Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.

[rulesapply]

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?

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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.

[Parky41]

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?!

[rulesapply]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[rulesapply]

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.

[Parky41]

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?

[faithlilly]

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. 

[Nicholas]

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!

[Mr Apples]

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).

[rulesapply]

 

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?

[rulesapply]

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

[Nicholas]

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 ?

[rulesapply]

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.