That they "arrived before the police first arrived on the scene" - really? So the police took the searchers to the car park and the aunts were there, when the police had already been in attendance X amount of time, prior to taken them up to the school grounds - all of them, inclusive of Mitchell who was not whisked away anywhere.

Those clear contradictions yet again, like most of anything else, there has never been any drive to obtain correct information/evidence or otherwise, when it suits better to cast any fallacy of nonsense, to fill up pages, pages of deflection away from Mitchell.

Couple of questions put out, little time at all and the answer is there - They (aunts) arrived separately at the RDP, both met by police presence who had cordoned off any entry to it. They were directed/told to park up in the school grounds. What is actually odd in all of this, is no call from Mitchell to his mother right away, why did he not immediately phone her? To get her to come to him, where she as with Jodi's aunts, mother, brother and so forth could have headed directly there!  So no call from Mitchell to his mother, nor brother, nor his father? Where we know his mother had repeatedly been trying to get hold of him, and he blanked her!!

So there you have it, the reality in that deflection once more - Mitchell, whom it is claimed was in shock, traumatised, phoned no one. Not his mother (blanked her), not his father, not his brother - no one! Yet he was sitting fiddling away with that phone. We know he was scrubbing the data, what else exactly was he doing? Watching and soaking up everything, the shock and trauma upon others, the police - he was revelling, was he not?, for he certainly was not reaching out for help.

And we have that evidence from Jodi's grandmother, whilst standing on that path, and she felt that presence of evil, and the hairs rose on the back of her neck - when she turned around Luke Mitchell was standing directly behind her.

But as you say, only a handful of words is needed to show the truth, and deflection could not be clearer - deflection away from Luke Mitchell, his words, his evidence - Where one of his most avid supporters, states - that they do not care about what he said!! They know best, don't they?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on September 19, 2021, 04:59:14 PM


Well there we have it, that doctrine again could not be clearer. We have had this "no one gives a dam about the 20 yards" and Now of the father, "Does it change what happened before?" 

Over those years people have consistently been told, leave them alone, the father and brother deserve peace and privacy. No shouting on them to join forces, to "shout from every rooftop"  Where I mentioned him purely for the reason of those aunts of Jodi's, where their presence does not change what happened before. A grandmother phones her eldest daughter, after sitting beside the murdered and mutilated body of her granddaughter. It can not be clearer the why? She had no husband, long since dead and she looked for help to one of her elder children, she was in bits. And you say my mention of the father is deflection?

Like the aunts, Luke’s father has no relevance to the actions of the searchers on the 30th of June so yes it is deflection.


For years that conspiracy born from those days of the alter ego of the writer - Jigsawman, whom has been on this witch hunt against that family. Feeding people with "it makes no sense" - What does not make sense, and never has, is the lack of support from anyone else in that lads family, father, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends - where are they?

Hiding from the spittle-flecked hate ?

It has forever been those toppers from those days, of nugnug, Gordo, Jigsawman into Angeline and Middleton in whatever alias. Yet in this book, there is no one, no support, nothing but that cry yet again to "get the truth out there" and we have two pages on Jodi's aunts, not a snifter of Mitchells father. All these unanswered questions, of how did they manage to get to the school so quickly! - They stayed in a town called Bonnyrigg which is a 5-10 min drive. The author claims they were in the car park when the search trio were led there by the police, she states why? There is nothing in the defence papers that gives her the answer. That they "arrived before the police first arrived on the scene" - really? So the police took the searchers to the car park and the aunts were there, when the police had already been in attendance X amount of time, prior to taken them up to the school grounds - all of them, inclusive of Mitchell who was not whisked away anywhere.

The aunts are not important…please move on.

Those clear contradictions yet again, like most of anything else, there has never been any drive to obtain correct information/evidence or otherwise, when it suits better to cast any fallacy of nonsense, to fill up pages, pages of deflection away from Mitchell.

It’s you who is deflecting. Please stop.

Couple of questions put out, little time at all and the answer is there - They (aunts) arrived separately at the RDP, both met by police presence who had cordoned off any entry to it. They were directed/told to park up in the school grounds. What is actually odd in all of this, is no call from Mitchell to his mother right away, why did he not immediately phone her? To get her to come to him, where she as with Jodi's aunts, mother, brother and so forth could have headed directly there!  So no call from Mitchell to his mother, nor brother, nor his father? Where we know his mother had repeatedly been trying to get hold of him, and he blanked her!!

Is that it? Is that what passes as odd to you? Why?

So there you have it, the reality in that deflection once more - Mitchell, whom it is claimed was in shock, traumatised, phoned no one. Not his mother (blanked her), not his father, not his brother - no one! Yet he was sitting fiddling away with that phone. We know he was scrubbing the data, what else exactly was he doing? Watching and soaking up everything, the shock and trauma upon others, the police - he was revelling, was he not?, for he certainly was not reaching out for help.

Except we don’t know that he was deleting anything, in fact quite the opposite. From court testimony it’s clear that the phone calls were deleted after half past 12 and at a time when Luke was being driven to the police station.



And we have that evidence from Jodi's grandmother, whilst standing on that path, and she felt that presence of evil, and the hairs rose on the back of her neck - when she turned around Luke Mitchell was standing directly behind her.

Now that did make me laugh. Priceless.

But as you say, only a handful of words is needed to show the truth, and deflection could not be clearer - deflection away from Luke Mitchell, his words, his evidence - Where one of his most avid supporters, states - that they do not care about what he said!! They know best, don't they?

Follow the changes in stories, that’s all….no special skill needed.

It’s interesting though that you’ve spent the whole of your post deflecting from them, plumping instead for superfluous detail involving phone calls and Jodi’s gran.. That in itself proves how uncomfortable the real facts make you. 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on September 19, 2021, 07:26:23 PM


Well there we have it, that doctrine again could not be clearer. We have had this "no one gives a dam about the 20 yards" and Now of the father, "Does it change what happened before?" 

Over those years people have consistently been told, leave them alone, the father and brother deserve peace and privacy. No shouting on them to join forces, to "shout from every rooftop"  Where I mentioned him purely for the reason of those aunts of Jodi's, where their presence does not change what happened before. A grandmother phones her eldest daughter, after sitting beside the murdered and mutilated body of her granddaughter. It can not be clearer the why? She had no husband, long since dead and she looked for help to one of her elder children, she was in bits. And you say my mention of the father is deflection?

For years that conspiracy born from those days of the alter ego of the writer - Jigsawman, whom has been on this witch hunt against that family. Feeding people with "it makes no sense" - What does not make sense, and never has, is the lack of support from anyone else in that lads family, father, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends - where are they?

It has forever been those toppers from those days, of nugnug, Gordo, Jigsawman into Angeline and Middleton in whatever alias. Yet in this book, there is no one, no support, nothing but that cry yet again to "get the truth out there" and we have two pages on Jodi's aunts, not a snifter of Mitchells father. All these unanswered questions, of how did they manage to get to the school so quickly! - They stayed in a town called Bonnyrigg which is a 5-10 min drive. The author claims they were in the car park when the search trio were led there by the police, she states why? There is nothing in the defence papers that gives her the answer. That they "arrived before the police first arrived on the scene" - really? So the police took the searchers to the car park and the aunts were there, when the police had already been in attendance X amount of time, prior to taken them up to the school grounds - all of them, inclusive of Mitchell who was not whisked away anywhere.

Those clear contradictions yet again, like most of anything else, there has never been any drive to obtain correct information/evidence or otherwise, when it suits better to cast any fallacy of nonsense, to fill up pages, pages of deflection away from Mitchell.

Couple of questions put out, little time at all and the answer is there - They (aunts) arrived separately at the RDP, both met by police presence who had cordoned off any entry to it. They were directed/told to park up in the school grounds. What is actually odd in all of this, is no call from Mitchell to his mother right away, why did he not immediately phone her? To get her to come to him, where she as with Jodi's aunts, mother, brother and so forth could have headed directly there!  So no call from Mitchell to his mother, nor brother, nor his father? Where we know his mother had repeatedly been trying to get hold of him, and he blanked her!!

So there you have it, the reality in that deflection once more - Mitchell, whom it is claimed was in shock, traumatised, phoned no one. Not his mother (blanked her), not his father, not his brother - no one! Yet he was sitting fiddling away with that phone. We know he was scrubbing the data, what else exactly was he doing? Watching and soaking up everything, the shock and trauma upon others, the police - he was revelling, was he not?, for he certainly was not reaching out for help.

And we have that evidence from Jodi's grandmother, whilst standing on that path, and she felt that presence of evil, and the hairs rose on the back of her neck - when she turned around Luke Mitchell was standing directly behind her.

But as you say, only a handful of words is needed to show the truth, and deflection could not be clearer - deflection away from Luke Mitchell, his words, his evidence - Where one of his most avid supporters, states - that they do not care about what he said!! They know best, don't they?

Agree!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on September 19, 2021, 07:56:33 PM
And we have that evidence from Jodi's grandmother, whilst standing on that path, and she felt that presence of evil, and the hairs rose on the back of her neck - when she turned around Luke Mitchell was standing directly behind her.

Memory’s a bit vague, but did AW say this in a newspaper or in court? Whatever, it was probably an opinion formed long after the night of 30.06.03 and even possibly post-trial. Or was it? Did AW have this premonition on that night/morning or in retrospect? Anyone know if the Jones family liked Luke? I think I recall reading that Judith didn’t really like Luke and thought him a bad influence. Wasn’t it the case that whenever they (Luke and Jodi) did go to a house in Easthouses or Mayfield, it was usually YW’s? Wasn’t it the case that Luke wasn’t really welcome at Judith’s house? There doesn’t seem to be many accounts of him being there with Jodi — it was chiefly at either Luke’s house or YW’s where they hung out when not outside (I think).

Talking about the presence of evil, I definitely could detect a sinister vibe emanating from LM during that Sky Interview he did all those years back. That same intelligent, devious and underhand lad who was unequivocally identified by Rosemary Walsh as soon as she saw his photograph in the paper (i.e., as per her “Oh look, it’s him!” exclamation); that same lad who couldn’t look at anyone passing by in a car, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact, looking cheesed-off and up to no good, looking odd (in spite of trying to mask it by swinging casually on that gate). Likewise, the Scottish executive employee who saw him further up N’battle rd 20 mins later at the BDC entrance; again, his strange body language drawing her attention to him. This same woman actually slowed down to look at him and when she did and looked over at him, he turned away immediately and looked at the ground to avoid eye contact with her. Clearly, the actions of someone with something to hide (and, of course, when combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence, you have an overwhelming circumstantial case against him).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on October 02, 2021, 04:54:56 PM
 (&^&
Memory’s a bit vague, but did AW say this in a newspaper or in court? Whatever, it was probably an opinion formed long after the night of 30.06.03 and even possibly post-trial. Or was it? Did AW have this premonition on that night/morning or in retrospect? Anyone know if the Jones family liked Luke? I think I recall reading that Judith didn’t really like Luke and thought him a bad influence. Wasn’t it the case that whenever they (Luke and Jodi) did go to a house in Easthouses or Mayfield, it was usually YW’s? Wasn’t it the case that Luke wasn’t really welcome at Judith’s house? There doesn’t seem to be many accounts of him being there with Jodi — it was chiefly at either Luke’s house or YW’s where they hung out when not outside (I think).

Talking about the presence of evil, I definitely could detect a sinister vibe emanating from LM during that Sky Interview he did all those years back. That same intelligent, devious and underhand lad who was unequivocally identified by Rosemary Walsh as soon as she saw his photograph in the paper (i.e., as per her “Oh look, it’s him!” exclamation); that same lad who couldn’t look at anyone passing by in a car, staring at the ground, avoiding eye contact, looking cheesed-off and up to no good, looking odd (in spite of trying to mask it by swinging casually on that gate). Likewise, the Scottish executive employee who saw him further up N’battle rd 20 mins later at the BDC entrance; again, his strange body language drawing her attention to him. This same woman actually slowed down to look at him and when she did and looked over at him, he turned away immediately and looked at the ground to avoid eye contact with her. Clearly, the actions of someone with something to hide (and, of course, when combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence, you have an overwhelming circumstantial case against him).

Wasn't a premonition, Mr.Apples. AW wasn't claiming to be able to look into the future. She said she felt that in the here and now and who hasn't experienced a sense of danger in the now?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on October 03, 2021, 03:02:58 PM
As appears usual for Sandra Lean she chooses to continue to attempt to treat [Name removed]’s family members as though they are imbeciles - which they clearly are not!


Sandra Lean
‘I'm aware that someone is posting information in several places saying that there were no defensive injuries because Jodi was knocked unconscious at the very beginning of the attack.  The evidence DOES NOT support this theory - yes, Jodi was hit on the head, but there were massive defensive wounds on her arms, demonstrating that she fought almost to her death. There were bruises and grazes on her hands and dirt and mud were packed under her fingernails, indicative of attempts to crawl or scramble on the ground.
It may be that Jodi's family were told that she was knocked unconscious at the beginning (to spare them the horror of what she actually suffered), however, all of the evidence says otherwise.




Have you watched this? The Live Chat is interesting.
https://youtu.be/f-IBgyQ0aKs
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 03, 2021, 04:40:57 PM
Have you watched this? The Live Chat is interesting.
https://youtu.be/f-IBgyQ0aKs

What’s interesting about the live chat?

I see Trudi Benjamin appears to be supporting LM 🙄

Does he think he’s Damian Echols 🙄

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7764004/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-letter/

Do you get the impression through Corinne Mitchell her killer son doesn’t really like Sandra Lean ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: rulesapply on October 04, 2021, 12:33:23 AM
What’s interesting about the live chat?

I see Trudi Benjamin appears to be supporting LM 🙄

Does he think he’s Damian Echols 🙄

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7764004/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-murder-letter/

Do you get the impression through Corinne Mitchell her killer son doesn’t really like Sandra Lean ?

Hi Nicholas. You're right there's nothing interesting in the live chat. It's been pruned. I should have checked. As for LM and SL, I think LM's request for satanic books citing his religious right was a two fingers up to SL but I've no idea why he would have done that other than malice. I saw SL answer questions where she admitted it was true and she didn't look happy about it at all. I read the article from the link. Calling his supporters fans is true but still so creepy. I had to Google who Trudi Benjamin is.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on February 23, 2022, 01:14:36 PM
Who were the guys who LM met up with in the abbey at 1930 hrs that evening? My understanding is that it was 3 boys —  David High, David Tulloch and some other lad. Anyone know who the other lad was?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 09:23:08 PM


Well there we have it, that doctrine again could not be clearer. We have had this "no one gives a dam about the 20 yards" and Now of the father, "Does it change what happened before?" 

Over those years people have consistently been told, leave them alone, the father and brother deserve peace and privacy. No shouting on them to join forces, to "shout from every rooftop"  Where I mentioned him purely for the reason of those aunts of Jodi's, where their presence does not change what happened before. A grandmother phones her eldest daughter, after sitting beside the murdered and mutilated body of her granddaughter. It can not be clearer the why? She had no husband, long since dead and she looked for help to one of her elder children, she was in bits. And you say my mention of the father is deflection?

For years that conspiracy born from those days of the alter ego of the writer - Jigsawman, whom has been on this witch hunt against that family. Feeding people with "it makes no sense" - What does not make sense, and never has, is the lack of support from anyone else in that lads family, father, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends - where are they?

It has forever been those toppers from those days, of nugnug, Gordo, Jigsawman into Angeline and Middleton in whatever alias.

or Scott Forbes
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 10:39:06 PM
or Scott Forbes

 Sandra Lean said nugnug was dyslexic
 Scott Forbes has recently stated he is dyslexic
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2022, 02:18:00 PM
Charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean said nugnug was dyslexic

Warped minded abuser & con artist Scott Forbes has recently stated he is dyslexic

Sandra Lean also said she thought nugnug used a wheel chair

Has Scott Forbes ever used a wheel chair or was this ruse part of Sandra’s continued grift?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 10, 2022, 12:29:47 PM

Professor Richard Gill

Guarantee this deluded dupe’s name will crop up all over the net re Lucy Letby
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on December 20, 2022, 12:20:37 AM
Sandra Lean also said she thought nugnug used a wheel chair

Has Scott Forbes ever used a wheel chair or was this ruse part of Sandra’s continued grift?

Doesn’t Sharon Indy Sunshine use a wheel chair
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on March 12, 2023, 07:57:11 PM
Can someone answer these questions as my memory's a bit foggy:

Luke's Jack Pyke skunting knife with the brown handle and brown pouch is still missing and considered to be the murder weapon. CM bought LM another skunting knife from a catalogue in December 2003. A brown knife pouch with a Jodi inscription, which police found in LM's bedroom on 14.04.04 (when he and his family were all arrested), was shown in court as part of the Prosecution's evidence. Was this knife pouch the one that came with the Skunting Knife purchased from the catalogue in December 2003? Or was it the pouch from the missing knife? Was this ever clarified or explained in court?

Jodi and Luke exchanged text messages between 1634 hrs and 1638 hrs on 30.06.03. The contents of these text messages were never retrieved as Luke and Jodi had deleted them. How were the exact times when these messages were sent able to be ascertained? All mobile phone operators in the UK don't retain text messages as the sheer volume of them would crash their servers -- they are deleted from the mobile phone operators' servers immediately after they are sent. So, how was it ascertained that they were sent between 1634 and 1638?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 12, 2023, 08:20:48 PM
Can someone answer these questions as my memory's a bit foggy:

Luke's Jack Pyke skunting knife with the brown handle and brown pouch is still missing and considered to be the murder weapon. CM bought LM another skunting knife from a catalogue in December 2003. A brown knife pouch with a Jodi inscription, which police found in LM's bedroom on 14.04.04 (when he and his family were all arrested), was shown in court as part of the Prosecution's evidence. Was this knife pouch the one that came with the Skunting Knife purchased from the catalogue in December 2003? Or was it the pouch from the missing knife? Was this ever clarified or explained in court?

Did the replacement knife Corinne Mitchell bought her killer son for Christmas come with a knife pouch ?

I doubt a knife and leather pouch would cost £8.95
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on March 13, 2023, 07:57:31 PM
Did the replacement knife Corinne Mitchell bought her killer son for Christmas come with a knife pouch ?

I doubt a knife and leather pouch would cost £8.95

I still don't understand how any parent could buy a teenager a knife after their girlfriend had been brutally stabbed and killed. No excuses.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 13, 2023, 08:59:06 PM
What was the make of the black handled knife the Mitchell’s hid from the police and then pretended the police had missed during their search?

I did see this knife and pouch cost £13.95

https://www.jackpykeshop.co.uk/classic-knife.html

What evidence was presented during the trial regarding the replacement knife Corinne Mitchell purchased?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 13, 2023, 09:03:51 PM
I still don't understand how any parent could buy a teenager a knife after their girlfriend had been brutally stabbed and killed. No excuses.

What was said during the trial about the talon multi purpose tool which cost £16.80 ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on March 13, 2023, 09:23:36 PM
What was said during the trial about the talon multi purpose tool which cost £16.80 ?

I don't recall. What was the knife allegedly found under the dog food bag by CM? Did SM also have a knife collection?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2023, 09:34:26 PM
I still don't understand how any parent could buy a teenager a knife after their girlfriend had been brutally stabbed and killed. No excuses.
Agreed.  It beggars belief and demonstrates an extraordinary insensitivity.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on March 13, 2023, 09:52:14 PM
Agreed.  It beggars belief and demonstrates an extraordinary insensitivity.

Like buying Fred West a cement mixer but I'm sure someone will justify it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 26, 2023, 08:39:25 PM
Does anyone know what the make of the black handled ‘skunking knife’ was that Corinne Mitchell bought for her killer son for Christmas and pretended the police had missed during their search of her house

No knife to go with the pouch was found, the court was told
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-331064/Jodi-trial-666-knife-pouch.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on April 18, 2023, 11:17:54 AM
Doesn’t Sharon Indy Sunshine use a wheel chair

What relevance is this if Sharon uses a wheelchair?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on April 18, 2023, 09:42:47 PM
What relevance is this if Sharon uses a wheelchair?

Sandra Lean made a comment about someone in a wheelchair
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on May 10, 2023, 01:42:42 AM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2023, 08:02:49 AM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

As the testimony reported in every other paper agreed with the 10.41 timeline it would appear the 10.20 Herald report was simply a typo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on May 10, 2023, 08:06:45 AM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

Judith Jones sent the text message at 10:20pm

Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean once had the text being sent at 10:39pm

Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean

Where did she get that time from?

Timeline Monday June 30th 2003.
10.30pm Luke takes the dog for her last walk of the evening.
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
10.51pm Luke leaves the house with a torch and the dog. It is still light, but beginning to get dark the sky is blue rather than black)
11.03 11.05pm Luke sees people at the Easthouses end of the path. They do not come towards him, but wait for him to approach. It is the family search party.
11.06pm A call is answered on the landline in Alice Walkers house. The family search party claim they left after this call was taken. If the plan had been for Luke to leave immediately (at 10.49pm) to meet the other members of the search party, why did Judy wait until 6 minutes past 11, a full 15 minutes, before calling them to tell them of this arrangement?
And how did they manage to be at the top of the path before this time?
11.10 11.25pm The search party go back down the path, and find the body.


Troll Sandra Lean’s Lies & Nonsense & The Murderers Lies & Nonsense Regarding The 10:20pm Text Message & Some Fundamental Errors In The Appeal Judgement (Part 195)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/

Killer’s TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2023, 08:56:02 AM
Judith Jones sent the text message at 10:20pm

Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean once had the text being sent at 10:39pm

Troll Sandra Lean’s Lies & Nonsense & The Murderers Lies & Nonsense Regarding The 10:20pm Text Message & Some Fundamental Errors In The Appeal Judgement (Part 195)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/

Killer’s TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/

Nope.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on May 10, 2023, 09:13:05 AM
Nope.

Yep
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on May 10, 2023, 09:14:14 AM
Nope.

Did killer Luke Mitchell turn his mobile phone off that evening/night?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2023, 10:14:51 AM
Yep

You have absolutely no evidence, apart from one report in the Herald, that Judith’s text was sent at 10.20. Further the Herald reported the correct time in future articles.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on May 10, 2023, 10:33:37 AM
You have absolutely no evidence, apart from one report in the Herald, that Judith’s text was sent at 10.20. Further the Herald reported the correct time in future articles.

In reality you have no idea of what ‘evidence’ I have
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2023, 10:52:46 AM
In reality you have no idea of what ‘evidence’ I have

It doesn’t matter what ‘evidence’ you feel you have. We have testimony from the witness who sent the text.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on May 10, 2023, 10:55:41 AM
It doesn’t matter what ‘evidence’ you feel you have. We have testimony from the witness who sent the text.
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on May 10, 2023, 11:07:06 AM
In reality you have no idea of what ‘evidence’ I have

Nothing, else you would be rubbing everyone face in it to show you were right. If you have to make up absolute rubbish to ‘prove’ Luke’s guilt then that really proves our point, there is no evidence that should have found Luke guilty. He was tried as a guilty man (or is that boy!) due to news papers at the time. His case should never have be held in Edinburgh. Innocent until proven guilty is the law but not in Luke’s case it was guilty until proven innocent imo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2023, 12:27:18 PM
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/

Another link to your blog? Have you monetised it and are looking for hits?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on May 31, 2023, 08:16:06 PM
Stumbled upon an interesting comment last night on YT (admittedly not a bastion of accuracy, truthfulness or integrity). It was from a guy saying that LM was caught threatening another boy during his time at St Mary's Secure Facility in Bishopbriggs, where he allegedly yelled: "You'll get what she got!" ('she' being Jodi). Apparantely, it was a female member of staff -- now deceased -- that saw and heard the incident at St Mary's facility. According to the person making the claims on YT, the same female staffmember told a Hearing, under oath, about the incident and also 'spoke out against him' at the hearing for some of his behaviour when he was there (the Hearing took place in 2004, at the end of LM's time there).

Very interesting indeed. Any of you heard about this? I certainly could believe it (LM, by his own admission, has a short fuse), though perhaps this is confirmation bias on my part. Or, it could have been a facade or lie propagated by LM during his time there in order to try and get peace, and to avoid hassle or bullying by other youths there.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on May 31, 2023, 08:49:46 PM
Stumbled upon an interesting comment last night on YT (admittedly not a bastion of accuracy, truthfulness or integrity). It was from a guy saying that LM was caught threatening another boy during his time at St Mary's Secure Facility in Bishopbriggs, where he allegedly yelled: "You'll get what she got!" ('she' being Jodi). Apparantely, it was a female member of staff -- now deceased -- that saw and heard the incident at St Mary's facility. According to the person making the claims on YT, the same female staffmember told a Hearing, under oath, about the incident and also 'spoke out against him' at the hearing for some of his behaviour when he was there (the Hearing took place in 2004, at the end of LM's time there).

Very interesting indeed. Any of you heard about this? I certainly could believe it (LM, by his own admission, has a short fuse), though perhaps this is confirmation bias on my part. Or, it could have been a facade or lie propagated by LM during his time there in order to try and get peace, and to avoid hassle or bullying by other youths there.

Certainly possible. I have heard that too from a very credible source but of course Luke's Army put their faith in Joe Steele who claims he's innocent or the misinterpreted quote from a traumatised granny.

Has it ever been mentioned he looks guilty? From the Sky TV shambles, to the growling at the graveside and the court appearances. He gives Goths a bad name.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 20, 2023, 05:32:39 PM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

Explain where Sandra Lean got her 10:38pm and 10:39pm timings for the 10:20pm text message

Killer Luke Mitchell made a phonecall from his mobile at 10:41pm and Sandra Lean had killer LM phoning Judith Jones at 10:40pm

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/18/killer-luke-mitchell-comparing-timelines-facts-vs-the-murderer-his-mother-armchair-detective-scammer-sandra-leans-lies-around-timings/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on July 20, 2023, 07:58:32 PM
Elsewhere on the forum:
"At 2241 Judith Jones sent a text to the appellant's mobile phone, indicating that the deceased was again grounded. The appellant then telephoned Mrs Jones, informing her that he had not seen the deceased."

There was no text message from Judith to Luke at 10:20.  Whether the message was at 10:38 or 10:41 is a rabbit hole that is it is pointless to enter
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 20, 2023, 09:49:16 PM
Whether the message was at 10:38 or 10:41 is a rabbit hole that is it is pointless to enter

🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 20, 2023, 09:58:26 PM
Elsewhere on the forum:

Answer the questions John

👇
Explain where scammer Sandra Lean got her 10:38pm and 10:39pm timings for the 10:20pm text message

Killer Luke Mitchell made a phonecall from his mobile at 10:41pm and Sandra Lean had killer LM phoning Judith Jones at 10:40pm

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/18/killer-luke-mitchell-comparing-timelines-facts-vs-the-murderer-his-mother-armchair-detective-scammer-sandra-leans-lies-around-timings/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on July 20, 2023, 11:07:07 PM
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
"At 2241 Judith Jones sent a text to the appellant's mobile phone, indicating that the deceased was again grounded."

This comes from Paragraph 11 of the 2008 appeal.  I see no reason to dispute the time of 22:41 (10:41 PM); in other words, I have no information in my possession to indicate a different time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 20, 2023, 11:36:57 PM
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
"At 2241 Judith Jones sent a text to the appellant's mobile phone, indicating that the deceased was again grounded."

This comes from Paragraph 11 of the 2008 appeal.  I see no reason to dispute the time of 22:41 (10:41 PM); in other words, I have no information in my possession to indicate a different time.

Appeal judgements often contain fundamental errors

Already pointed out here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/

Thr appeal judgement also has Janine Jones living at the wrong address in para 7

and repeated the fundamental error of killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence of a text at 10:41pm in paragraph 29
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2023, 12:08:42 AM
2008 appeal

The 2008 appeal judgement (para 159) also confirmed killer Luke Mitchell gave his permission for his clothing to be taken at the conclusion of his 22 page written witness statement

At the conclusion of the interview with the accused, which was not under caution and in respect of which evidence had been led without objection, he agreed to the taking of his clothes by the police and the examination of his person and the taking of a blood sample by a police surgeon

Page 253 from scammer Sandra Lean’s 2nd innocence fraud book,

There was no choice in the matter for him - the police took his phone from him, the police put him in a police car, the police told him they were taking him to the station, the police took his clothes and had him photographed, examined and swabbed and the police kept him there until almost 7am the following day.

And Corinne Mitchell’s own evidence during the trial was that killer Luke Mitchell gave his mobile phone to the police so that they could talk to his mother Corinne Mitchell after he allegedly telephoned her a second time and he told her “I can’t talk, I have to go

Corinne Mitchell:
He would not answer and then he finally phoned and said, 'I can't talk, I have to go.' He phoned back again and when I asked what happened he said, ‘I can't tell you’, I heard a man's voice in the background and Luke said it was a policeman and I asked to speak to him

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+DIDN%27T+HELP+TO+COVER+UP+JODI+MURDER%3B+Denial+by+mother.-a0127122253
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2023, 02:34:27 PM
The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

Neil MacKay was working for the Herald at the time

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2018/news/editor-quits-newspaper-due-to-ill-health-but-will-keep-writing-for-title/

Do you know who from the Herald attended killer Luke Mitchell’s trial and when and where they got their content from when they didn’t attend the trial?

Neil MacKay - 21st February 2021
AROUND 10pm on the night of the murder, the family of Jodi Jones, worried that she hadn’t been seen since 5pm, arranged a search party. Luke Mitchell took part in the search with his pet dog, meeting up with Jodi’s family.

“Reporters camped out at the Mitchell home.


Was Neil MacKay one of the reporters who “camped out at the Mitchell home” or the Jones’ home?

I was told Mitchell was definitely guilty. In all my years as a reporter –covering some of the most serious crimes in recent British criminal history, including major terrorist offences – I’ve never received such a phone call from police. A lot of the telephone conversation centred on Mitchell’s love of Goth music and his alternative lifestyle.

At the time, there was a moral panic around teenagers listening to music their parents found disagreeable. I wondered at the time if part of the Mitchell case was “the prosecution of a lifestyle”.

As a reporter, I later visited Mitchell in jail, and spoke with his mother.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19106402.murder-small-town-luke-mitchell-innocent-murder-jodi-jones/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on July 21, 2023, 04:58:12 PM
Appeal judgements often contain fundamental errors

Already pointed out here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/01/killer-luke-mitchell-troll-sandra-leans-lies-the-murderers-lies-regarding-the-1020pm-text-message-part-195/

Thr appeal judgement also has Janine Jones living at the wrong address in para 7

and repeated the fundamental error of killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence of a text at 10:41pm in paragraph 29

So all the media at the time of the trial, excluding the Herald although they subsequently changed the time to 10.41, and the Appeal Court got it wrong yet you, with one source, think you’ve got it right. Why?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 03, 2023, 02:20:21 AM
It is possible Jodi had found out about the relationship. On the afternoon of Monday, June 30, schoolfriends remember her seeming upset in her class, her head down on her desk.

^ I knew I'd read it somewhere official and not just on another public internet forum (I've provided a link below of the full Herald article from where the excerpt is from; it contains some quite interesting info about the case and I'd urge you all to read it). It would be interesting to see the witness statements pertaining to this and if it was discussed in court. It also ties in nicely with what Jodi's best friend Kirsten Ford said to a newspaper at court when the guilty verdict came through (ie, that Jodi seemed quieter than usual that day in school; link to article is also provided below), and also ties in nicely with what I'd read on another forum about Jodi having had an argument in school that day and them being spotted, uncharacteristically, with their backs to one another in the China gardens  (I don't  have a cite for this, but I definitely read it on one of the other internet forums.

The crux of this post is to highlight, yet again, that the circumstantial evidence against LM was of glacial proportions; the more you read,  the more uncomfortable one feels about LM's involvement. It seems to me that something wasn't right with Jodi that day, and it seems logical to me that whatever happened between them at school, it continued at 1655 when they met up at the Easthouses end of RDP and LM snapped and killed her behind that wall in a fit of unalloyed rage (don't think it was premeditated). And,  I don't think it matters if she seemed happy before she left the house at 1650 . . . I think her happiness at having her curfew lifted prematurely made her forget about what happened earlier in school and made her more positive at that time.

 
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 03, 2023, 03:30:00 AM
I think her happiness at having her curfew lifted prematurely made her forget about what happened earlier in school and made her more positive at that time.

 
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558
Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that Luke was cheating on her.  Why would she be happy to meet him?  Why wouldn't she go find some other people to hang out with?  Beyond that, his cheating might conceivably be a motive for her to kill him, but not vice versa.  The circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell, especially the portions of it which involve eyewitnesses, is a hot, sticky mess.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 03, 2023, 07:10:54 PM
It is possible Jodi had found out about the relationship. On the afternoon of Monday, June 30, schoolfriends remember her seeming upset in her class, her head down on her desk.

^ I knew I'd read it somewhere official and not just on another public internet forum (I've provided a link below of the full Herald article from where the excerpt is from; it contains some quite interesting info about the case and I'd urge you all to read it). It would be interesting to see the witness statements pertaining to this and if it was discussed in court. It also ties in nicely with what Jodi's best friend Kirsten Ford said to a newspaper at court when the guilty verdict came through (ie, that Jodi seemed quieter than usual that day in school; link to article is also provided below), and also ties in nicely with what I'd read on another forum about Jodi having had an argument in school that day and them being spotted, uncharacteristically, with their backs to one another in the China gardens  (I don't  have a cite for this, but I definitely read it on one of the other internet forums.

The crux of this post is to highlight, yet again, that the circumstantial evidence against LM was of glacial proportions; the more you read,  the more uncomfortable one feels about LM's involvement. It seems to me that something wasn't right with Jodi that day, and it seems logical to me that whatever happened between them at school, it continued at 1655 when they met up at the Easthouses end of RDP and LM snapped and killed her behind that wall in a fit of unalloyed rage (don't think it was premeditated). And,  I don't think it matters if she seemed happy before she left the house at 1650 . . . I think her happiness at having her curfew lifted prematurely made her forget about what happened earlier in school and made her more positive at that time.

 
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+JONES%3A+HER+SOULMATES+My+Luke+has+all+these+knives+in+his...-a0127512558

Is this the part you’re talking about?

“ It is possible Jodi had found out about the relationship. On the afternoon of Monday, June 30, schoolfriends remember her seeming upset in her class, her head down on her desk.”

What school friends?

This is why Luke didn’t have the chance of a fair trial. People really do believe everything they read.

And Kirsten…Jodi’s best friend? The girl who had signed an exclusive with a newspaper before the trial was even over. Why else do you think that the newspaper was with her when the verdict came through? It’s called protecting your exclusive. Further do you think any tabloid would pay top dollar for ‘Luke and Jodi were a lovely couple who got on fantastically’ ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on August 04, 2023, 08:46:04 PM
Further do you think any tabloid would pay top dollar for ‘Luke and Jodi were a lovely couple who got on fantastically’ ?

You really think the tabloids are to blame for the trial verdict? SO much was unreported, like LM piqueing Jodi on the leg with his knife at a party a few weeks before. Normal behaviour for most 14 year olds in your eyes. They had only been "dating" for a few months and he was still in regular contact with KT plus KVN from the cadets, and at the same time had told friends about how he wanted to slit someone's throat, all the time using huge amounts of cannabis.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 04, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401673.a-truly-evil-murder-you-will-rightly-be-regarded-as-wicked-lucy-bannerman-finds-how-a-teenage-love-of-music-and-rebellion-ended-with-a-walk-to-a-horrific-death/

It appears a lot of the content from the above article came directly from the 42 day trial evidence
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 05, 2023, 12:01:19 AM
You really think the tabloids are to blame for the trial verdict? SO much was unreported, like LM piqueing Jodi on the leg with his knife at a party a few weeks before. Normal behaviour for most 14 year olds in your eyes. They had only been "dating" for a few months and he was still in regular contact with KT plus KVN from the cadets, and at the same time had told friends about how he wanted to slit someone's throat, all the time using huge amounts of cannabis.

I think the tabloids certainly played their part. The reason the above events weren’t reported from court is because they weren’t said in court. Why? Probably because under oath you have to tell the truth.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 05, 2023, 12:10:12 AM
I think the tabloids certainly played their part. The reason the above events weren’t reported from court is because they weren’t said in court. Why? Probably because under oath you have to tell the truth.

In reality - the media did not report on the evidence of many of the witnesses who gave evidence during the trial

For example, do you know who the other lad was who was with killer Luke Mitchell that evening?

There was David High, David Tulloch and who else?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on August 05, 2023, 12:15:02 AM
Probably because under oath you have to tell the truth.

I agree. The only person that told the truth in court was dope smoking wine drinking drunk driving Corinne. Everyone else was lying, even Shane. It's obvious Luke's tattie mashing was exemplary and he would have gone on to be a master chip fryer if wasn't for those pesky tabloids and Donald Findlay's masonic plot.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2023, 03:17:29 PM
I think the tabloids certainly played their part. The reason the above events weren’t reported from court is because they weren’t said in court. Why? Probably because under oath you have to tell the truth.

The fluent liar strikes again. - Jabbing the girl in a leg with a knife, KT and fantasizing about the best way to kill someone, certainly were heard at trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 05, 2023, 04:58:57 PM
The fluent liar strikes again. - Jabbing the girl in a leg with a knife, KT and fantasizing about the best way to kill someone, certainly were heard at trial.

Others may gobble up your nonsense Parky. I find it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Are you talking about this little piece of trickery?

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534

“Witness’….to the alleged incident, not in court. “The girl was put on the witness list for Mitchell’s trial’ but wasn’t called due to credibility issues. I’ll bet there was.

KT certainly gave evidence but of what….a holiday romance with her, that he hadn’t seen her since he started dating Jodi and she was a tad peeved that she’d been lied to. She certainly didn’t claim that she thought that he had a violent side.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on August 05, 2023, 08:44:11 PM

Are you talking about this little piece of trickery?

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+WATCHED+MITCHELL+TORMENT+JODI+WITH+HIS+BLADE.-a0127488534


Only you could question someone's credibility by using an article that reports 3 separate girls being threatened by LM with a knife, without irony on your part. But then you believe unknown/unnamed witnesses that were never called to court as central to your argument. That's some credibility issue.

LM spoke to KT for hours on the Saturday making plans for visiting her in July after he had sent Jodi home in a taxi at 10pm. Probably just a holiday romance though.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 05, 2023, 10:12:17 PM
Only you could question someone's credibility by using an article that reports 3 separate girls being threatened by LM with a knife, without irony on your part. But then you believe unknown/unnamed witnesses that were never called to court as central to your argument. That's some credibility issue.

LM spoke to KT for hours on the Saturday making plans for visiting her in July after he had sent Jodi home in a taxi at 10pm. Probably just a holiday romance though.

Imagine the dynamic effect of these ‘witness’s’ testimony on the course of the trial. Being able to have witnesses on the stand who had experienced Luke wielding a knife in a violent manner would be manna from heaven for the prosecution and yet they weren’t called to give evidence. Strange that.

You do seem to get a little angry that I’m rather less gullible than you. Odd that too.

The visit to Kenmore had been cancelled. Kimberley said so in her witness testimony so how they could be making plans heaven alone knows. Why do you equate two timing when you’re a child with being capable of murder?  Please explain that to me? Perhaps the visit was cancelled due to Luke’s waining interest in Kimberley? Perhaps that’s what the long phonecall that the pair had on the Saturday night was about?  Who knows but it certainly doesn’t seem relevant and it reveals the paucity of your argument that you think that it is.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 05, 2023, 11:05:14 PM
Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that Luke was cheating on her.  Why would she be happy to meet him?  Why wouldn't she go find some other people to hang out with?  Beyond that, his cheating might conceivably be a motive for her to kill him, but not vice versa.  The circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell, especially the portions of it which involve eyewitnesses, is a hot, sticky mess.

I think the motivation for her wanting to meet him, despite their earlier tiff in school, was to preserve their relationship. Jodi diarised her feelings for LM, writing that he was her 'first true love', that 'she might actually be in love with him', that 'when she wasn't with him, she wanted to be, and when she was with him, she was happy' and that 'she would die if he finished with her' (this is all in the public domain). So, quite clearly, she really liked him and had deep feelings for him. I'd suggest she was very keen to get their earlier dispute resolved, and being allowed out earlier than she normally would have -- due to her curfew being lifted unexpectedly by her mother Judith -- well, she would naturally have been delighted. Like I said in my previous post, her curfew being lifted by her mother no doubt gave her some positivity and likely altered & improved her mood. And with an improved mood, there would have been optimism -- optimism that whatever was bothering her earlier concerning LM, could be resolved. (I should also note that it is entirely possible that Jodi had already shaken off what was bothering her earlier in school before her curfew was lifted. Teenagers are fickle and more often than not overcome their problems quickly. Also, her being at home with her close, loving family, listening to music while homemade lasagne is cooking away in the background, likely gave her comfort and lifted her mood; the simple yet meaningful things in life.)

As regards the eyewitness testimonies, I think anyone reading them with objectivity and sense would infer it was LM they saw: AB was taken aback by how much one of the pictures she saw looked like LM. She was 'as sure as she could be' that it was LM in that book of photographs shown to her by the police. In court, contrary to what a lot of people say, she didn't not identify him -- she said 'she didn't know'. BIG difference. She was simply being honest. LM in the dock in late 2004 looked completely different to the LM she saw with that girl (who the Jury accepted, from AB's description and testimony, could be identified as Jodi) on June 2003 wearing that olive green parka jacket (he had much longer hair, was wearing completely different clothes and was fuller about the face, owing to puberty and development). AB probably knew, deep down, that it was LM in the dock, but chose to do the right thing and tell the truth -- like she had done throughout the entire investigation. Nothing messy about her testimony, imo. LF & RW made it clear they thought it was him from the off, with one of them even exclaiming, upon seeing his picture in a newspaper for the first time, "Oh my god, it's him!". Unequivocal. They both identified him in the dock, too, despite DF's badgering. These 2 women described his parka jacket and jeans quite accurately despite seeing him when they were driving by in a car on 30.06.03 at 1740/1745. They, like CH, MO & DH, were drawn to how suspicious he was looking (they all said he looked suspicious and was acting strangely; said he was avoiding eye contact and generally acting in an odd manner). Carol Heatlie, seeing him at 1810 on 30.06.03 on NB road in the shiny bomber jacket and black baggy jeans, said that her sighting was 'very very similar' to the young man she had seen on the Sky News interview on September '03. The 3 push bike boys, who knew LM personally, saw him on NB road at 1805 on 30.06.03 sitting on a wall at the end of his estate. They said he was wearing a green bomber jacket and baggy black jeans. They, too, identified him in court. MO & her partner DH, said they saw a suspicious looking youth on NB road at just after 1800 on 30.06.03 wearing a green bomber jacket and black jeans. In court, they said the person they saw that day wasn't the person in the dock. Let's face it, it was LM they saw, but he had changed so significantly between 30.06.03 and December 2004 that they thought it wasn't the same lad they had seen on 30.06.03. So, there you have it. Very robust circumstancial evidence from 9 separate eyewitnesses. Between them, we can establish confidently and beyond reasonable doubt, that LM was seen in a confrontation at Easthouses with Jodi at 1655, then seen 45 mins later, on NB road, acting suspiciously, without Jodi. (In between these sightings, a witness was cycling by rdp and heard strangling choking noises from behind the rdp wall that startled and frightened him.) From these 9 witnesses' testimonies, we can strongly infer that LM was wearing his (still) missing dull olive green parka jacket at 1740/1745, and then seen wearing a different jacket (he'd changed into a shiny green bomber jacket between 1745-1805) at 1805. LM was positively identified in court as the same person that was seen in both Easthouses and Newbattle rd, wearing 2 separate jackets (how cunning and crafty, eh). Both Easthouses and Newbattle are small settlements. No other person fitting Luke's description lived in these areas at the time. No other person matching LM's description came forward to eliminate themselves from the inquiry between 30.06.03 and November 2004. MK looked nothing like LM and was almost a foot taller. MK was seen in a different area altogether on the afternoon/evening of 30.06.03. MK's DNA was tested against all the samples from the original murder investigation -- nothing incriminating was found. MK -- and no one else on the planet -- was due to meet with Jodi on 30.06.03. LM was. And then there's all the other considerable circumstantial evidence used against LM. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence. A glacier of circumstantial evidence. Does anyone have a blowtorch?
Title: "I know I'm not supposed to talk to you, but take a look at this"
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 08, 2023, 03:08:09 AM
Miss Walsh's memory was contaminated by seeing the photo in the paper (similar to at least one wrongful conviction I discussed in the Laughable eyewitness testimony thread, that of Thomas Sophonow).  Let me repeat something that I posted there:  "The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."  Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S.  Gary Wells has over forty years of research work on the subject of eyewitness testimony.  Brandon Garrett wrote the first major retrospective on the causes of known wrongful convictions.

Ms. Walsh then deliberately disregarded what she had been told about not contacting Ms. Fleming ("take a look at this").  By showing her the newspaper, she contaminated Ms. Fleming's memory.  In addition, she spoke falsely about this incident, denying that she had shown the photo, completely cratering her credibility.  Ms. Fleming was incorrect in her memory of how she had first seen the photo, remembering that her partner had shown it, when he was out of town.  Donald Findlay's bringing this up was pointing out the truth; that is hardly badgering.

Their perception of where they had seen the jogger was also incorrect, inasmuch as the jogger's route was known.  This was also a dock identification, a method known to be highly suggestive.  The problems that I outlined here are severe in their own right, apart from the testimony itself.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 08, 2023, 01:17:54 PM
-- and no one else on the planet -- was due to meet with Jodi on 30.06.03. LM.

Perhaps you think that the killer should have sent an invite? Or a text…could you please attend the woodland strip behind the broken wall for a spot of murder?
Title: recommendations from Canada concerning alibi witnesses
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 08, 2023, 03:07:54 PM
"The alibi witnesses should not be subjected to cross-examination or suggestions by the police that they are mistaken. The alibi witnesses should be treated with respect and courtesy. They should not be threatened or intimidated or influenced to change their position. However, I agree that it is appropriate for the police to instruct the witnesses that it is essential that they tell the truth and that a statement can be used as proof of its contents. The witnesses should be advised that they should be careful to tell the truth and of the consequences of a failure to do so."

"It is essential that any further interviews of Crown witnesses following the disclosure of the alibi evidence should as well be videotaped or, if that is impossible, audiotaped. Every portion of the interview should be transcribed. Any statement alleged to have been made by the witness and which does not appear on the tape recording should be deemed to be inadmissible." (two recommendations from a commission report following some wrongful convictions in Canada).

These are sensible policies, and this case might have unfolded differently had something similar been followed.
Title: making the witness stand out
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 08, 2023, 04:38:52 PM
In the book Convicting the Innocent, a retrospective analysis of wrongful convictions, Brandon L. Garrett wrote, “Although showups may be highly suggestive, a lineup may also be suggestive if it is not set up fairly. At least 34% of the trials obtained with eyewitness testimony (55 of 161 trials) were biased, or stacked to make the suspect stand out. If some of the fillers in the lineup do not look anything like the description of the culprit, or the suspect, then the lineup is not a sound test of the eyewitnesses’ memory."

In another thread I offered the Dean Gillispie case as an example of using the background to make one person stand out, but the Thomas Sophonow case is an equally egregious example.  With respect to the photo lineup that Ms. Bryson saw, Mr. Mitchell's photo was the only one with a white background.  Donald Findlay indicated that no one else had a similar haircut.  Ms Bryson saw Mr. Mitchell's photo afterward, further confounding the process.  And these are the flaws before one gets to the problematic testimony itself.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on August 08, 2023, 07:26:36 PM
Perhaps you think that the killer should have sent an invite? Or a text…could you please attend the woodland strip behind the broken wall for a spot of murder?

A breakthrough! You might be onto something with the text. LM sent one at 4.36pm arranging to meet. And she was dead 40 mins later.
Title: Lessons from the Andrew Malkinson case
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 09, 2023, 01:25:38 AM
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence, which courts have long recognised can be unreliable. Safeguards include capture of all first descriptions provided by witnesses, scrutiny of the duration of observation, quality of lighting and view and any factors that may have influenced a witness’s recollection as well as strict adherence to authorised forms of identification procedure. However awful the crime, justice can never be served by a less than rigorous approach to such evidence during investigation and trial...It is surprising that Mr Malkinson was convicted on the basis of eyewitness identification without there being any DNA or other compelling evidence to connect him to the crime as such evidence might be expected to be present in a case of this nature. Defendants will invariably wish to examine the full details of any DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."
Title: Re: Lessons from the Andrew Malkinson case
Post by: Nicholas on August 09, 2023, 03:45:19 PM
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence, which courts have long recognised can be unreliable. Safeguards include capture of all first descriptions provided by witnesses, scrutiny of the duration of observation, quality of lighting and view and any factors that may have influenced a witness’s recollection as well as strict adherence to authorised forms of identification procedure. However awful the crime, justice can never be served by a less than rigorous approach to such evidence during investigation and trial...It is surprising that Mr Malkinson was convicted on the basis of eyewitness identification without there being any DNA or other compelling evidence to connect him to the crime as such evidence might be expected to be present in a case of this nature. Defendants will invariably wish to examine the full details of any DNA sampling and analysis undertaken for the police and to have disclosure of all the relevant records before trial, and may choose to undertake their own analysis. It is also vital that exhibits and all DNA samples are retained after conviction for as long as there may be any possibility of an appeal so that retesting can be facilitated."

This is yet more innocence fraud spin

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victim said she would “never forget his face” before she lost unconsciousness

She told the jury in February 2004 she was “more than 100% certain” Malkinson was her attacker!

Malkinson’s victim has not retracted this
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 09, 2023, 08:22:15 PM
Explain where scammer Sandra Lean got her 10:38pm and 10:39pm timings for the 10:20pm text message

Killer Luke Mitchell made a phonecall from his mobile at 10:41pm and Sandra Lean had killer LM phoning Judith Jones at10:40pm

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/18/killer-luke-mitchell-comparing-timelines-facts-vs-the-murderer-his-mother-armchair-detective-scammer-sandra-leans-lies-around-timings/

Judith Jones texted killer Luke Mitchell at 10:20pm

Killer Luke Mitchell did not phone Judith back for around 18 to 20 minutes
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 11, 2023, 11:38:42 PM
I agree. The only person that told the truth in court was dope smoking wine drinking drunk driving Corinne. Everyone else was lying, even Shane. It's obvious Luke's tattie mashing was exemplary and he would have gone on to be a master chip fryer if wasn't for those pesky tabloids and Donald Findlay's masonic plot.
IMO it is more than likely than not that Ms. Walsh lied when she said that she had not shown the newspaper to Ms. Fleming.  Key witnesses changed their testimonies, but my best guess is that they were cajoled into doing so over the course of their interviews.  There is no persuasive reason to believe that they lied, and Donald Findlay said as much regarding Ms. Bryson.  We have been through this before.
Title: Ms. Bryson's testimony
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 11, 2023, 11:58:41 PM
Nothing messy about her [AB's] testimony, imo.
In a previous post I summarized what was wrong with Ms. Bryson's identification procedurally; no one has commented yet.  Now let us examine it from other perspectives.  It was an identification made of people she did not know and only saw through a car window for a few seconds, while traveling around a curve with children in the car.  The descriptions she provided did not resemble Mr. Mitchell or Ms. Jones.  If she were traveling north on her way to Easthouses, the beginning of the path is not visible from the road until one is almost past it.  She would have to look left while turning right.  If she were traveling south as she left Easthouses, this would give a better view as the car approached the start of the path, but she would be looking right while turning left.

However, the problem with the second possibility is the timing.  She had to put her groceries into her car, settle the children, get lost on the way, see the house, and then come partway back, arriving at the path at 4:55.  She initially put her sighting near 5:45, which means that whomever she saw, it was not LM and [Name removed].  It has been argued that she could actually get all of these things done and be traveling away from Easthouses.  That adds one more mistake that she made in terms of her estimate of when it took place by about 50 minutes.  It also prompts one to ask what she was doing in between 4:55 and her arrival home, where she received a phone call, if I remember correctly.  No matter how sincerely her testimony was offered, it had no probative value.
Title: 9 witnesses saw sadistic killer Luke Mitchell
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 12:24:03 AM
In a previous post I summarized what was wrong with Ms. Bryson's identification procedurally; no one has commented yet.

There were 9 witnesses who saw sadistic killer Luke Mitchell that evening and 1 who heard his attack
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/

If the appeal courts were to accept your theory, how do you propose to erase all the other evidence against the killer - much of which btw isn’t in the public domain
Title: Re: Ms. Bryson's testimony
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 09:23:14 AM
There were 9 witnesses who saw sadistic killer Luke Mitchell that evening and 1 who heard his attack
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/

If the appeal courts were to accept your theory, how do you propose to erase all the other evidence against the killer - much of which btw isn’t in the public domain

There were 6 witnesses who saw Luke standing exactly where he said that he was wearing exactly the clothes he said that he was wearing. The problem with the other three witness’s statements has already been expertly laid out by Chris. The witness who claimed in court that he had heard the murder happen gave a wholly different account in his first statements of the noise that he heard.

Any useable evidence against Luke is in the public domain.
Title: lessons from the Malkinson case
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 12, 2023, 01:59:46 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "A description of the rapist was released to the public, but Malkinson did not match key parts of it: he was 3in taller, had chest hair when the victim said her attacker had none, and he had prominent tattoos on his forearms but none were mentioned. She also said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek, but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day."  DNA was found in scrapings from the victim's fingernails, and a photograph shows a difference in one of her nails.

The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case.  Offhand, I would point out that the former case shows that police cannot be relied upon not to destroy evidence, that even old evidence can be probative, that many lawyers believe that the CCRC is not fit for purpose, that eyewitnesses can be very confident yet very wrong, that the police sometimes withhold key information, and that it is important to follow correct eyewitness identification procedures.
EDT
There is also the question of whether or not majority verdicts (10-2 in the Malkinson case) contribute to wrongful convictions.

Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:21:09 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan

Emily Dugan, who has grifted and campaigned on behalf of violent rapist Andrew Malkinson, failed to recognise and call out his bare faced lies.

Take for example the Telegraphs article here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/28/andrew-malkinson-freed-after-17-years-in-prison-interview/ where it stated;

The first he knew of the crime for which he would be wrongfully jailed, was on 2nd August 2003, when Greater Manchester Police (GMP) handcuffed him in Grimsby

This 👆🏽originated from Emily Dugan

On 24th September 2021 Emily Dugan stated;

Six days before this

A horrific and brutal rape had happened near by

In the early hours of the 19th of July a mother of two was attacked and beaten on her way home and left for dead

It was a huge shock to the local community


Violent rapist & parasitic predator Andrew Malkinson stated in response;

I could hear people talking about it

I thought oh

No I’m not massively surprised this is a really rough area

I could tell, I could tell it was a rough area

Erm but, but it was right on the periphery of my awareness you know

👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/18/bob-woffinden-emily-dugan-will-roes-version-of-events-violent-rapist-fraudster-holiday-psycho-andrew-malkinsons-aka-andrew-strugnell-version-of-eve/
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:39:05 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "A description of the rapist was released to the public, but Malkinson did not match key parts of it: he was 3in taller, had chest hair when the victim said her attacker had none

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson doesn’t look like he had chest hair in his Gran Canaria photos

Deborah Hardman, who had previously been on holiday with Malkinson in Gran Canaria and who had Malkinson live in her house with her and her family also didn’t think Malkinson had chest hair!
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:43:19 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "…and he had prominent tattoos on his forearms but none were mentioned.

If violent rapist Andrew Malkinson still had his shirt on, but open, when he attacked his victim there would be no reason for his victim to see the tattoos on his arms

Also depending on what angle his victim saw his arms would have been significant

If you look at photos of Malkinson on line his arm tattoos are not always visible on either of his arms
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:44:27 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "…….. She also said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek, but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day."

The public have been given ZERO context for this

The reporting on his February 2004 trial was poor

What exactly did violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victim say during the February 2004 trial about this?

Did the prosecutor ask Malkinson’s victim if she could have been mistaken or if she could have scratched another part of his body?
 
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:53:02 PM
The Guardian's Emily Dugan wrote, "…….. She also said she remembered causing a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s right cheek, but Malkinson was seen at work with no scratches the next day."

Where’s the actual evidence that violent rapist Andrew Malkinson worked the next day?

Back in 2016 Malkinson, via Bob Woffinden, was claiming the police didn’t go to his place of work until 21st July 2003

The criminal cases review commission submitted to the appeal court that Malkinson wasn’t seen by police until the 25th July 2003
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/08/03/will-the-court-of-appeal-judges-address-the-misleading-evidence-presented-to-them-in-relation-to-violent-rapist-convicted-fraudster-andrew-malkinson-part-29/
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & his & his enablers innocence fraud
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 03:57:30 PM
The Malkinson case is a cautionary tale with respect to the Mitchell case.  Offhand, I would point out that the former case shows that police cannot be relied upon not to destroy evidence, that even old evidence can be probative, that many lawyers believe that the CCRC is not fit for purpose, that eyewitnesses can be very confident yet very wrong, that the police sometimes withhold key information, and that it is important to follow correct eyewitness identification procedures.

Mr B, who was arrested by police in Exeter last December (2022) was and is almost 10 years younger that violent rapist Andrew Malkinson

Again, Malkinson’s victim told him before he rendered her unconscious she would “never forget his face”

Malkinson’s appeal and public relations spin campaign has all the hallmarks of the innocence fraud phenomenon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 04:00:07 PM

Any useable evidence against Luke is in the public domain.

No it isn’t!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 04:01:18 PM
expertly laid out by Chris

Still waiting for Chris to name the 65 case he’d previously linked to
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 04:05:20 PM
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell had already phoned Judith Jones by this (10:41pm) time

Judith Jones texted killer Luke Mitchell at 10:20pm - he waited 18 to 20 minutes to call Judith

Timeline
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 05:06:58 PM
Any useable evidence against Luke is in the public domain.

Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s 1st July 2003 22 page written witness statement was read to the jury but only a few sentence for ever reported on

Killer Luke Mitchell & His Abusive Innocence Fraud Enablers Have Hidden The Murderers Evidence From Their Cult Followers, Including His 22 Page Written Police Statement Dated 1st July 2003 & The Content Of His 4th July & 14th August 2003 & 14th April 2004 Recorded Police Interviews (Part 65)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/17/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-65/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 06:05:05 PM
Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s 1st July 2003 22 page written witness statement was read to the jury but only a few sentence for ever reported on

Killer Luke Mitchell & His Abusive Innocence Fraud Enablers Have Hidden The Murderers Evidence From Their Cult Followers, Including His 22 Page Written Police Statement Dated 1st July 2003 & The Content Of His 4th July & 14th August 2003 & 14th April 2004 Recorded Police Interviews (Part 65)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/17/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-65/

The most important sentences I’d guess.

As I’ve already said if you think that a receipt for a knife that could not have been the murder weapon was mentioned in the media yet the one for the missing knife that could have been wasn’t I have a lovely bridge that you might be interested in!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 07:39:43 PM
The most important sentences I’d guess.

How does a reporter, who hasn’t attended each and every day of the trial and is not aware of all the actual facts of the investigation and case know what “the most important sentences” are ? 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 07:43:40 PM
As I’ve already said if you think that a receipt for a knife that could not have been the murder weapon

It has never been concluded that sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s 2002 skunting knife wasn’t the murder weapon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 07:55:17 PM

As I’ve already said if you think that a receipt for a knife

What was found in and seized from Philip Mitchell’s house in Livingston?

And what was his and his partners evidence?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 08:11:27 PM
I have a lovely bridge that you might be interested in!

Was Philip Mitchell taken in for questioning on the 14th August 2003 and if so why wasn’t this reported on?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 08:12:18 PM
It has never been concluded that sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s 2002 skunting knife wasn’t the murder weapon

There’s no conclusive proof that it actually existed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 08:36:27 PM
Was Philip Mitchell taken in for questioning on the 14th August 2003 and if so why wasn’t this reported on?

I’m talking about court testimony. Please don’t deflect.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 11:13:57 PM
There’s no conclusive proof that it actually existed.

The receipt says otherwise

As did the numerous witnesses who gave evidence to confirm they’d witnessed sadistic killer Luke Mitchell with it and showing it off
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 11:16:29 PM
I’m talking about court testimony. Please don’t deflect.

What was Philip Mitchell’s court testimony?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 11:24:30 PM
The receipt says otherwise

As did the numerous witnesses who gave evidence to confirm they’d witnessed sadistic killer Luke Mitchell with it and showing it off

There is no receipt.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 11:30:09 PM
What was Philip Mitchell’s court testimony?

Unless he said that Luke had a lock knife in 2002 for this discussion his testimony is irrelevant.

Did he say that?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2023, 11:54:48 PM
Unless he said that Luke had a lock knife in 2002 for this discussion his testimony is irrelevant.

Did he say that?

Philip Mitchell’s evidence is not “irrelevant”, neither his or his parters

Remember the Marilyn Manson calendar that Phil Mitchell’s partner allegedly bought for sadistic killer Luke Mitchell for his birthday - because he was a fan of Manson’s

Why don’t you speak to people who attended the trial and heard all 42 days of evidence

It might also be helpful to find out what the police found and seized when they searched his house in Livingston on 14th August 2003
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 12, 2023, 11:59:24 PM
Philip Mitchell’s evidence is not “irrelevant”, neither his his parters

Remember the Marilyn Manson calendar that Phil Mitchell’s partner allegedly bought for sadistic killer Luke Mitchell for his birthday because he was a fan of Manson’s

Why don’t you speak to people who attended the trial and heard all 42 days of evidence

Did Philip Mitchell say that Luke owned a lock knife from December 2002?

Why are you avoiding the question?

“Allegedly bought”? Again what’s your point?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2023, 12:44:21 AM
Did Philip Mitchell say that Luke owned a lock knife from December 2002?

Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell had had knives since at least the age of 12 yo

Why are you avoiding the question?

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked you about what the police found and seized when they searched Philip Mitchell’s house on the 14th August 2003

“Allegedly bought”? Again what’s your point?

How did the police find out who had bought killer Luke the Marilyn Manson calendar?

In scammer Sandra Lean’s 2nd innocence fraud book she stated;

“The interrogation moved on to Luke’s alleged interest in Marilyn Manson and Shane was shown the ripped up calendar and the pictures from the Manson website” (p.310)

“Aside from a torn up calendar, that was the only item Luke owned related to Manson”
(p.230)

What was Philip Mitchell and his partners evidence regarding this calendar and Marilyn Manson?


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2023, 12:49:22 AM
Referring to sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s trial, Sandra Lean stated in her second innocence fraud book;

There was nothing to clarify what Jodi did on the weekends when Luke was at his dad’s….” (p.49)

Killer Luke hadn’t stayed at his fathers house in Livingston for weeks leading up to when he committed his murder - confirmed by fraudster Scott Forbes

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/12/killer-luke-mitchell-fake-lawyer-scott-forbes-confirms-murderer-had-not-stayed-at-father-philip-mitchells-house-for-weeks-part-253/

What was Philip Mitchell’s evidence regarding the fact his killer son hadn’t been to stay with him for weeks?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 13, 2023, 10:14:11 AM
Referring to sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s trial, Sandra Lean stated in her second innocence fraud book;

There was nothing to clarify what Jodi did on the weekends when Luke was at his dad’s….” (p.49)

Killer Luke hadn’t stayed at his fathers house in Livingston for weeks leading up to when he committed his murder - confirmed by fraudster Scott Forbes

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/12/killer-luke-mitchell-fake-lawyer-scott-forbes-confirms-murderer-had-not-stayed-at-father-philip-mitchells-house-for-weeks-part-253/

What was Philip Mitchell’s evidence regarding the fact his killer son hadn’t been to stay with him for weeks?

Now you’ve finished deflecting back to the 2002 receipt.
Title: Re: Ms. Bryson's testimony
Post by: Mr Apples on August 13, 2023, 01:03:38 PM
In a previous post I summarized what was wrong with Ms. Bryson's identification procedurally; no one has commented yet.  Now let us examine it from other perspectives.  It was an identification made of people she did not know and only saw through a car window for a few seconds, while traveling around a curve with children in the car.  The descriptions she provided did not resemble Mr. Mitchell or Ms. Jones.  If she were traveling north on her way to Easthouses, the beginning of the path is not visible from the road until one is almost past it.  She would have to look left while turning right.  If she were traveling south as she left Easthouses, this would give a better view as the car approached the start of the path, but she would be looking right while turning left.

However, the problem with the second possibility is the timing.  She had to put her groceries into her car, settle the children, get lost on the way, see the house, and then come partway back, arriving at the path at 4:55.  She initially put her sighting near 5:45, which means that whomever she saw, it was not LM and [Name removed].  It has been argued that she could actually get all of these things done and be traveling away from Easthouses.  That adds one more mistake that she made in terms of her estimate of when it took place by about 50 minutes.  It also prompts one to ask what she was doing in between 4:55 and her arrival home, where she received a phone call, if I remember correctly.  No matter how sincerely her testimony was offered, it had no probative value

Hi, Chris. I've not had the time to post on any forums at all over the last few months, so bear with me (I also made a conscious decision about three/four years ago to jettison laptops and PCs and digital tv & internet packages; I only have my trusty Samsung smartphone with pay-as-you-go internet these days to do all my online stuff). Anyway, quickly (it really does get tedious and tiresome going over all of this, year in, year out);

I don't see a problem with the photographic ID procedure used by police in AB's ID of LM. In fact, I reckon a traditional lineup would've been even more damaging to LM, since AB got an uninterrupted view of him -- his hair, face, clothing and physical appearance and demeanour -- as she drove southbound from Easthouses back to her home in Newtongrange. As for the book of photographs she was shown -- with the white background in one photo only and the other photos being unfairly dissimilar to LM -- I would need to see them myself to form an opinion (besides, using mostly photos of people similar looking to LM would've been equally as unfair, as well as dangerous). Using a white background in one photo only does seem a tad unfair, but, AB did say 'she was as sure as she could be' that the person in that one photo was LM. Also, when she saw a photograph of him in a newspaper the following day (of her photo id), she was 'taken aback' by just how much the photo resembled the person she'd seen from her car on 30.06.03; it was as good as a categorical id, and hence compelling circumstantial evidence. You also mention AB's description of LM's clothing . . . I think she did well to recollect what she did, especially as she had her 2 kids in the back and was minding her own business. She mentioned the straggly, messy sandy hair, sticking up in a clump at the back, which she said reminded her of the character 'Shaggy' from the Scooby Doo movie released around that time. She also mentioned, in her very first accounts to the police, the 'army' style of the jacket and the big black boots, both of which tied in with LM's cadet membership and the German national flag on the sleeves of both his first (still missing) parka and his second parka jacket (bought as a replacement, on 08.07.03). I think it should also be mentioned here that a young male witness was called to court to give evidence regarding this army style parka jacket, which he'd seen LM wearing before the murder in an off-licence called Eskbank Trading. DF tried to counter-argue with the usual spiel that the young lad's sighting was probably mistaken & that he likely had seen LM wearing a parka AFTER the murder because he (LM) was regularly seen in newspapers & main tv news headlines wearing a parka. However, the young lad clarified, unequivocally, that he'd seen LM in that shop BEFORE the murder. Also, and just as significantly, the young lad made another point in court of what else it was about his sighting that made him so sure it was LM he had seen that day wearing that army parka: the German national flag badges on the sleeves. Plus the fact that the boy's own mother had the exact same jacket, which leads me to another important point: those army parka jackets have been in fashion for as far back as I can remember. Lads and lassies in my high school had them in the early 90s and they continue to be ubiquitous in the present day (still worn by both women & men of all ages, and worn by different groups of people, from goths & metalheads to football fans). Oh, and fishermen. Definitely fishermen. That dull olive green camoflauge is perfect for fishing and camping. And, let's face it, those army parka jackets are interchangeable with fishermen's jackets: they are 1 and the same. That's why AB used those terms to describe the jacket; it was the same jacket and boy she was describing. It was LM she saw. As for not seeing his face -- what? Of course she saw his face. She was driving southbound and LM was facing directly on to her as she manoeuvred round that bend; all she had to do was look ever so slightly to her right in order to get a crystal clear view of him, from head to feet. And she was drawn to him like a magnet -- in much the same way as LF & RW were as they drove past him -- because of his behaviour (gesticulating to Jodi with his hands by his side and palms outstretched, like they were in a confrontation; AB said during her testimony that it did not look like they were there to meet). She may have had a hard time describing his face (describing someone's face is a hard thing to do at the best of times, especially if you don't know them or haven't seen them before, and especially whilst driving by in a car), but, once she saw the photo in that book, she was unequivocal that it was him. Same with LF & RW. They were both incredulous at just how much the photo in the newspaper looked like that boy they had seen some 6 weeks earlier acting strangely that gate. That's why the woman was so keen to show her friend that pic of him in the newspapers -- for she knew it was definitely him and was so overwhelmed emotionally by the resemblance that she just had to show her friend this pic. It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier. Again, it was compelling evidence used by AD Turnbull, and most likely contributed greatly to swinging the jury in the prosecution's favour -- as probably did AB's eyewitness testimony. F&W tried to explain to DF in court that they definitley saw the same person in the dock, on 30.06.03, but conceded it was difficult to explain in words why. As with AB, once they saw his photograph, they knew that it was definitely LM. And then there's all the other considerable circumstantial evidence -- which, btw, I don't have time to address -- to factor in. By applying logic and the principles of Occam's razor, I wholeheartedly believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM murdered and mutilated Jodi. Of course, as it was an entirely circumstantial case, there is still a chance that LM might not have done it, but, I'd be completely astonished if it emerged that it wasn't him. Using logic, common sense and research -- even with the limited info that's available in the public domain relating to this case -- I think it's able to be proven that LM is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Edit: the receipt from the Coop in Gorebridge was useless as  the till mechanism was faulty. AD T produced one of AB's bank statements which showed the transaction at the supermarket (Coop in Gorebridge) had actually occured at 1632 -- 13 mins earlier. (Case in point: I made a transaction at the bookies with my visa debit card a few months back. The receipt which the bookie gave me was an hour out -- probably from forgetting to put the clocks back an hour in March earlier in the year. I noticed this when I got back home. I immediately thought of this case, so I checked my online bank account statement a few days later to see what time it had recorded for the bookie transaction. Guess what? My online bank account statement had recorded the correct time. I'm sure if you asked the general public whose transaction time they'd trust between the seller's till and your bank account, 99% of the time people would say their bank account time.) So, from this info, after assiduously and meticulously going over routes, etc -- like they had done with CM and AO -- they managed to ascertain that AB saw LM with Jodi at aporox 1655 at the easthoses entrance to RDP.  With regard to her received phone call from her husband at 1817, she basically had misremembered what she had done between getting home and receiving that call. Remember, she had 2 young kids to look after, as well as putting her shopping by and preparing dinner for the family; like JudithJ, she had lost track of time when making dinner (explaining why JudithJ and AO weren't alarmed when LM called their landline at 1740 to ask if Jodi had left yet).

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 13, 2023, 02:56:33 PM
Mr. Apples,

I appreciate the fact that you have written a detailed reply.  Yet it fails to address many of the points that I have made about the problems with eyewitness testimony over the last several months in two threads, the only exceptions to that are that you discussed the difference in the background of LM's photograph versus the others, you discussed the timing, and you mentioned RW's showing the photo to LF.  I will address the second and third for the moment.  Even if we accept the earlier time for AB's departure, there would still be time spent in loading the car, driving, getting lost, viewing the house, and driving back.  That is quite a bit to fit into a period of less than 25 minutes.  Moreover, there should have been CCTV confirmation of her route and timing, as Faithfully pointed out; it is conspicuous by its absence.  Regarding RW and LF you wrote, "It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier."  This is a seriously misguided argument.  She broke a sensible rule, and she spoke falsely (probably lied) about having done so.  In so doing, she also contaminated LF's memory.*

Let me give you my bottom line regarding eyewitnesses.  Erroneous identifications occur in over 70% of wrongful convictions.  This fact alone should make one cautious about overweighting them.  The confidence that an eyewitness expresses is in general a poor gauge of its accuracy.  The guidelines that have been adopted in various jurisdictions were, no doubt, written with the goal of making eyewitness identifications as trustworthy as is possible, yet (as Donald Findlay said) the guidelines were brazenly flouted.  And if anyone had any doubt that not playing by the rules (both regarding eyewitness accounts and disclosure), last month's stories about Andrew Malkinson are an exclamation point about the dangers of investigators' not doing so.
*EDT
"Recommendation 1 from Wells et al. (2020) is relevant. The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."
Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S
Title: strongest defense point in the Malkinson case
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 13, 2023, 07:20:45 PM
Did the prosecutor ask Malkinson’s victim if she could have been mistaken or if she could have scratched another part of his body?
The Guardian reported that the "judge invited the jury to consider that the victim might have been mistaken in her memory about the scratch."  Based on what was publicly known at the time, one might have wondered whether or not the judge had his thumb on the scale, but it looks even worse in light of evidence that the victim had broken her nail.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-of-appeal-dna-evidence-greater-manchester-justice-b2388883.html
The Independent wrote, "They include police photographs of the victim’s left hand, which supported her evidence that she broke a nail scratching the face of her attacker, and the fact the two eyewitnesses who identified Mr Malkinson had convictions for dishonesty offences.  None of this was available to Mr Malkinson’s defence team at his trial and Mr Henry said the failure to disclose the photographs “deprived” Mr Malkinson of his “strongest defence point – his lack of any facial injury”.  In Monday’s ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde ruled in Mr Malkinson’s favour on a further two grounds.  He said: 'In the very particular circumstances of this case, the non-disclosure of the two relevant photographs prevented the appellant from putting his case forward in its best light, and strengthened the prosecution case against him in a manner which the photographs show to have been mistaken.'"

The existence of fingernail DNA is also consistent with her having scratched her assailant.  It is quite unusual to have foreign DNA underneath one's fingernails.

Title: Re: Ms. Bryson's testimony
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 13, 2023, 08:16:37 PM
As for the book of photographs she was shown -- with the white background in one photo only and the other photos being unfairly dissimilar to LM -- I would need to see them myself to form an opinion (besides, using mostly photos of people similar looking to LM would've been equally as unfair, as well as dangerous).
With respect to your first point, Donald Findlay brought the photographs up in the 2008 appeal, and the response was not that he was mistaken but rather that the instruction given to the jury was sufficient.  Based upon what I have read about misidentifications, I disagree with the appeals court.  It is not as if this is the only case in which the police all but circled out the suspect's photo with a marking pen, a point I have documented elsewhere in these threads.  With respect to your second point, my general answer is that the people in the lineup should be consistent with the description given.  If LM had been represented by counsel, some of these problems could have been addressed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 16, 2023, 04:47:36 PM
Mr. Apples,

I appreciate the fact that you have written a detailed reply.  Yet it fails to address many of the points that I have made about the problems with eyewitness testimony over the last several months in two threads, the only exceptions to that are that you discussed the difference in the background of LM's photograph versus the others, you discussed the timing, and you mentioned RW's showing the photo to LF.  I will address the second and third for the moment.  Even if we accept the earlier time for AB's departure, there would still be time spent in loading the car, driving, getting lost, viewing the house, and driving back.  That is quite a bit to fit into a period of less than 25 minutes.  Moreover, there should have been CCTV confirmation of her route and timing, as Faithfully pointed out; it is conspicuous by its absence.  Regarding RW and LF you wrote, "It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier."  This is a seriously misguided argument.  She broke a sensible rule, and she spoke falsely (probably lied) about having done so.  In so doing, she also contaminated LF's memory.*

Let me give you my bottom line regarding eyewitnesses.  Erroneous identifications occur in over 70% of wrongful convictions.  This fact alone should make one cautious about overweighting them.  The confidence that an eyewitness expresses is in general a poor gauge of its accuracy.  The guidelines that have been adopted in various jurisdictions were, no doubt, written with the goal of making eyewitness identifications as trustworthy as is possible, yet (as Donald Findlay said) the guidelines were brazenly flouted.  And if anyone had any doubt that not playing by the rules (both regarding eyewitness accounts and disclosure), last month's stories about Andrew Malkinson are an exclamation point about the dangers of investigators' not doing so.
*EDT
"Recommendation 1 from Wells et al. (2020) is relevant. The recommendation is to conduct, before the lineup, an interview in which the witness is instructed to avoid attempting to identify the culprit on his or her own. If the witness has already done so and has encountered the suspect’s photo (e.g., on social media), thereby contaminating memory before the first official test, it is also important to document that fact."
Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S

Chris, likewise I appreciate the effort you put into most of your posts, endeavouring to delineate or highlight any possible flaws in the prosecution's case, reasoning, etc. It's obvious you are erudite, thorough and articulate.

However, it seems to me that you are being overly and disproportionately pedantic in your criticism of the prosecution's evidence, reasoning and methodology in the LM case. I also don't think it's relevant or appropriate to cite the evidence from parts of other cases as often as you do; criminal trials should always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, since no two cases will ever be the same. There may be some parallels between certain cases, but, in my opinion, it sets a dangerous precedent trying to compare one case with another.

As regards AB's car journey -- and what follows is paraphrased from the AB chapter in SL's IB (p.116) -- after buying some groceries from the Cooperative store in Gorebridge at 1632 hrs (as discussed previously, the 1632 time was confirmed by AD Turnbull in court when he produced a copy of AB's bank statement which showed the transaction for the groceries from Coop was clearly recorded as 1632; the till in the Cooperative store, which showed AB's till receipt to be 1645, was faulty). Upon one of her daughter's arrival home from school at 1605, she and her 2 children got in the car immediately and drove to the aforementioned store (SL, in IB, calls it a supermarket, which is a misleading term for a Cooperative store) -- a journey which took between 5 - 10 mins. SL mentions that AB's weekly shop took between 30 and 45 mins. I have to pause here to question something: no one I know in Scotland ever does their main weekly shop at a Coop store; I've lived in southwestern Scotland for some 40-odd years and have never known anyone to do their weekly shop there. They are convenience food stores. Some people might pop in daily or weekly and buy bits an' bobs or parts of their shopping there, but never for their main weekly/fortnightly shop (most folks do their main weekly/fortnightly shop at either Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda, Morrison's, Aldi or Lidl). It's simply not a place suitable for this as it's too small (you can't even use a trolley and have to use a basket) and limited in its products, as well as too expensive for most families. Therefore, I think AB was probably in this 'food store' for 30 mins maximum if we are going by SL's timings, but, in all likelihood, was only probably in it for 15-20 mins (20-25 mins at the most). If
she was in the Coop store for 30/45 mins as SL says in her book, then she must have left home before 1605, as per the 1632 store transaction. But, let's stick with the agreed time of she and her 2 kids leaving the house at 1605/1610 (this time is accurate, since this is the time most school kids get in from school). She leaves Coop store at 1632 . . .  then, putting her 2 kids back in the car & loading that small amount of shopping in the boot would only have taken few minutes, and then leaving for a 9-minute car drive to view a property for sale in Easthouses (this wasn't a pre-arranged house viewing with an estate agent, but rather a quick look at the house from her car). This would merely add only a couple of more minutes on to her journey, making her sighting of this couple at the entrance to RDP east all the more probable, at 1655. (Incidentally, you can't actually get lost in Easthouses as it's a tiny settlement area with a population of around 2000 people and only has 4 or 5 streets of houses in it. SL says that AB didn't really know  Easthouses well, yet she lived in the adjacent village of Newtongrange which is literally only 5 mins away by car? Doesn't make sense. But, no, you can't get 'lost' in Easthouses and that is a fact; it literally consists of only 4 or 5 streets of houses. And, as highlighted upthread, AB would likely have gotten home from Easthouses at any time between 1705 - 1715, depending on what she did when driving back home (as far as I'm led to believe, she did drive directly back home after viewing the house in Easthouses). Logic tells me that, once she unloaded the children and shopping from the car, got back in the house, settled her 2 kids down, put the shopping away and began preparing the dinner for the family, including her husband due in from work, that window of 30-45 mins would have flown by and made her lose track of time. She initially said she got home from shopping/viewing the house at 1750, and that she knew this because she specifically remembered her husband calling her half an hour after she got back (it was later confirmed by her phone logs that the call was received at 1817 precisely).This obviously ties in with AB's original timing of seeing LM at 1740/1745, but, of course, the critical bank statement evidence disproved this, shaving 40/45 mins off AB's time of arriving home. And, common sense tells us that, between 1705-1710, when she likely got back home from Easthouses, AB had misremembered and lost track of time due to settling kids down, putting the shop by and preparing the dinner for her family (including her husband, who phoned her at 1817). So, Chris, once you use the proper evidence of the bank statement, we can accurately figure out what really happened. Initially, especially the way in which SL words the AB evidence (one might be tempted to call it manipulation), it does seem unlikely that it was LM she saw at 1655, but the real evidence, coupled with thorough and meticulous research into the case -- even from the limited info available in the public domain about the case -- we can build an accurate picture of what likely happened that day.

RW was unequivocal that it was him, as I've mentioned numerous times now (and provided cites for as to why she was certain it was him). On the surface, LF's testimony does seem more equivocal, vague and unreliable, but, without having access to all of her statements and court testimony to see for myself personally, I'll reserve judgement. LF was a decent, reasonably intelligent and level-headed individual, so I don't think she'd willingly merely parrot what her sister-in-law said if she had any doubts; she wasn't a nodding donkey and was capable of making her own mind up. And she knew the stakes were high -- that a young lad could go to jail for a considerable amount of time for an unusually brutal murder. Why would she be influenced by her sister--in-law's recall if she had doubts about it? Furthermore, LF was the one who spotted LM at the gate and drew RW's attention to him.  LF was also the one who said that LM acting suspiciously and 'up to no good'. She also described his dark green parka jacket, his black jeans and dark footwear, as well as his grungey shoulder length hair which, she said, reminded her of Oasis frontman Liam Gallagher. And also, she recalled, just as she and RW were driving past him, he flicked his hair to the side, which gave them a view of his eyes and face (saw this clearly as she looked in the car's rear view mirror). Her recall was accurate and incriminating. Even if we take RF out of the equation, we still have the eyewitness testimonies of AB & RW. Both of these women were adamant that, when shown pics in 2003, the youth they saw that day was LM. They, too, described his clothing accurately. More robust incriminating evidence.

How can CCTV evidence be conspicous by its absence, in this case? As you say, it would provide crucial circumstantial evidence for both defence and prosecution. The fact there was none probably means there were no cctv cameras on those routes? Unless you think police deliberately tampered with cctv cameras? What is your logic here, Chris?

In finishing, a question for you: if LM was so innocent, why wasn't he screaming and shouting when that guilty verdict came through? Or when he was being led away to begin his life sentence (it even looked as if he was smirking as he was being escorted away in that white Reliance van transporting him to Polmont Young Offenders' Institute). He was knowingly a lippy and confident lad with a short fuse (as per his 'giving the police as good as they got' in interviews, goading, laughing at them and taunting them; or the senior social worker appointed to LM,  who never, not once, felt the need to intervene during LM's police interviews, as LM was clearly fit for them despite his young age; the female journalist who noted LM's supreme confidence for his age, who was, in her words, an adult in everything but age). He sure was calm during sentencing, was he not? He was not prescribed horse tranquiliser strength medication, was he? Surely an innocent person would have been shouting and swearing, no matter how timid their nature? LM was not timid -- far from it. Why no reaction from LM on the day of his guilty verdict or when he was sentenced?

 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 20, 2023, 02:37:45 PM
Incidentally, how was it ascertained that Jodi and Luke had communicated with each other by text between 1634 - 1638? I've read conflicting stories about how long service providers/carriers retain text messages and calls for. For example, most carriers retain both calls and texts for about a year (times and dates only, in both cases). I've also read that a lot of carriers don't retain text messages at all because the sheer volume of them wold crash their servers. And obviously, in the case of recovering the actual contents of text messages, it requires a court order and then the police use special software to decode the content of the  texts. So, basically, there are grey areas in regard to the retrieval of telecommunications info. Anyway, how were the times of their text messages ascertained? Was it through Luke himself or Judith? And did the police recover/try to recover Luke's text messages and call logs for the full day of 30.06.03? (I know that a Mr Morris from L&BP Tech Support Unit carried out tests on LM's phone on 01.07.03 and only found a couple of texts -- one of them being a text from Kim Thompson -- and only found a single call, a call made to his mother CM at 0039 hrs. LM had wiped his entire phone history, both call logs and texts, late on the evening of 30.06.03, which was very strange, imo.)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 20, 2023, 08:16:14 PM
Regarding ABs identification, I found this report by Gordon McIlWraith:  "She didn't see the girl's face but got a view of the male for 'a brief second' as she passed. He had sandy-brown hair and some of it was sticking up towards the back of his head."  According to Sandra Lean  (p. 122) she described a male in his early 20s.  Luke was 14 and did not look older than that, which is 7-8 year younger than someone in his early 20s.  The fact that AB would have had to have been looking in one direction while turning the car in the opposite direction means that she could not have looked very long without risking going off the road.  She was wrong in her description of LM's age and hair, and she was wrong about the time by nearly an hour.  These are strong reasons to conclude that she saw someone else.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 20, 2023, 08:30:05 PM
Mr. Apples,

Regarding the timing of her trip you wrote, "leaving for a 9-minute car drive."  I have read that the trip takes 12-17 minutes, depending on the route.  The bank receipt gave the time as 16:32:45.  Therefore, we are already at 16:44:45 at the earliest before we include the time to get lost (it is quite easy to get lost in a nearby neighborhood if you don't know it at all in my experience) and the time to view the house.  I assume that the house had been photographed; therefore, AB must have wanted some information about its appearance that a single photograph could not convey.  Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your argument.
EDT (21 August)
I failed to include the time between obtaining the receipt for the groceries and starting the car.  Ms. Bryson would have to walk outside, put the groceries in the car, and also buckle up her children, one of whom was a toddler IIRC.  I am inclined to put another five minutes onto the total time for these things to happen.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 20, 2023, 09:03:35 PM
Regarding ABs identification, I found this report by Gordon McIlWraith:  "She didn't see the girl's face but got a view of the male for 'a brief second' as she passed. He had sandy-brown hair and some of it was sticking up towards the back of his head."  According to Sandra Lean  (p. 122) she described a male in his early 20s.  Luke was 14 and did not look older than that.  The fact that AB would have had to have been looking in one direction while turning the car in the opposite direction is another problem.  She was wrong in her description, and she was wrong about the time by nearly an hour.  These are strong reasons to conclude that she saw someone else.

A brief second -- or seconds --  it may have been, but she still managed to take a lot in. Take a look on google earth of where she saw the quarelling couple and you'll realise that she wouldn't have had to look in one direction; it's not a sharp bend and could have easily gotten an uninterrupted view of the male from head to toe without being a contortionist or doing some serious rubbernecking. In addition, and as I said upthread, there weren't many people lived in Easthouses (still the case in the present day; it has, and did have, even some 20 years ago, a population of around 2000 people. Likewise, Newbattle is a small settlement with a small population. Not many pedestrians are seen on these roads, and definitely not a teenage boy with a distinctive grungey look (yes, those parkas were -- still are -- popular, but still). And not a teenage boy leaning on a gate, looking miffed and suspicious, alone, on a rural road at dinner time. Why did no one fitting LM's description come forward to eliminate themselves from the inquiry? There are too many coincidences in this case for it not to have been LM, imo; he could not have been that unlucky. People can analyse the prosecution's case for anomalies, inconsistencies, egregious failures, and so on, but, the evidence overwhelmingly points towards one individual. There is no way a stranger did this, given where the body was found; the locus is too inaccessible and too risky, clearly giving an indication that it was someone who knew the area intimately. I've given you my theory on what happened, above (the bank statement timing of 1632 is central to it).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 20, 2023, 09:20:11 PM
Mr. Apples,

Regarding the timing of her trip you wrote, "leaving for a 9-minute car drive."  I have read that the trip takes 12-17 minutes, depending on the route.  The bank receipt gave the time as 16:32:45.  Therefore, we are already at 16:44:45 at the earliest before we include the time to get lost (it is quite easy to get lost in a nearby neighborhood if you don't know it at all in my experience) and the time to view the house.  I assume that the house had been photographed; therefore, AB must have wanted some information about its appearance that a single photograph could not convey.  Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your argument.



Chris, the timings make sense to me. 12-17 mins is not accurate. And it's possible that AB saw LM & Jodi at 1659/1700 . . . still enough time to do what he did, particularly if he had pre-planned it. AB might have gave up looking for the house if she'd gotten lost; it was dinner time & had 2 kids in back, mindful of dinner time (not an opportune time to visit a house for sale . . . she probably visited the house on a whim).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 20, 2023, 10:45:16 PM
Regarding ABs identification, I found this report by Gordon McIlWraith:  "She didn't see the girl's face but got a view of the male for 'a brief second' as she passed. He had sandy-brown hair and some of it was sticking up towards the back of his head."  According to Sandra Lean  (p. 122) she described a male in his early 20s.  Luke was 14 and did not look older than that, which is 7-8 year younger than someone in his early 20s.  The fact that AB would have had to have been looking in one direction while turning the car in the opposite direction means that she could not have looked very long without risking going off the road.  She was wrong in her description of LM's age and hair, and she was wrong about the time by nearly an hour.  These are strong reasons to conclude that she saw someone else.

Does not matter in the slightest if you disagree, facts are fact and AB was swayed by no one - She drove to the area, she did NOT physically view into any house. Which by the way was around a minute no more from the lane. You have bought into this major lost scenario, having her take copious amounts of time for any viewing, is barely a few minutes. Then you have also bought into this guesstimate around being home and hubby calling, placing that as the time frame, trying to work backword on very bias information, without barely a fragment of full context.

Mr Apples is correct - Which and again you simply wipe to the side repeatedly, again no doubt buying into this deflection, and blatant lies at points, to cast any doubt upon all and everyone connected in some way to the case. I mean, do you doubt the time the young girl left her home? You certainly must do, but who do you believe Chris? Is it SL with her bang on 5:10pm to cancel out AB (multiple choice of course) or SF's and his seen at 4:50pm? Which one Chris?

In line and again Mr Apples is bang on the money, these flukes, major coincidences all fitting in line. Left her home at an unexpected time, made contact with only one person and leaves shortly afterwards to do just that. Girl seen with LM at the lane, a place they used to meet. The girl goes amicably with someone she knows (not a snifter of forensic evidence to suggest anything else) into an area off the beaten track and instantly killed. in a woodland area they frequented together (he lied about this also) The cyclist hears noises at this time. There is no one upon the path, no young girl nor LM. The boys go up the path, no girl and no LM. The same male seen in the east is seen again on the west, (again the multiple choice options here are so off the wall), that doppelganger wearing the same clothes. Then after changing the doppelganger is seen again between the wooden gate and estate entrance. Again LM stated firmly it was not him, just someone else wearing the exact same clothes. But no ones saw LM where he claimed to be at those times.

He is not home, and it really does stretch all limits of sanity to try and place him there. Three people same household in the first instance handed of false account of their movements to the police, first recall, best memory and all that jazz! They try to strengthen the lie, and it really is blown wide open. The guy stated in court he lied, the reason why he lied and for whom, primarily his mother!

He initiated a search directly to there, held back and instantly he went to the wall on a claimed hunch, initiating the woodland into mind. He then went directly to the next break and up over and bang. All in the most astounding record breaking time and he lied and he lied. 4 people, three from the off, first statement, best recall, described in detail how that sequence of events went. Not LM, he claimed to be some 60ft past, narrowed down to exactly 43ft and "parallel to" - Do you think you have been conned here? You  have seen NO statements, bar selective excerpts to feed a false narrative, as old as the bloody hills. Deflect focus elsewhere, make people doubt each and every other person so they will believe, each and every one of them was acting out of self interest!- - Just not LM and co?

And every road leads back to Rome, some giant conspiracy of everyone out to get the boy! For NO bloody reason that even borders on any rational. Irrespective of belief and capability, LM was not home, he knew exactly where that young girls body lay - Up to him to start fessing up and telling the truth around the how and why, isn't it now?

Good reasons but you do not see as to why no claimed expert on dogs was called. A defence who had those four accounts to hand from start to finish, showing clearly that LM, nor his dog or the others where were he claimed to be! His very reason for knowing where to go he claimed, the exact spot he claimed the dog alerted, wipe it away, which is what did happen and you are left with clear special knowledge!

2003 Chris - There were not multiple masts out in the sticks, no triangulation, nothing to pin point phone to within that mile. I find it more odd how it is all excused away, the bleat that they must have had everything to prove LM did not do it but set to fitting him up!
PB was correct, the focus upon the young girl, that life lost in the most horrific way, and they wanted to just fit someone up - You do your intellect a great disservice here, with the "cajoling" all and everyone.

Make and model of phone please? Provider? See there are lots of questions you really should be asking but not placing them where they should be, nor asking for cites from those spearheading this campaign. I do note however you have joined in with the cites are everything bleat! - Irrelevant to the case at hand because you are not asking the right questions to the right people, like SL. Just a thought!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 20, 2023, 10:53:31 PM
Also Chris - I know, making up for some lost time! ;-)

Again Mr Apples is correct, the road is different to as it was then, an easy left hander looking right into that lane. I note you mention this with AB around age, but leave out F&W and SL's contradictions! They thought the male they saw was pretty much LM's age, closer to him of course. Yet she applies it could have been MK they saw, a dead ringer yet in his early 20's.! And again, it really does stretch the imagination in all directions, to split all these doppelgangers doing the round in these quiet suburbs. Same male both ends, same dress, and ID positively as being one and the same, LM. Who we know was not home and there is nothing to place him there.

And, these posts as always are the sound and valid reasons as to why LM became prime suspect, why there was not a hope in hells chance of eliminating him as such, as more and more came to light the more he was exposed.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on August 22, 2023, 01:01:17 AM
AB description of the girl in no way matches what Jodi was wearing. AB must have seen the girl to have given a description which was a dark blue hoodie and lighter coloured trousers she took to be boot cut jeans. We have all seen the police reenactment photos and what Jodi was wearing therefore AB description even if she only caught a glimpse would we very baggy dark or black clothing with something orange on the back. IMO AB did not see Jodi and Luke at the top of the path. At the very least reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 08:42:12 AM
AB description of the girl in no way matches what Jodi was wearing. AB must have seen the girl to have given a description which was a dark blue hoodie and lighter coloured trousers she took to be boot cut jeans. We have all seen the police reenactment photos and what Jodi was wearing therefore AB description even if she only caught a glimpse would we very baggy dark or black clothing with something orange on the back. IMO AB did not see Jodi and Luke at the top of the path. At the very least reasonable doubt.

Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 08:43:28 AM
Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.

The "two independent people" that you have bought into readily (of course you have ;-) ) Who could not make a positive ID of the school girl, they saw no hair contained and they saw no logo on the back of her top! Thus the appeal for the two other people, pushchair and mystery male! Who were being sought to try and place a positive ID of the schoolgirl with time and day. - It had been a false trail. But you know, because someone said something, because the media sensationalised it, bingo, must be so true!!

Two people certainly did positively ID that young girl, both confirmed as being just after 4pm - Fancy that! One who knew her by sight, saw the girl after she had gotten off her school bus, the other a neighbour as she walked past their house - Going home from school. -But you buy into this tying of it all together, that lie, building something from a fragment of truth and pushing it out as fact!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 22, 2023, 12:23:40 PM
"She paid for the shopping at 4.32 and she estimated it would have taken her five minutes to load the groceries and get her children in the car.  Mrs Bryson, who lived in Newtongrange, looked at a house for sale on her way home.  She said she couldn't remember which of two routes she had taken but police had re-traced both.  One would have placed her on Easthouses Road, near the entrance to Roan's Dyke path, at about 4.49pm and the other at the same spot at around 4.54pm."

This is where the 12 and 17 minute figures come from.  The receipt said 4:32:45.  Whichever direction, she had to be looking in the opposite direction from the one that she was turning and seeing two people whom she did not know.  She did not describe [Name removed]'s hair color correctly, among other things.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 22, 2023, 12:25:36 PM
Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.

But it is NOT stand alone, not by a long shot. - The girl did NOT know she would be out of punishment, lifted and she made contact with one person, taken no phone with her, she could not make contact with anyone else. Leaving home shortly after contact but held back by her mother. LM calls the speaking clock, the girl is running late. Goes to the lane to meet him and he is seen with a girl, beckoning her to go with him and she did. No sooner have they entered an area in that woodland (an area the frequented together) and she is murdered violently.

And lo and behold, the same male is seen again on the west end - And there is NO LM seen anywhere else at these times.

The problem with Andrina Bryson was she gave her initial statement on the 1st of July using the later times. She then gave a second statement the following day, after you would have thought she would have time to get things straight in her head. In that statement, and using peripheral events, she again stated that she had seen the couple at between 5.40-5.45.

So this wasn’t someone who initially guesstimated the time of her sighting but someone who, when she had time to sit down and work everything out still put probably the most important piece of evidence in the case at between 5.40 and 5.45. The fact that the police basically ignored her sighting for well over a month after she gave it speaks volumes about how the viewed it….it was too late.

As to Bryson’s description of the girl she saw’s clothing, she did not say baggy cords. The were ‘lighter’ than the top ( which was navy) and bootcut.The glaring error of course is that if it was in fact Jodi Bryson saw and she did have her back to her she couldn’t avoid seeing the bright orange Deftones logo. It would have stuck it like a sore thumb. Yet Bryson didn’t mention it. Odd.

There was no Luke seen as he was at home.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on August 22, 2023, 12:55:22 PM
Keep feeding the line, what does it do? - Zero

AB when attempting to give further description of the colours she saw, was of, ' a very dark blue, navy/black top, possible hood, hair possibly contained with "slightly lighter" bottoms, possibly jean/cords and baggy. Girl was wearing black hoodie with slightly lighter trousers. Tell me Bullseye, what colour and type were the victims trousers?


Outstanding recall, taken in that male, his face, making that positive identity. That sighting, how did she do? Clocked Mitchell, colour of his clothing, and out of many, many jackets, she picked the parka because it was the ONLY one closest to memory. The girls hair had been contained, she was wearing a black hoodie and her trousers, again Bullseye, colour and type please, were they baggy around the bottom? - Dam right they were! - Excellent.


This is from the appeal papers, describes AB evidence. You can see she said a navy hoody with lighter trousers she took to be jeans, when I see the photo of what Jodi was wearing it’s not even close and to say it is really says everything about you. I’m not saying Luke is innocent because I think AB got it wrong I’m simply saying imo it was not Jodi she seen.

[114] Mrs Bryson did not know the deceased or the appellant. In the late afternoon of 30 June she was driving home from the supermarket, her two young children being in the car with her. She was proceeding south along Easthouses Road. The Roan's Dyke Path joined Easthouses Road at a point near where the road, for a person driving southwards on it, bends to the left. The entrance to the path lies ahead at this point. As she approached the bend Mrs Bryson saw two young people, a girl nearer to her (on the pavement of Easthouses Road) with her head turned to her right towards a young male who was on the path (about 20 feet from Mrs Bryson). He appeared to be gesturing towards the girl, with his palms out facing her. She thought this very strange. The view that Mrs Bryson had of the girl was of the side and back of her head. The girl had very dark hair which had a wave which suggested it had at some time been contained in a ponytail. (The deceased's hair was dark and she sometimes wore it held in a "scrunch" at the bottom of her neck; such an item was found with her body). She described the girl's clothing as comprising a navy blue hooded jumper and pair of trousers ("I just took them to be a pair of jeans"); the trousers were lighter in colour than the jumper. (The description of the jumper was consistent with what the deceased was wearing when she left home; her trousers were dark in colour and of a "baggy" type). She was unable to see the girl's face or to form an impression of her age. The male she described in evidence as having a lot of hair ("quite messy") of a sandy/brownish colour. He was wearing a kind of green jacket which was "hippy" in length. It put Mrs Bryson in mind of a fishing type jacket, an outdoor type. His trousers were a similar colour. She saw his face "for a brief second". At a later stage in her evidence in chief Mrs Bryson was asked to look at a photograph of a jacket, similar to that which witnesses were to testify the appellant had been seen wearing before 30 June. She described what the male had been wearing as "very similar" to that photographed. She did not identify the appellant in court.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 02:26:48 PM
Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on August 22, 2023, 03:36:17 PM
Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?

If you mean going by the photo I would describe a girl with very baggy possibly black clothing on, with a symbol on the back. Not a navy hoodie with lighter colour trousers I took to be jeans…

I’ve asked many questions over the years about the ‘narrative’ as you put it, on here also. Regarding AB movements and where the house was, did AB get out the car and go into the house or just view from outside, how long did she stay etc etc but after all that none of that matters if I don’t believe it was Jodi she seen. Going by the info I would have put that bit of evidence down as reasonable doubt and moved on to the next piece of evidence. But that’s the point it’s up to each person to decide what they believe / interpret from the information we have. It’s not black and white and we will likely never know for sure. I for one have no idea if Luke is guilty or not I just hope he is and wish the Scottish legal system was more open with the information from trials then it might make things a whole lot clearer and stop all the misinformation from both side. But never going to happen.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 04:04:56 PM
If you mean going by the photo I would describe a girl with very baggy possibly black clothing on, with a symbol on the back. Not a navy hoodie with lighter colour trousers I took to be jeans…

I’ve asked many questions over the years about the ‘narrative’ as you put it, on here also. Regarding AB movements and where the house was, did AB get out the car and go into the house or just view from outside, how long did she stay etc etc but after all that none of that matters if I don’t believe it was Jodi she seen. Going by the info I would have put that bit of evidence down as reasonable doubt and moved on to the next piece of evidence. But that’s the point it’s up to each person to decide what they believe / interpret from the information we have. It’s not black and white and we will likely never know for sure. I for one have no idea if Luke is guilty or not I just hope he is and wish the Scottish legal system was more open with the information from trials then it might make things a whole lot clearer and stop all the misinformation from both side. But never going to happen.

You can get any information you want from the trial - Just got to fork out a pretty penny for it. But and again, after so many times of pushing the point forward, of SL and co NOT having access to full court transcripts, there has been the blanking in admitting this until recently, very recently. Access to LM attending his own trial of course, however what was proven beyond any doubt, is that he compulsively lied. - If some pigs should fly in this case, then the one person to blame for LM being where he is, is as always himself.

Of course it matters where house was, viewing and so forth, when people are punting out nonsense such as, it must have taken this amount of time to do what she did, without even knowing distance and so forth! It matters a lot, it is evidence as heard. Such as, that she did not physically view into any house, located it, turned around and headed home.

Did your two independent people give a description of the logo? Where were they? Where was the girl and the mystery male? What day did they first go forward, and again, what were the actual colour and type of trouser the victim was wearing? - So many questions.

We are, as always, left with the absolute fact that AB identified the male as being LM, that he was again identified on the west end in the same clobber, then his doppelganger was seen again just down from there, but NO LM anywhere else seen! That clear sequence of events, with nothing, and that is absolutely zero to show that anything else happened.


And to back up AB in court, those changes, we had the couple who saw LM after changing, not sure in being able to identify him at the time, by court they stated it was absolutely not the person in the dock! But is was LM, wearing those same clothes, that shiny bomber with orange lining and light coloured snow boarding boots. NO said LM, I was not there, it was not me. - But guess what? He was not where he claimed, all these bloody doppelgangers but no real LM - Yawn.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 22, 2023, 04:09:29 PM
Yawn - So, no can do then? Type, colour of trousers? We all know what the appeal doc says which confirm just how close to spot on AB was. And thankfully these opinions count for nothing, just the lady herself. Her guestimates, the sourcing a solid starting point. Again blanking that the times of approx sighting facing on to the lane south, were inclusive of of sourcing house round the corner and out again. In fact, there is a question, where was the house? - My, do you even know the answer to that? Easthouses is not an acceptable answer? But why oh why do you not even ask such questions in the right direction. - We have so many questions, just not against the narrative?

So, just to be clear, no light blue denim jeans nor a top the same colour as the school, the bright blue. - Why do you assume they put out such nonsense such as this?

And again, LM's data, his to do as he pleases with, 22 page statement from July 1st.

And another question, full description given of the girl by the two people mentioned in the appeal - See, no can do, can you?  Emblem?

The trousers were ‘lighter than the hoodie’. The hoodie was navy blue so the trousers were lighter than navy blue, not the black or very dark navy trousers Jodi was wearing. Where did the Deftones logo go? That could be considered to be the most conspicuous part of Jodi’s clothing.

Ah yes the two people mentioned in the appeal. The first ‘credible sighting’ according to the police yet Bryson had given at least two statements by that point. Why wasn’t her sighting considered more credible? Could it be that even the police at that time knew Bryson’s sighting was too late to be Jodi and Luke? Further if those witnesses saw Stocky Man as Jodi walked into RDP why didn’t they also see Luke coming up the lane that lead from it? After all Jodi was allegedly still on the pavement leading to the path when seen by Bryson.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 04:51:03 PM
The trousers were ‘lighter than the hoodie’. The hoodie was navy blue so the trousers were lighter than navy blue, not the black or very dark navy trousers Jodi was wearing. Where did the Deftones logo go? That could be considered to be the most conspicuous part of Jodi’s clothing.

Ah yes the two people mentioned in the appeal. The first ‘credible sighting’ according to the police yet Bryson had given at least two statements by that point. Why wasn’t her sighting considered more credible? Could it be that even the police at that time knew Bryson’s sighting was too late to be Jodi and Luke? Further if those witnesses saw Stocky Man as Jodi walked into RDP why didn’t they also see Luke coming up the lane that lead from it? After all Jodi was allegedly still on the pavement leading to the path when seen by Bryson.

B****r Off with your nonsense, clown.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 22, 2023, 04:58:20 PM
B****r Off with your nonsense, clown.

I’m afraid I will continue to ask awkward questions even if it angers some.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 22, 2023, 05:24:32 PM
I’m afraid I will continue to ask awkward questions even if it angers some.

And that is why you are a clown. Anger, my lord, we were laughing at you. Dense, much?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 22, 2023, 05:39:28 PM
And that is why you are a clown. Anger, my lord, we were laughing at you. Dense, much?

I’m not sure if I’m with Rousseau “Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong” or Thomas Jefferson “Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us” on this one.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 22, 2023, 07:55:56 PM
Mr. Apples,

Regarding the timing of her trip you wrote, "leaving for a 9-minute car drive."  I have read that the trip takes 12-17 minutes, depending on the route.  The bank receipt gave the time as 16:32:45.  Therefore, we are already at 16:44:45 at the earliest before we include the time to get lost (it is quite easy to get lost in a nearby neighborhood if you don't know it at all in my experience) and the time to view the house.  I assume that the house had been photographed; therefore, AB must have wanted some information about its appearance that a single photograph could not convey.  Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your argument.
EDT (21 August)
I failed to include the time between obtaining the receipt for the groceries and starting the car.  Ms. Bryson would have to walk outside, put the groceries in the car, and also buckle up her children, one of whom was a toddler IIRC.  I am inclined to put another five minutes onto the total time for these things to happen.

The time from Gorebridge Coop to Easthouses is 7-9 minutes -- not 12 - 14. And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference. The fact is, no one on the planet knew/knows what the exact times were or are, not even SL (who, just to remind you & everyone else, did not/does not have access to everything in connection with this case and, more crucially, did not attend a single day of that 9-week trial). The most accurate time available was from her bank statement (ie, 1632 hrs), and from that bank statement we can begin to accurately formulate a theory on driving routes and times. I've already highlighted how tiny Easthouses was and still is, and the strong likelhood that it literally only added 2-3 minutes on to her journey (5 mins at the absolute most, imo), especially as it was not a pre-arranged viewing with an estate agent; AB merely looked at it from her car briefly, for less than a minute or two -- a quick glance and not an extensive inspection, then drove southbound back home (the journey home likely taking about 5 - 10 mins). I would guess that AB only bought a basket full of shopping (2 small bags of groceries) and getting her 2 children back in car would have taken only 2 mins (in 2003, car seats weren't mandatory for children, so there was no time wasted in having to strap a 2-year-old in thoroughly). So, the 1655 sighting is, in fact, very realistic.

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 22, 2023, 09:32:22 PM
And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference.

You are absolutely correct Mr Apples. Bryson on the 1st of July gave a statement claiming that her sighting of the two youths seen at the entrance to RDP was between 5.40-5.45. Her initial estimates of peripheral events such as the time from her getting home to her husband’s phone call all fitted with that. That night she went over those times again, again fitting the timing of her sighting with fixed points in her day. She then when back to the police and gave a second statement with exactly the same timings as the first.

Can you explain how she initially got those timings so wrong, even after considering them again, and if the timings were wrong how reliable a witness could she have been in the first place?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 23, 2023, 10:26:11 AM
The time from Gorebridge Coop to Easthouses is 7-9 minutes -- not 12 - 14. And therein lies a big problem: once you start messing with times, it can make a significant difference to a person's theory; even a mere minute can make all the difference. The fact is, no one on the planet knew/knows what the exact times were or are, not even SL (who, just to remind you & everyone else, did not/does not have access to everything in connection with this case and, more crucially, did not attend a single day of that 9-week trial). The most accurate time available was from her bank statement (ie, 1632 hrs), and from that bank statement we can begin to accurately formulate a theory on driving routes and times. I've already highlighted how tiny Easthouses was and still is, and the strong likelhood that it literally only added 2-3 minutes on to her journey (5 mins at the absolute most, imo), especially as it was not a pre-arranged viewing with an estate agent; AB merely looked at it from her car briefly, for less than a minute or two -- a quick glance and not an extensive inspection, then drove southbound back home (the journey home likely taking about 5 - 10 mins). I would guess that AB only bought a basket full of shopping (2 small bags of groceries) and getting her 2 children back in car would have taken only 2 mins (in 2003, car seats weren't mandatory for children, so there was no time wasted in having to strap a 2-year-old in thoroughly). So, the 1655 sighting is, in fact, very realistic.

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?
And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 23, 2023, 06:46:23 PM
And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.

Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 23, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
And as we know Mr Apples - The working from guesstimates is not how any good investigation goes. AB telling the police she thought she had been home X amount of time before hubby called. She did not say, I was home at exactly this time, not ever. And as investigations do go, especially one such as this with masses of information coming in from the public. Those first few weeks sifting through all of it as they gather data, forensics, phone logs and so forth. Continuously going through it all and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

The only people to have set times in place, no guesstimates, which were demonstrably false, were the three people from the same household.

Much better to believe that the police for no reason at all, decided to fit LM up, because that really does make sense to the elite. By week four they had nothing therefore begun to "cajole" people into their way of thinking - My poor head.

But like the dog and wall, like everything, they ignore most of the context, the actual truth and zone in on what is predominantly empty.

As we know, in 2003 AO's had told the police his routine after finishing work, they did not take his word for it, they obtained the CCTV footage from the fuel station he said he went to, and there he was, telling the truth. They did not film his route home, they timed it. No CCTV along the way.

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we? Honesty over dishonesty?

What was to trust here? The one who was telling the truth or the one who was not? Now AB also told the police her movements, they checked these out and again she was telling the truth, no CCTV out in the sticks on those routes, but time the honest woman they did, just like AO's.

SM again, did not tell the police the correct details of his movements, neither did he offer them up? They discovered he had not went directly home via outside factors. As has been posted many times by people, he had fuelled his car up later in the evening, many miles from home, was there CCTV footage of this? Bank receipt perhaps, and what exactly did SM tell the police, as to why he went up town to do this? - All these questions around SM with no known answer, yet if we turn to others, we can almost tell you the colour of their underwear - Odd that, isn't it?

 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 23, 2023, 10:29:13 PM
As we know, in 2003 AO's had told the police his routine after finishing work, they did not take his word for it, they obtained the CCTV footage from the fuel station he said he went to, and there he was, telling the truth. They did not film his route home, they timed it. No CCTV along the way.

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we? Honesty over dishonesty?

What was to trust here? The one who was telling the truth or the one who was not? Now AB also told the police her movements, they checked these out and again she was telling the truth, no CCTV out in the sticks on those routes, but time the honest woman they did, just like AO's.

SM again, did not tell the police the correct details of his movements, neither did he offer them up? They discovered he had not went directly home via outside factors. As has been posted many times by people, he had fuelled his car up later in the evening, many miles from home, was there CCTV footage of this? Bank receipt perhaps, and what exactly did SM tell the police, as to why he went up town to do this? - All these questions around SM with no known answer, yet if we turn to others, we can almost tell you the colour of their underwear - Odd that, isn't it?

CCTV was obtained to establish that Alan Ovens was telling the truth about his journey home…indeed it was. CCTV was obtained from Morning, Noon and Night ( a very small corner shop)  to correct Corrine’s recollection of her journey home which does make you wonder why not one still of CCTV footage was ever obtained from the rather larger shop in which Bryson shopped before spotting the youths at the path. It would have certainly put to bed the bank statement/till recept question, but perhaps that was the point. Of course it could have been that by the time the police needed Bryson’s statement to shore up their faltering case against Luke the footage no longer existed. Either option isn’t great.

What movements did the police check out with regard to  Bryson? The ones in at least her first two statements? Well they didn’t check out, did they? In fact if they had checked those timings out they would have seen that it was either a different couple that Bryson  had seen at the path or that Jodi wasn’t killed at 5.15….and if Jodi wasn’t killed at 5.15, well you know the rest.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 23, 2023, 11:29:23 PM
Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.
Taking the above into consideration it seems to make no sense that the police didn’t then trawl through all the CCTV camera footage on the route Bryson claimed she took back home to find out exactly where she was at what time. The police did it with Alan Ovens so why not Bryson? Of course we have the bank statement but that only tells us that she was at the supermarket at a certain time. It says nothing about her journey back home and how long it took her and while we know how long it SHOULD have taken her everything else is a guesstimate after the time on the bank statement.

Hi, fl. I replied to your other post last night but the battery on my mobile conked out just as I was about to finish. Anyway, AB said "she had passed that way" (meaning the Easthouses main road ) when seeing a news report on 01.07.03. If she was on that road, then logic tells you that she travelled along Easthouses Rd, Morris Rd & Bryans Rd going back home. Occam's Razor, logic, the law of averages, and so on. 5-7 mins only to get back home and 15 mins at the maximun. If the police didn't have cctv evidence, then presumably there were no cameras on said roads? I'm sure the police tried desperately to trace AB's exact routes that day; it was a brutal murder they were trying to solve, after all, so they had to get it right. LM may have aroused suspicion really early on in the investigation, but he wasn't arrested until 14.04.04.... do you really think the police didn't do all in their power to trace AB's exact routes with CCTV evidence between her statements in July/August '03 and Luke's arrest in April '04? Of course they did. It would be gross negligence or gross incompetence if they didn't (and I'm sure this was probably mentioned during the trial). No CCTV evidence = there were no cameras on her routes. All of this getting 'lost' whilst looking for that house for sale is hyperbole; EH is a tiny settlement and AB lived a mere 5-minute drive away in an adjacent village (Newtongrange) -- of course she knew it to an extent (even if she didn't, it would have only taken her mere minutes to find her bearings again and reverse out of that small culdesac and onto that main EH rd again). The point is, her flying visit to EH would have only added about 5 mins (maximum) onto her journey time. And again, as Parky has said over the years on these forums, how many lads fitting LM's description are likely to have been skulking around those busy rural roads? And, yet again, I must mention how categorical AB & RW were that it was him they saw; likewise, when he'd slyly changed into the shiny green bomber jacket from the dull green parka, 6 separate people saw him on the nb rd in those clothes and positively identified him (although, the couple did say, in court, it wasn't him but got his clothes right . . . it was LM they saw, let's face it; MK supposedly had a parka but didn't have a shiny green bomber jacket, and plus his (MK's) dna wasn't found at the locus). Regarding AB saying she got in about half an hour before that call at 1817, well, as you say, it was a guesstimate; she didn't specify an exact time. Logic, however, tells us that she arrived home at around 1715, and, because she was busy with kids, shopping and preparing dinner for the family, she lost track of time and misremembered during the 1715-1745 window. I firmly believe that using logic, common sense and Occam's razor, we can conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that LM murdered and mutilated Jodi (and that's only with going by what was reported in the public domain; there was far more incriminating evidence led at court, which folk who were on the jury and at the actual trial have attested in private to members of the public).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 24, 2023, 12:01:09 AM

Now if we turn to CM who did not tell the police her correct movements, had they not been checking the CCTV in a local shop for other things, then they would not have caught her out. They did however, and she was caught somewhere else over where she claimed to be. Like AO's there was nothing else along those routes capturing them, CM may very well have not went directly home, we simply do not know, do we?



Hi, Parky. Good to see you posting regularly again. That's interesting about her journey home from work (I may have read about it previously but forgotten. Yeah, the more I read about this case, the more obvious it becomes that LM did it. There's just an avalanche of circumstantial evidence against him (and I've not even heard or read it all). SM, too, during his first statement on 03.07.03 (maybe it wasn't his first statement) saying he got back at his usual time of 1530, yet it was a known fact he'd phoned Luke at 1600 on the landline phone on 30.06.03. He then changed it on 07.07.03 to align with his mother's. And then reverted back to I can't remember on 14.04.04. Debacle.
Title: Re: Ms. Bryson's testimony
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 24, 2023, 03:47:08 AM
Same with LF & RW. They were both incredulous at just how much the photo in the newspaper looked like that boy they had seen some 6 weeks earlier acting strangely that gate. That's why the woman was so keen to show her friend that pic of him in the newspapers -- for she knew it was definitely him and was so overwhelmed emotionally by the resemblance that she just had to show her friend this pic. It had nothing to do with breaking the rules or having one's memory contaminated; she knew, quite categorically, that it was the same person she'd seen 6 weeks earlier. Again, it was compelling evidence used by AD Turnbull, and most likely contributed greatly to swinging the jury in the prosecution's favour -- as probably did AB's eyewitness testimony.
RW's claim of being certain is both meaningless and misleading.  A witness's level of confidence is only of value of his or her memory is tested one time and the test is a scientifically correct one.  The identifications of RW, LF (and also AB) fail to adhere to the second condition at least.  The relevant citation is Wixted, J. T., Wells, G. L., Loftus, E. F., & Garrett, B. L. (2021). Test a Witness’s Memory of a Suspect Only Once. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1_suppl), 1S-18S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211026259.  Having all four of these authors on one paper is a little like having a Formula One racing team consisting of Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, and Michael Schumacher.

Besides the problems that I previously listed, another problem I have with the RW/LF identification is that it isn't very probative, even under the unlikely scenario that they saw him where they eventually claimed to have done so.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 24, 2023, 04:31:10 AM

Chris, SM said in court, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." No matter how you slice it, that is unequivocally a concession that his younger brother wasn't in the house that day and that he'd changed his story in his first statement a few days later to align exactly with his mother's account (in other words, SM lied for his mother). The "he could have been there" part of his testimony was borne out of pure desperation, for he didn't want to incriminate his brother completely (blood is thicker than water, after all). Just the same as his "in a way" answer when asked by ADT if he discussed his statement before giving it to police on 07.07.03. Besides, the family house in Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey, detached property -- not a castle. No 2 brothers could have failed to see each other in the house that day if they were present in it at the same time. There's no way in hell. SM even said in court that he could not hear LM playing music in either his bedroom or the dining room like he (LM) normally did. Oh, and also, when asked by ADT who he (SM) thought was in the house when he was looking at material on the internet, Shane replied: "No one at the time." It couldn't be any clearer, Chris. LM was not home when he said he was. So, why did SM lie in his statement on 07.07.03? Where was LM if he wasn't at home?

Chris, about the green parka -- do you think LM never had one before the murder? In spite of 8 separate witnesses, one of them a teacher at his high school, saying in court he did have? Surely they all can't be wrong? And don't you find it extremely odd that CM bought him the exact same jacket  (on 08.07.03) that all these people alleged he had before the murder? It's obvious he had owned and worn a parka before the murder, so why deny its existence and why did it disappear?
If the FLO had not badgered and confused him and if he had not had the charge of perverting the course of justice to think about, I might put more weight on SM's ambiguous words.  Those two things are the elephant in the room for me, and no one has taken on the question of why they should be ignored.

Regarding the parka, my first comment is that I would put more weight on testimony from the eight witnesses if LM's picture had not appeared in the paper.  My second comment is that if the police had produced a receipt for the purchase a parka at some time before the murder, I would take that very seriously.  That is objective, not subjective, evidence.

My third comment relates to a book I previously recommended, the earlier of two books called "Convicting the Innocent," this one written by Edwin M. Borchard.  The first of over sixty wrongful convictions he discussed was Herbert T. Andrews, whom seventeen people misidentified as the person who passed a bad check to each of them.  The prosecutor wrote, "As the two men stood at the bar, I wondered how so many person could have worn that the innocent man was the one that had chased the bad checks.  The two men were as dissimilar in appearance as could be."  Nor is this the only case of multiple mistaken eyewitnesses that I have read about.

Let us follow the logic of two parkas, anyway.  The only reason to burn the parka would be if it were stained in blood.  No one saw LM walking through his neighborhood or anywhere else with bloodstained clothing, yet it would have been 4 and a half hours before sunset and at a time of the day when people were returning home.  This is implausible.  Then the parka has to be disposed of.  I am not an expert in the analysis of debris, but I did find an interesting passage in the book Scientific Protocols for Forensic Examination of Clothing (Taupin and Cwiklik).  They wrote (p. 170), "Metal spheres and other particles can be tested and compared with other sources using elemental analysis."  In other words the fire debris could be analyzed and possibly related to a known item of clothing.  I am not aware of anything incriminating coming from the analysis of fire debris in this case, but there should have been something.  Taking all of this information into consideration, it is more parsimonious to conclude that the witnesses were mistaken.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 24, 2023, 08:17:20 AM
If the FLO had not badgered and confused him and if he had not had the charge of perverting the course of justice to think about, I might put more weight on SM's ambiguous words.  Those two things are the elephant in the room for me, and no one has taken on the question of why they should be ignored.

Regarding the parka, my first comment is that I would put more weight on testimony from the eight witnesses if LM's picture had not appeared in the paper.  My second comment is that if the police had produced a receipt for the purchase a parka at some time before the murder, I would take that very seriously.  That is objective, not subjective, evidence.

My third comment relates to a book I previously recommended, the earlier of two books called "Convicting the Innocent," this one written by Edwin M. Borchard.  The first of over sixty wrongful convictions he discussed was Herbert T. Andrews, whom seventeen people misidentified as the person who passed a bad check to each of them.  The prosecutor wrote, "As the two men stood at the bar, I wondered how so many person could have worn that the innocent man was the one that had chased the bad checks.  The two men were as dissimilar in appearance as could be."  Nor is this the only case of multiple mistaken eyewitnesses that I have read about.

Let us follow the logic of two parkas, anyway.  The only reason to burn the parka would be if it were stained in blood.  No one saw LM walking through his neighborhood or anywhere else with bloodstained clothing, yet it would have been 4 and a half hours before sunset and at a time of the day when people were returning home.  This is implausible.  Then the parka has to be disposed of.  I am not an expert in the analysis of debris, but I did find an interesting passage in the book Scientific Protocols for Forensic Examination of Clothing (Taupin and Cwiklik).  They wrote (p. 170), "Metal spheres and other particles can be tested and compared with other sources using elemental analysis."  In other words the fire debris could be analyzed and possibly related to a known item of clothing.  I am not aware of anything incriminating coming from the analysis of fire debris in this case, but there should have been something.  Taking all of this information into consideration, it is more parsimonious to conclude that the witnesses were mistaken.

List please Chris - Dates of statements from everyone who told the police of any clothing and where?  Have you even bothered to find this out before making judgement?

No one saw LM in bloodied clothing around the housing estate - No one saw LM at all in the housing estate, until arriving home nearly an hour later than he claimed.

I can never grasp this, why get rid of clothing if not heavily blood stained, used in a murder - Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 24, 2023, 08:33:45 AM
List please Chris - Dates of statements from everyone who told the police of any clothing and where?  Have you even bothered to find this out before making judgement?

No one saw LM in bloodied clothing around the housing estate - No one saw LM at all in the housing estate, until arriving home nearly an hour later than he claimed.

I can never grasp this, why get rid of clothing if not heavily blood stained, used in a murder - Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.

He was 14, had never been in trouble with the police and there was nothing anywhere on his computer to indicate that he had an interest in forensics. Where do you think he got this knowledge?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: KenMair on August 24, 2023, 12:51:20 PM
Why do people keep portraying the killer as seriously lacking intellectually, he was far from it. And as we know with LM, his mind was very much focused upon forensics.

He gave as good as he got during police interviews and was knowledgeable about DNA profiles. Perhaps he watched CSI.

However he must be the unluckiest murderer ever. If only those girls he attacked or threatened hadn't lied, the 8 people (at least) who lied about seeing him in a parka pre-murder, the friends who lied about his murder fantasies and his knife collection and drug use, his neighbours who lied about the burner, the search party who all lied about finding the body, the 5 witnesses who lied seeing him approx 5-6pm. In fact the only person who didn't lie was dear old CM, his enabler.

Is it known that SM has an injunction about being mentioned by SL & Co hence the lack of knowledge as to his movements that night despite, as you mentioned, everything been known about everyone else.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 24, 2023, 03:25:59 PM
He gave as good as he got during police interviews and was knowledgeable about DNA profiles. Perhaps he watched CSI.

However he must be the unluckiest murderer ever. If only those girls he attacked or threatened hadn't lied, the 8 people (at least) who lied about seeing him in a parka pre-murder, the friends who lied about his murder fantasies and his knife collection and drug use, his neighbours who lied about the burner, the search party who all lied about finding the body, the 5 witnesses who lied seeing him approx 5-6pm. In fact the only person who didn't lie was dear old CM, his enabler.

Is it known that SM has an injunction about being mentioned by SL & Co hence the lack of knowledge as to his movements that night despite, as you mentioned, everything been known about everyone else.

Well it stands to reason for some, for LM to be innocent then everything else has to be wrong. Sadly people do not realise they are being lied to. Or indeed see the tactics at play. 'To sway public opinion by taken focus away from the convicted, trying to show that others may have been acting out of self interest -------'

Very much why there is so much focus being placed upon the victim and her family - Wrong on so many levels, but hey it works for some. 5 witness's alone, important witnesses are from the victims family. Especially the three from the search, who do people trust with all the BS put out about them? - LM of course.

Then to top it off we have the victim herself being abused repeatedly, and again people fail to see, that these actions on the outside, are the voice, the vessels of LM from the inside. Not only lying about the victims family, about everyone, but lying about the victim, her life and her death. - Innocent? What kind of innocent promotes the wilful lies and abuse of the victim. But their actual killer would do exactly this, wouldn't they?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Rusty on August 24, 2023, 04:09:57 PM
He was 14

For somebody that spends their life trolling the internet, to then get things, so spectacularly wrong, is extraordinary.

Luke Mitchell was 14 years and 11 months by the time he claimed his victim.
He was also the school's cannabis dealer, and by his own admission smoked copious amounts of the stuff.
Self-proclaimed local gangster, that carried an array of weapons on him.
Used and abused multiple females, physically and mentally. 
Had his mother around his thumb, to the point she performed what could be deemed as foreplay on national TV to him.
Continued to not give a $hit after he butchered his victim, parting, $hagging, taking drugs, enjoying the limelight.

Happy to help.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on August 24, 2023, 05:09:23 PM
Daily Record:  "The prosecution sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell’s home had been used around 6.30pm and 7.30pm and later, at around 10pm that night with an unusual smell as reported by neighbours."

From an article in The Herald on 16 September 2018: "A log burner was removed from the family home, to undergo forensic testing."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/

If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures), they should have obtained an identical parka and an identical log burner.  Then they should have burned the parka in the log burner and examined the debris.  They should have compared those debris with those from the log burner in question.  I am not sure of the best choice of techniques in this situation, but there are several methods for finding which elements are present, if that would be useful.  Among them are inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES), X-ray fluorescence, and neutron activation analysis (which does not seem to be as commonly performed as it used to be).

The second news story quotes Corinne:

“You can’t accuse me of helping him get rid of all the stuff in my ¬ ¬- as the papers put it - ‘incinerator’ in the back garden. They took the whole thing away, and they didn’t find anything!” she says.

“I did an experiment. We built an exact replica of my log burner that I built in my garden and got an exact replica of Luke’s parka that I was supposed to have burnt - which he never owned anyway at the time. I bought him it after and the cops have the receipt for that.

“It (the parka) wouldn’t burn and there was tons of black smoke. There were zips, buckles - you name it.”

If I read the story from The Herald previously, I had forgotten it.  But now that I have, it seems to me that Corinne was on the right track here.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 05:32:56 PM
If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures), they should have obtained an identical parka and an identical log burner.  Then they should have burned the parka in the log burner and examined the debris.  They should have compared those debris with those from the log burner in question.  I am not sure of the best choice of techniques in this situation, but there are several methods for finding which elements are present, if that would be useful. 

Lol! Are you for real?!

Fibres were found in the log burner which is why it was believed clothing had been burned in it

It would have taken seconds to remove the debris left behind to dispose of it elsewhere

Why don’t you ask Sandra Lean to publish what forensics were found
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 05:40:57 PM

From an article in The Herald on 16 September 2018: "A log burner was removed from the family home, to undergo forensic testing."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/

The second news story quotes Corinne:

“It (the parka) wouldn’t burn and there was tons of black smoke. There were zips, buckles - you name it.”

Buckles?

Where exactly were the “buckles” on this jacket?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 05:47:01 PM
Luke Mitchell was 14 years and 11 months by the time he claimed his victim.

By aged 7 he was demonstrating signs of aggression and a violent nature

He was also showing signs of sexual aggression by aged 12

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 06:10:33 PM

If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures)

You didn’t attend the 42 day trial!

You have no idea of ALL the evidence that was heard during those 42 days!

There are many witnesses who gave evidence during the trial, who’s names and evidence has never been reported on!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 06:15:42 PM
If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures)

Do you know what Philip Mitchell and Philip’s partners evidence was?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 24, 2023, 07:11:30 PM
Daily Record:  "The prosecution sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of Mitchell’s home had been used around 6.30pm and 7.30pm and later, at around 10pm that night with an unusual smell as reported by neighbours."

From an article in The Herald on 16 September 2018: "A log burner was removed from the family home, to undergo forensic testing."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881799.circumstantial-evidence-convicted-luke-mitchell/

If someone had wanted to do good forensic science (as opposed to making unsupported conjectures), they should have obtained an identical parka and an identical log burner.  Then they should have burned the parka in the log burner and examined the debris.  They should have compared those debris with those from the log burner in question.  I am not sure of the best choice of techniques in this situation, but there are several methods for finding which elements are present, if that would be useful.  Among them are inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICPAES), X-ray fluorescence, and neutron activation analysis (which does not seem to be as commonly performed as it used to be).

The second news story quotes Corinne:

“You can’t accuse me of helping him get rid of all the stuff in my ¬ ¬- as the papers put it - ‘incinerator’ in the back garden. They took the whole thing away, and they didn’t find anything!” she says.

“I did an experiment. We built an exact replica of my log burner that I built in my garden and got an exact replica of Luke’s parka that I was supposed to have burnt - which he never owned anyway at the time. I bought him it after and the cops have the receipt for that.

“It (the parka) wouldn’t burn and there was tons of black smoke. There were zips, buckles - you name it.”

If I read the story from The Herald previously, I had forgotten it.  But now that I have, it seems to me that Corinne was on the right track here.

It really does beggar belief how many pieces of empirical evidence there could have been to prove Luke’s innocence that were merely ignored or not carried out by the investigation team.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 24, 2023, 08:02:03 PM
Do you know what Philip Mitchell and Philip’s partners evidence was?

I'm not entirely sure they gave evidence?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 08:09:30 PM
I'm not entirely sure they gave evidence?

Philip Mitchell and his partner were questioned by the police and gave evidential witness statements



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 24, 2023, 08:30:23 PM
Philip Mitchell and his partner were questioned by the police and gave evidential witness statements

Without a doubt Nicholas - I'm trying to find out if they were actually called as witnesses however. Certainly never heard anything either way, which is odd in itself.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 24, 2023, 08:34:18 PM
Buckles?

Where exactly were the “buckles” on this jacket?

Slip perhaps? - Was he wearing a belt?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 08:44:29 PM
Without a doubt Nicholas - I'm trying to find out if they were actually called as witnesses however. Certainly never heard anything either way, which is odd in itself.

I’m aware of crucial witnesses in this case who’s names and evidence was never reported on
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 08:46:56 PM
Slip perhaps? - Was he wearing a belt?

Perhaps

How exactly did he carry his knife pouches?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2023, 10:17:49 PM
Now you’ve finished deflecting back to the 2002 receipt.

Do you know when exactly Philip Mitchell and his partner purchased the Marilyn Manson calendar and where exactly they purchased it from?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 24, 2023, 10:25:01 PM
Do you know when exactly Philip Mitchell and his partner purchased the Marilyn Manson calendar and where exactly they purchased it from?

Where is the 2002 receipt ever mentioned in any reporting of the case? An item as important as the receipt for the murder weapon is never mentioned yet one for a knife that wasn’t is. Not even you can believe that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 25, 2023, 01:20:26 AM
Do you know what Philip Mitchell and Philip’s partners evidence was?

I read on one of the comments from one of SF's YT videos that PM said that his son LM owned a German army parka before the murder. The same guy indicated that PM himself had the exact same parka and that both PM & LM were at a music concert (Ramage Inc., perhaps?) together, before the murder, wearing the same parkas. Apparantely, PM was backstage with one of the bands at this gig. He didn't say who else was at the concert with PM & LM. Make of that what you will........

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on August 25, 2023, 02:33:33 AM
Continued to not give a $hit after he butchered his victim, parting, $hagging, taking drugs, enjoying the limelight.

Exactly, Rusty. This part of your post isn't talked about enough, yet it's particularly apposite. Within the first week of the murder, he was partying at a nightclub called 'Studio 24', boasting to schoolmates & guys he knew that he was a murder suspect (there's an article in the public domain about this). Very much living it up and enjoying himself. An ex-girlfriend talked about him walking around Woodburn 'like a strutting peacock', lapping up the attention and not having a care in the world (this, too, is in the public domain). As for the Sky interview, he was totally emotionless, monosyllabic & monotone throughout. Corinne looked drained & extremely worried . . . the guilt and fear was plain to see on her face.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2023, 02:49:18 AM
Continued to not give a $hit after he butchered his victim, parting, $hagging, taking drugs, enjoying the limelight.

Exactly, Rusty. This part of your post isn't talked about enough, yet it's particularly apposite. Within the first week of the murder, he was partying at a nightclub called 'Studio 24', boasting to schoolmates & guys he knew that he was a murder suspect (there's an article in the public domain about this). Very much living it up and enjoying himself. An ex-girlfriend talked about him walking around Woodburn 'like a strutting peacock', lapping up the attention and not having a care in the world (this, too, is in the public domain). As for the Sky interview, he was totally emotionless, monosyllabic & monotone throughout. Corinne looked drained & extremely worried . . . the guilt and fear was plain to see on her face.

You’ve omitted to mention the fact sadistic killer Luke Mitchell was by this time in an intimate relationship with Laura W - which Corinne Mitchell was more than likely well aware of during that orchestrated Sky Tv interview

Shane Mitchell also moved out of Newbattle Abbey crescent permanently around this time too
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on August 25, 2023, 10:33:05 AM
I read on one of the comments from one of SF's YT videos that PM said that his son LM owned a German army parka before the murder. The same guy indicated that PM himself had the exact same parka and that both PM & LM were at a music concert (Ramage Inc., perhaps?) together, before the murder, wearing the same parkas. Apparantely, PM was backstage with one of the bands at this gig. He didn't say who else was at the concert with PM & LM. Make of that what you will........

This is how rumours were spread following Jodi’s murder…someone said so it must be true. That people are still falling for this and worse feeding this misinformation into the narrative is somewhat surprising.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on November 10, 2023, 04:22:00 PM
Is it true that L. Nimmo Smith would only accept a majority verdict of at least 80% in this case and not just a simple majority? I read this only a few days ago. Makes sense to me, given the extremity of the case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on November 10, 2023, 04:24:11 PM
On 30th April 2021 Lisa C Reynolds Peden posted the following

’So in the book it states that Ju J, Ja J and AW confirmed categorically that there was no grounding in place on the night of June 30th. Ja J remembered the specific start date of the four week punishment as beginning on May  14th, because she had an exam that day and, arriving home early, discovered the Jodi had skipped school. Ju J told police that because Jodi had been going to woodburn in recent weeks, she needed the "extra time" (i.e. ten o'clock curfew) for the additional traveling. The friend Jodi met with in woodburn was on holiday the week of the murder, therefore, the grounding had to have been lifted before then - according to Ja J  recollection, it was finished by 12th June. AW said simply that the punishment had petered out until things returned to normal "a few weeks ago".

Although Jodi was at Luke's house on the 28th of June and they had got carried away and lost track of time. So a taxi was called to make sure Jodi got home in time. Luke gave Jodi the fair for this.
 Luke still believed Jodi to be grounded, although she was allowed to his house on the Saturday! So sometimes Jodi's grounding would have random days break mixed in?!
So if her grounding stopped on the 12th on June and not the 30th, who was Jodi hanging around with? Who was she meeting up with after school? And what were they doing? Why didn't she tell Luke about the grounding being lifted until these texts that supposedly Jodi sent to Luke from her mum's phone? It's been referred to time and time again that Jodi was the 'other' woman as Luke was having an 'affair' but what if in real fact Luke was the 'other' guy and it was really Jodi who was having an 'affair'! 🤷🏻‍♀️🤔🧐


Does the above ⬆️ stem from Luke or Corinne Mitchell or both?

According to another Facebook post by Lisa C Reynolds Peden she speaks to Corinne Mitchell every day and Luke Mitchell every two days

Scammer Sandra Lean did an “update” in October 2022 where she mentioned some of the above 

What Sandra Lean didn’t say during her October 2022 “update” video was anything about the changing dynamics of some of the group members or anything about what was going on behind the scenes

Again - Corinne Mitchell had made it clear to several people she “hates” Sandra Lean

Sandra Lean will no doubt be well aware of this
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on November 10, 2023, 04:38:10 PM
Did sadistic killer Luke Mitchell tell his “friend” Lisa C Reynolds Peden “It’s been referred to time and time again that Jodi was the 'other' woman as Luke was having an 'affair' but what if in real fact Luke was the 'other' guy and it was really Jodi who was having an 'affair'” ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on November 10, 2023, 04:50:21 PM
Scammer Sandra Lean did an “update” in October 2022

During scammer Sandra Lean’s “update” she made the claim regarding what she was talking about in said “update” - that it was “fully backed up by the case papers”

 *&^^&

But fraudster Sandra Lean doesn’t have all of the “case papers” - and never has!

If Sandra Lean had attended killer Luke Mitchell’s 42 day trial, she could have learned facts that would not have been included in the pre trial disclosure “case papers” material

And those “throw away comments” Sandra Lean referred to during her “update” would have been tested by both the defence and the prosecution advocates
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on November 10, 2023, 07:12:58 PM
Can mobile phone operators tell when text messages and call logs were deleted? Is that type of info retained by them? Makes sense to me that it would be.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on November 10, 2023, 10:03:29 PM
Is it true that L. Nimmo Smith would only accept a majority verdict of at least 80% in this case and not just a simple majority? I read this only a few days ago. Makes sense to me, given the extremity of the case.

I have only ever heard that being claimed on this forum. I have never seen any tangible evidence that it is true.
Title: Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson & the innocence fraud phenomenon
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2023, 10:09:06 AM
https://www.bindmans.com/knowledge-hub/blogs/andrew-malkinson-what-went-wrong/
"Andrew Malkinson’s case is a bitterly poignant reminder of the risks associated with eye witness identification evidence,

The misogynistic journalist Neal Keeling recently claimed (During Will Roe and Emily Dugan’s Seventeen Years innocence fraud podcast) that he could remember violent rapist, convicted fraudster and parasitic predator Andrew Malkinson face whilst he was standing in the court in 2004

Yet violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victim is meant to have mis-identified her attacker just over a month after his violent rapes!?

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on February 29, 2024, 12:01:50 AM
Just stumbled upon this article a moment ago. It's yet more incriminating circumstantial evidence -- damning, even. So much for him claiming that when the guilty verdict came through in January 2005 he was shocked and would've collapsed had he not been grasping the wooden supports in the dock:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+enjoy+taste+of+blood..+I+can+smell+it+and+it+drives+me+crazy.+JODI...-a0129344854
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 29, 2024, 12:27:58 AM
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/GOTH+GIRLS+CHEER+LUKE%3B+Fans+frenzy+as+Jodi+killer+gets+20+years+in...-a0128504084

I found another article by Frank Hurley.  His writing is certainly sensationalistic.  Whether Diogenes with his lamp would find an honest sentence in either article is a different question.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: William Wallace on February 29, 2024, 12:35:49 AM
The obvious difference between Andrina failing to identify Luke in court and Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh managing to do so is simply explained by logic. Andrina didn't see Luke that day but Messrs Fleming and Walsh did.

If only one of the women had seen Luke lurking around at a wooden gate on the main road just a few yards from where Jodi was slaughtered then. I would have been concerned but both women saw him and were able to give a near perfect description of him and how he was dressed.  The other bit of evidence which falls nicely into place is that at this very moment in time ie 5.42pm on 30 June 2003, Luke Mitchell was not seen where he said he was.  It was only some 10 minutes later that he was seen further along the road as he attempted to create an alibi.

There is no way two boys who looked similar in appearance and who wore the same clothes could have been in the same area at the exact same time.  There only ever was one lad and his name is Luke Mitchell.

A near perfect description of him? One of them said she only saw him from her car's rear view mirror and the other one claimed to have seen him in a newspaper at a time no pictures of him had appeared in the Press. The one that saw him said this person had a green shirt on not a jacket. This sighting is a load of rubbish, it would have been completely discarded if there was no other circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: William Wallace on February 29, 2024, 01:21:42 AM
It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.

You mean 542pm, 17 minutes is ample time to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon and wash and clean any trace of blood? 17 minutes? Where would this have taken place exactly in 17 minutes? These sort of timescales are just ridiculous. Also as I mentioned elsewhere, the sighting by F and W was a sighting of WHO? One of them said she only saw the person in her rear view mirror, the other said he had a green shirt on not a jacket and claimed to have seen him in a newspaper on a date when no photos of LM had ever appeared in the Press. Clearly the evidence of these 2 is just a load of vague rubbish.

There was no blood under the body, because it had been moved. Why was it found that areas near the V had been bleached? Who took bleach into the woods? Was LM seen buying bleach in any local stores or carrying bleach up the path? For what purpose would anyone bring bleach into the woods? Most people bring picnics, but on this occasion someone brought bleach? I find it incredible that so many people on here still think LM did it. Useless sightings like the one mentioned above get recited over and over, but the things that add up even less than anything to do with LM seldom get discussed. I mean its now very obvious what happened and these unanswered questions paint a much clearer picture than people describing seeing people in their rear view mirrors:

1. What sort of answer to what were you doing up the path at 5.15pm, is "I don't remember"?
2.  Who exactly would send 2 teenagers and a granny up that path at 11pm at night in the dark whilst people like AO, [Name removed], JF apparently sat in their houses? I have never met anyone in my life, who would send 2 teenagers and a granny up there in the dark? Have you??
3. Why did this "search party" not look in the woods adjacent to the path before the brick wall starts whilst walking towards the V?
4. Why does JaJ claim in Court to not know the RD path when she has lived 5m walk away from it for 16 years? Jodi was told by JuJ not to go up that path alone, so did her mother never warn JaJ about the path in 16 years? Nonsensical.
5. Why did JF shave his hair off so that he wouldn't look like the murderer? How did he know the murderer didn't have a shaved head?
6. Do you know anyone who takes bleach into the woods?

I think it's about time somebody who tries to make sightings like that of F and W and even AB's sound credible answers the questions above. Nobody will give a credible answer to any of them, because none exist.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Rusty on February 29, 2024, 02:47:23 AM
You mean 542pm, 17 minutes is ample time to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon and wash and clean any trace of blood? 17 minutes? Where would this have taken place exactly in 17 minutes? These sort of timescales are just ridiculous. Also as I mentioned elsewhere, the sighting by F and W was a sighting of WHO? One of them said she only saw the person in her rear view mirror, the other said he had a green shirt on not a jacket and claimed to have seen him in a newspaper on a date when no photos of LM had ever appeared in the Press. Clearly the evidence of these 2 is just a load of vague rubbish.

There was no blood under the body, because it had been moved. Why was it found that areas near the V had been bleached? Who took bleach into the woods? Was LM seen buying bleach in any local stores or carrying bleach up the path? For what purpose would anyone bring bleach into the woods? Most people bring picnics, but on this occasion someone brought bleach? I find it incredible that so many people on here still think LM did it. Useless sightings like the one mentioned above get recited over and over, but the things that add up even less than anything to do with LM seldom get discussed. I mean its now very obvious what happened and these unanswered questions paint a much clearer picture than people describing seeing people in their rear view mirrors:

1. What sort of answer to what were you doing up the path at 5.15pm, is "I don't remember"?
2.  Who exactly would send 2 teenagers and a granny up that path at 11pm at night in the dark whilst people like AO, [Name removed], JF apparently sat in their houses? I have never met anyone in my life, who would send 2 teenagers and a granny up there in the dark? Have you??
3. Why did this "search party" not look in the woods adjacent to the path before the brick wall starts whilst walking towards the V?
4. Why does JaJ claim in Court to not know the RD path when she has lived 5m walk away from it for 16 years? Jodi was told by JuJ not to go up that path alone, so did her mother never warn JaJ about the path in 16 years? Nonsensical.
5. Why did JF shave his hair off so that he wouldn't look like the murderer? How did he know the murderer didn't have a shaved head?
6. Do you know anyone who takes bleach into the woods?

I think it's about time somebody who tries to make sightings like that of F and W and even AB's sound credible answers the questions above. Nobody will give a credible answer to any of them, because none exist.


After my hiatus due to the boredom of the repetitive arguments, i thought i would log on for a nosy, maybe something has changed? Nope, same old crap getting churned out by posters like this. It really is just one big yawn!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Myster on February 29, 2024, 06:14:16 AM
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/GOTH+GIRLS+CHEER+LUKE%3B+Fans+frenzy+as+Jodi+killer+gets+20+years+in...-a0128504084 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/GOTH+GIRLS+CHEER+LUKE%3B+Fans+frenzy+as+Jodi+killer+gets+20+years+in...-a0128504084)

I found another article by Frank Hurley.  His writing is certainly sensationalistic.  Whether Diogenes with his lamp would find an honest sentence in either article is a different question.
An element of truth in it perhaps?

Is one of these LM supporters Sandra Lean's daughter?   Nicholas will know...
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 29, 2024, 12:03:40 PM
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2010/news/former-regional-journalist-pens-childhood-memoir/
"Frank [Hurley] also recounts tales from his childhood about how he stole flowers from people’s gardens to sell in the local market and was a budding garden-shed chemist until an experiment went wrong, killing a neighbour’s cat."  The journalist who wrote these stories is a thief and an animal killer.  His credibility deserves to be judged accordingly.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Myster on February 29, 2024, 12:28:53 PM
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2010/news/former-regional-journalist-pens-childhood-memoir/ (https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2010/news/former-regional-journalist-pens-childhood-memoir/)
"Frank [Hurley] also recounts tales from his childhood about how he stole flowers from people’s gardens to sell in the local market and was a budding garden-shed chemist until an experiment went wrong, killing a neighbour’s cat."  The journalist who wrote these stories is a thief and an animal killer.  His credibility deserves to be judged accordingly.
So What!  He grew out of it as many kids do. As a teenager I was once escorted back home from a park in an umarked police car for shooting at birds with an air rifle, and my father was given a warning to keep an eye on me and not to let it happen again.  I suppose you should question my current credibility too!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on February 29, 2024, 02:50:39 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & Animal Cruelty
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/Y2x7H0QWbns?si=_5fNbowLNAUDPYFt
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on February 29, 2024, 02:52:15 PM
An element of truth in it perhaps?

Is one of these LM supporters Sandra Lean's daughter?   Nicholas will know...

Isn’t one of them Freddie Gren ?
👇🏼
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/12/07/killer-luke-mitchell-who-will-be-helping-to-support-people-like-freddie-gren-when-they-realise-they-have-been-groomed-conned-exploited-by-a-dangerous-murderer-his-toxic-enablers-part-2/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Myster on February 29, 2024, 04:14:03 PM
Isn’t one of them Freddie Gren ?
👇🏼
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/12/07/killer-luke-mitchell-who-will-be-helping-to-support-people-like-freddie-gren-when-they-realise-they-have-been-groomed-conned-exploited-by-a-dangerous-murderer-his-toxic-enablers-part-2/ (http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/12/07/killer-luke-mitchell-who-will-be-helping-to-support-people-like-freddie-gren-when-they-realise-they-have-been-groomed-conned-exploited-by-a-dangerous-murderer-his-toxic-enablers-part-2/)
If her face wasn't blacked out I might have been able to compare photos.  I seem to remember one of SL's daughters once had a YouTube channel about cosplay or something similar and she resembled one of the girls holding the banner, on the right I think.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on February 29, 2024, 04:30:55 PM
If her face wasn't blacked out I might have been able to compare photos.  I seem to remember one of SL's daughters once had a YouTube channel about cosplay or something similar and she resembled one of the girls holding the banner, on the right I think.

It was the other one who visited killer Luke Mitchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Myster on February 29, 2024, 04:35:55 PM
It was the other one who visited killer Luke Mitchell
In the middle?  Not much difference between the two.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 29, 2024, 04:58:36 PM
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2010/news/former-regional-journalist-pens-childhood-memoir/
"Frank [Hurley] also recounts tales from his childhood about how he stole flowers from people’s gardens to sell in the local market and was a budding garden-shed chemist until an experiment went wrong, killing a neighbour’s cat."  The journalist who wrote these stories is a thief and an animal killer.  His credibility deserves to be judged accordingly.
Cat killer?  You make him sound like sadistic murderer Scarlett Blake.  It was an accident, hardly the actions of a master criminal and psychopath.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 29, 2024, 05:18:05 PM
Cat killer?  You make him sound like sadistic murderer Scarlett Blake.  It was an accident, hardly the actions of a master criminal and psychopath.
Stealing and killing a cat were the actions of someone who had little regard for the rights of others.  This individual grew up to write tabloid drivel.  Why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 29, 2024, 06:35:11 PM
Stealing and killing a cat were the actions of someone who had little regard for the rights of others.  This individual grew up to write tabloid drivel.  Why am I not surprised?
Did he intend to kill the cat?  I stole chewing gum from a shop once when I was a kid.  Does this mean everything I write is drivel?  I suppose you think it probably does. 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on February 29, 2024, 06:57:25 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & Animal Cruelty
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/Y2x7H0QWbns?si=_5fNbowLNAUDPYFt

Pales in comparison Nicholas does it not? I mean the journalist accidently killed a cat, far worse that anything LM did! I wonder what his retort would have been to the police if they accused him of stealing some flowers?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on February 29, 2024, 07:01:24 PM
Stealing and killing a cat were the actions of someone who had little regard for the rights of others.  This individual grew up to write tabloid drivel.  Why am I not surprised?

But not surprised at a 14yr with multiple girlfriends, carrying knives, smoking and dishing out drugs. Sparking up in front of the police at 14, a torrent of abuse, refusing to adhere to school rules and on it goes. Plenty reports in respect of his cruelty to animals, who as it stands went on to murder his girlfriend. - Bad journo!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: faithlilly on March 01, 2024, 09:41:57 PM
So What!  He grew out of it as many kids do. As a teenager I was once escorted back home from a park in an umarked police car for shooting at birds with an air rifle, and my father was given a warning to keep an eye on me and not to let it happen again.  I suppose you should question my current credibility too!

It does explain a lot.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: William Wallace on March 02, 2024, 01:53:20 AM
 @)(++(*
Killer Luke Mitchell & Animal Cruelty
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/Y2x7H0QWbns?si=_5fNbowLNAUDPYFt

 @)(++(* What a load of unsubstantiated utter horsesh*t - pardon the pun. Any videos about psychotic violent people who battered Jodi weeks before she died rather than fake news about horses? Horses yes horses, you've really dropped to a new low. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on March 04, 2024, 02:17:04 PM
Couple of things I was curious about whilst reading through pages 1598-1630 of Sgt Thomson's court transcript:

Who was Colin Ledork?

Who were the boys who spotted LM on his bike down the park on 30.06.03 and what park is being referred to?

Who was Stephen that LM allegedly phoned at 1650 on 30.06.03?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 02:59:33 PM
@)(++(*
 @)(++(* What a load of unsubstantiated utter horsesh*t - pardon the pun. Any videos about psychotic violent people who battered Jodi weeks before she died rather than fake news about horses? Horses yes horses, you've really dropped to a new low. @)(++(*
.

Did you read Corinne Mitchell’s trial testimony?

It appears the money killer Luke Mitchell got from selling his horse was used for drugs
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:03:57 PM
Who were the boys who spotted LM on his bike down the park on 30.06.03 and what park is being referred to?

There are some short videos on the push bike here https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2N1Xw9ksOI-DG_kD9cH8kk51JOhj_uzT&si=6rrYK0YFgSrvQ2OG
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:04:52 PM
Couple of things I was curious about whilst reading through pages 1598-1630 of Sgt Thomson's court transcript:

Who was Colin Ledork?

He’s never been referred to before - neither has C and N

There does appear to be 3 Kimberley’s - 2 Kim Thomson’s plus a Kim Tait
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:06:43 PM
Couple of things I was curious about whilst reading through pages 1598-1630 of Sgt Thomson's court transcript:

Sgt Thomson gave evidence on 24th December too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4124093.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:10:57 PM
Who was Stephen that LM allegedly phoned at 1650 on 30.06.03?

Another anomaly
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on March 04, 2024, 04:48:55 PM
Another anomaly

What are your feelings on these anomalies (i.e., Colin & Stephen)? Do you think they've been misprinted/mistranscribed? Btw, who are C & N you mentioned above?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on March 04, 2024, 05:08:19 PM
There are some short videos on the push bike here https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2N1Xw9ksOI-DG_kD9cH8kk51JOhj_uzT&si=6rrYK0YFgSrvQ2OG

The bike in the park sighting is interesting. I think it's safe to say that it either took place when he was out and about between 1610 - 1650 on 30.06.03 (just before he met Jodi at 1654); or he was spotted when he left the boys in the abbey (i.e., between 2100-2200). Maybe future transcripts will shed some light on it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 05:43:53 PM
What are your feelings on these anomalies (i.e., Colin & Stephen)? Do you think they've been misprinted/mistranscribed?

No I don’t

I remain of the firm view there’s a wealth of material hidden on the reality of the facts of this case

Who are Colin and Stephen?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 05:47:21 PM
Btw, who are C & N you mentioned above?

Former friends or acquaintances of the killer by the looks of it - or maybe more girlfriends?

I don’t know why Ana redacted first names
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 05:50:22 PM
The bike in the park sighting is interesting. I think it's safe to say that it either took place when he was out and about between 1610 - 1650 on 30.06.03 (just before he met Jodi at 1654)

Agreed
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 05:53:55 PM
The bike in the park sighting is interesting. I think it's safe to say that it either took place when he was out and about between 1610 - 1650 on 30.06.03 (just before he met Jodi at 1654)

It will be interesting to read David Tullock’s testimony as well as the other lad David T was with

Along with the testimony of all those people who saw him at lunchtime and at school

It will be helpful to establish what he was wearing during these time periods, as opposed to what he alleged he was wearing
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 05:57:18 PM
The bike in the park sighting is interesting. I think it's safe to say that it either took place when he was out and about between 1610 - 1650 on 30.06.03

He went home to change his clothing

Plus there’s Shane Mitchell’s statement of “Unless he was out in the garden” - which is another tell

Both Shane and Corinne Mitchell lied their heads off - without a doubt!

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 06:03:32 PM
Btw, who are C & N you mentioned above?

I think they were girls
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 06:05:57 PM

or he was spotted when he left the boys in the abbey (i.e., between 2100-2200). Maybe future transcripts will shed some light on it.

David High was home by 8:30pm - Will be interesting to see what time David Tullock and his friend got home

 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 06:09:31 PM
The bike in the park sighting is interesting. I think it's safe to say that it either took place when he was out and about between 1610 - 1650 on 30.06.03

If he cycled up to meet Jodi Jones, he must have left his bike on the path somewhere

Leonard Kelly said he heard those noises at the V, but he also said he heard another noise (on the other side of the wall) as he started moving away from the V - a bit further up the path
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: William Wallace on March 04, 2024, 11:09:58 PM
.

Did you read Corinne Mitchell’s trial testimony?

It appears the money killer Luke Mitchell got from selling his horse was used for drugs

I read it, but don't remember that part, although nothing would surprise me with this case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 05, 2024, 08:17:26 PM
What are your feelings on these anomalies (i.e., Colin & Stephen)? Do you think they've been misprinted/mistranscribed?

Alan Turnbull: Let’s just pause there then a moment. Just by way of introduction, he’s explained where he stays, where he goes to school, and he’s given you an account of who his friends are

Dc Alan Towers: Yes that’s correct sir

Alan Turnbull: The first one there who’s mentioned is David High, there was also David Inkster, ***** and *****

Dc Alan Towers: Yes

Could Stephen and Colin be the names blanked out here?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Mr Apples on March 08, 2024, 01:08:04 PM
If he cycled up to meet Jodi Jones, he must have left his bike on the path somewhere

Leonard Kelly said he heard those noises at the V, but he also said he heard another noise (on the other side of the wall) as he started moving away from the V - a bit further up the path

Hi, Nicholas. Did LK  mention hearing those noises specifically at the V-break in the wall? Will be interesting to read his full court transcript.

Btw, Nicholas, what is your take on what LM was wearing between 1740-1820 on NB rd when he was spotted by 8 separate witnesses? And what is your opinion of the MO & DH anomaly of the bomber jacket -- the suspicious looking youth they claim was at a driveway just before 1800  on NB rd who they claimed categorically wasn't LM?  My opinion is that he was wearing his german army parka with a german army shirt underneath (and possibly a black t-shirt underneath). I think MO & DH were mistaken about a bomber jacket and think, because LM had changed so much between their sighting and the court appearance, they could not id LM in the dock. Therefore, I don't think LM went home between 1740-1755 and changed into the bomber jacket, but I do think he changed into it at some point between 1820 and 1930 before he met the boys in the abbey. What's your opinion on all of this, Nicholas?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on March 08, 2024, 10:33:57 PM
Hi, Nicholas. Did LK  mention hearing those noises specifically at the V-break in the wall? Will be interesting to read his full court transcript.

He said he heard “those noises” at the V and heard a noise as he was moving away from the V up the path

Quote
Btw, Nicholas, what is your take on what LM was wearing between 1740-1820 on NB rd when he was spotted by 8 separate witnesses? And what is your opinion of the MO & DH anomaly of the bomber jacket -- the suspicious looking youth they claim was at a driveway just before 1800  on NB rd who they claimed categorically wasn't LM?  My opinion is that he was wearing his german army parka with a german army shirt underneath (and possibly a black t-shirt underneath).

Agreed

Quote
I think MO & DH were mistaken about a bomber jacket and think, because LM had changed so much between their sighting and the court appearance, they could not id LM in the dock.

Agreed - will be interesting to read their trial evidence

Quote
Therefore, I don't think LM went home between 1740-1755 and changed into the bomber jacket, but I do think he changed into it at some point between 1820 and 1930 before he met the boys in the abbey.

Agreed

Quote
What's your opinion on all of this, Nicholas?

Same as you re: clothing by the sounds of it Mr Apples. Plus he changed his footwear from dark to light, so he would have needed to go home to do this

David Tulloch and his younger friends evidence will be helpful too