Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[Bullseye]

I'll explain a little clearer. I am present doing a written piece of work, mainly centred around 'selectiveness'. Studying word play is an area within. I made the post whilst studying different responses to it and so forth. One source, revolves around comments on an out building. I subsequently moved onto another source which involves finding the pouch within the bedroom. I therefore removed the post as it answered my own question/invalidated the point i was putting out.


Hopefully this clarifies why I made/removed the post.

Thanks for clarifying. Will this work be published, sounds like it will be a very interesting read.

[Nicholas]

.

[Nicholas]

Clearly, but that’s not what we were discussing, We were talking about keeping stuff in his room, which I said was a risky move in my opinion, which why we use forums, to express our opinion.

Every step was a risky move!

Speaking of “risky moves

I really don’t want to keep mentioning Sandra Lean but I feel it’s relevant to discussion on the Luke Mitchell case, especially as I’ve met with her, spoken with her and she dedicated a chapter of her first book “No Smoke” to Simon Hall (Who I was once married to)

I don’t know if Sandra Lean is still in denial over Simon Halls guilt nor do I care.

But

“A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. In a broad sense, all logical fallacies are nonsequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.

“Logical fallacies are unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts. . . . Whatever their origins, fallacies can take on a special life of their own when they are popularized in the media and become part of a national credo" (Rian McMullin - The New Handbook of Cognitive Therapy Techniques, 2000).

More importantly

“A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue, drawing false conclusions, misusing evidence, or misusing language."

If Sandra Lean is still in denial over Simon Halls guilt, from my viewpoint, there is quite obviously still an error in her reasoning.

And remember
”Whatever their origins, fallacies can take on a special life of their own when they are popularized in the media and become part of a national credo"

If Sandra Lean still believes her logical fallacy re Simon Hall there’s no reason to believe she hasn’t carried this error in reasoning forward into the Luke Mitchell case and indeed others.

As always, my opinions and my observations.

[Nicholas]

Looking forward to reading your work Parky!

Simon Halls guilt and the guilt of some of his family members was hiding in plain sight but many people, including academics, failed to spot this around the time.

Some people weren’t able to see past their own bias, (including academics) and some even went on to have articles published online.

Have you heard of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority?

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who is said to be an "authority" on the subject.

I have seen this being played out in the Luke Mitchell case, and others.

People may see Sandra Lean as the “authority” on this case (And possibly others) and their desire will result in them seeking out confirming information and ignoring conflicting information.

People really need to beware of their confirmation bias!

Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452185.html#msg452185
“Resorting to lies and assumptions about my "authority" whilst posting under a false username doesn't bolster your position, it merely exposes your complete lack of reliability and integrity.

For me, Sandra Leans behaviour regarding Simon Halls guilt didn’t bolster her position either! Though I got a sense at the time she thought it did.

She showed to me, and indeed others, she could not and should not be relied on/trusted!

With regards her integrity:

integrity
/ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti/
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles

I would put her integrity at near on zero.

She made a conscious choice to behave the way she did at the time she did and even attempted to dress it up as altruism.

Again and as always, my opinions, from my observations.

[Nicholas]

I had heard about the knife pouch, but I didn’t know it was hidden in the garage when it was found, but I believe that knife was too small to have been the murder weapon? Was the missing knife not found and handed in by his mum? Is there maybe 2 knifes, the one from the pouch and a brown handled one, anyone know the size of the brown handled one? Or if there is just the one, the brown handled one being the one from the pouch?

When did she hand it in to police? What date?

Didn’t she say she’d hidden a knife in the dogs biscuits?

Did the police miss this on the first house search?

I don’t understand. Shane Mitchell has a knife collection - where were his knives kept? Why hide a single knife in a bag of dog food when others are easily accessible? Makes no sense. She didn’t go in his bedroom, would just shut the door but conceals a knife from him in Mia’s biscuits?

[Bullseye]

When did she hand it in to police? What date?

Didn’t she say she’d hidden a knife in the dogs biscuits?

Did the police miss this on the first house search?

I don’t understand. Shane Mitchell has a knife collection - where were his knives kept? Why hide a single knife in a bag of dog food when others are easily accessible? Makes no sense. She didn’t go in his bedroom, would just shut the door but conceals a knife from him in Mia’s biscuits?

Going by memory did his mum not find the knife in a bag under the a table the dog food sat on. Ie was in a normal bag and not hidden in dog food? Yes I think the police did miss this bag on the first search. Don’t know the date it was handed in or about where knifes were kept etc. Also not sure if this is the knife that fitted the pouch or a different knife.

[Parky41]

Going by memory did his mum not find the knife in a bag under the a table the dog food sat on. Ie was in a normal bag and not hidden in dog food? Yes I think the police did miss this bag on the first search. Don’t know the date it was handed in or about where knifes were kept etc. Also not sure if this is the knife that fitted the pouch or a different knife.

Another area I've been working around. Not finished re misinformation etc on this via selectiveness. Please don't quote me on this as having all knowledge/attempting to mislead. The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s? A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Ms Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time. Evidence heard in court? disputing this, putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?

I'm concentrating on Info from podcasts at present. No quotes yet. along the line though of Ms Mitchell in her podcast, emphasis on Luke and the dogs fitness, timings of getting from house/bottom of path to top at high speed. (impression given) Ms Leans podcast on Luke searching path on way up, found nothing. Ms Mitchell does mention that he would have tripped over anything on the path, if anything had been there. (most certainly, if travelling at speed) No mention of actually searching. (?) He had already found nothing, why therefore did Mrs Walker (granny) want to go back down? Ms Mitchell states the search party were looking for someone else?

Quite a lot to work through here. Will take some time. Also, there appears to be two points of search, by Luke over the wall. Search (trio) concentrating on verges/field. Luke, without dog alerting, jumping at wall, climbed the wall previous to this and shone his torch into the woodside?


Could take a while here.

[Nicholas]

Going by memory did his mum not find the knife in a bag under the a table the dog food sat on. Ie was in a normal bag and not hidden in dog food? Yes I think the police did miss this bag on the first search. Don’t know the date it was handed in or about where knifes were kept etc. Also not sure if this is the knife that fitted the pouch or a different knife.

What was it doing in a bag under the table the dog food sat on?

Did the police miss it on the first search or was it put there after the first search?

I noticed Corrine Mitchell made a point of stating Luke had taken Shane’s torch out with him that night. Did Luke ever “borrow” Shane’s knives from his knife collection? Were they all accounted for? Why does it appear this aspect of his case has been played down?

[Nicholas]

Another area I've been working around. Not finished re misinformation etc on this via selectiveness. Please don't quote me on this as having all knowledge/attempting to mislead. The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s? A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Ms Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time. Evidence heard in court? disputing this, putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?

I'm concentrating on Info from podcasts at present. No quotes yet. along the line though of Ms Mitchell in her podcast, emphasis on Luke and the dogs fitness, timings of getting from house/bottom of path to top at high speed. (impression given) Ms Leans podcast on Luke searching path on way up, found nothing. Ms Mitchell does mention that he would have tripped over anything on the path, if anything had been there. (most certainly, if travelling at speed) No mention of actually searching. (?) He had already found nothing, why therefore did Mrs Walker (granny) want to go back down? Ms Mitchell states the search party were looking for someone else?

Quite a lot to work through here. Will take some time. Also, there appears to be two points of search, by Luke over the wall. Search (trio) concentrating on verges/field. Luke, without dog alerting, jumping at wall, climbed the wall previous to this and shone his torch into the woodside?


Could take a while here.

The WAP versions are here:

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

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PazM5FHuM70

Lithium stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452279.html#msg452279
“You've put into words what I was getting at with the smug thing. In her Youtube video answering questions, she replied to a post someone telling her to stop with a smug grin along the lines of "nahhh, I'll decide when I stop.  ;)" It made me feel a bit sick. Agreed she's taking some weird joy in the notoriety. She's deluded and thinks these posts are from the Jones family scared that she's "getting close" and she's playing some detective-style cat and mouse game with them hahaha.

Don’t know if she still practices/believes in wicca or whether she ever did and the “white witch” comments and crystal ball were a ruse? But the tree behind her in that vid reminded me of this.

[Bullseye]

What was it doing in a bag under the table the dog food sat on?

Did the police miss it on the first search or was it put there after the first search?

I noticed Corrine Mitchell made a point of stating Luke had taken Shane’s torch out with him that night. Did Luke ever “borrow” Shane’s knives from his knife collection? Were they all accounted for? Why does it appear this aspect of his case has been played down?

If they are anything like me I find any wee nook or cranny to tuck bags and stuff away in.

We will never know for sure if the police missed it during the search or if it was never there.

That’s interesting, what was done with Shane knife collection, does anyone know anything about it, where does this info of Shane having a collection come from? How many he had, where he kept them etc. If he only had a few I would think he would notice if any were missing. I would also think Luke was not allowed to borrow them but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t, if Shane also had knifes.

[Nicholas]

If they are anything like me I find any wee nook or cranny to tuck bags and stuff away in.

We will never know for sure if the police missed it during the search or if it was never there.

That’s interesting, what was done with Shane knife collection, does anyone know anything about it, where does this info of Shane having a collection come from? How many he had, where he kept them etc. If he only had a few I would think he would notice if any were missing. I would also think Luke was not allowed to borrow them but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t, if Shane also had knifes.

And was Shane at home when Luke received the text from [Name removed]’s Mum? Why doesn’t he get mentioned but his torch does? And if he was in why didn’t he go with Luke on the search? “Not at this time of night your not laddie” Where was Shane?


His witness statements maybe?


“Mr Mitchell said Jodi was his brother’s girlfriend in 2003, and he gave a number of statements to police in the days and weeks following her death. The first occasion was on the night of 3 July. It was a "very lengthy statement", he added.
"It covered everything from years ago up to the weekend previously," Mr Mitchell told the jury. The information he had provided included the time he arrived home from work on 30 June, and what he did after arriving home. At this stage, he could not remember what he had said.
The advocate-depute, Alan Turnbull, QC, read from the statement, where the time was given as 3:40pm.
Mr Mitchell said he could not remember exactly how it came about that he made a second statement on 7 July. He thought he had contacted the police.
It is a long time ago and a lot has passed," he added. "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one."
The new time he had given was "between 4:55pm and 5pm".
Mr Mitchell said he was questioned on 14 April last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
He agreed with the prosecutor that he had been cautioned in the police station that day.
Mr Turnbull asked: "Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "Yes."
He said he had visited his brother about two or three times since his arrest. The last time had been last summer.
Mitchell’s defence team had started the day one short of its usual complement. Junior counsel Jane Farquharson had gone into labour during the night, and Donald Findlay, QC, explained her absence in jocular fashion to the judge.
"Despite instructions I have given her to the contrary, she has gone to another place to attend to another matter and may be away for a day or two," said Mr Findlay.
Lord Nimmo Smith commented: "Please convey to her the best wishes of the court for a safe delivery."
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/jodi-accused-s-brother-suspected-of-giving-police-false-statement-1-670948

[Nicholas]

If Sandra Lean still believes her logical fallacy re Simon Hall there’s no reason to believe she hasn’t carried this error in reasoning forward into the Luke Mitchell case and indeed others.

Excerpts from “No Smoke the shocking truth about British justice”

“Like Simon Hall and John Taft, a central aspect to the case involves a piece of clothing claimed to have belonged to the defendant, but that claim is never, at any point, backed up by proof. Also, as with Simon Hall, the lack of a definitive time of death allows a presumption to be presented as almost fact - neither Luke or Simon had a cast iron alibi at a specific time, therefore the prosecution presumes that to be the time of death. Failure of the forensic experts to attend the scene in a timely manner allowed evidence to be lost in both cases.

“Finally, as with Derek Christian and Simon Hall, we are asked to believe that Luke Mitchell suddenly and inexplicably “flipped,” behaving in a manner which is completely uncharacteristic, then almost instantly returns to normal.

[Nicholas]

Another area I've been working around. Not finished re misinformation etc on this via selectiveness. Please don't quote me on this as having all knowledge/attempting to mislead. The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s? A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Ms Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time. Evidence heard in court? disputing this, putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?

I'm concentrating on Info from podcasts at present. No quotes yet. along the line though of Ms Mitchell in her podcast, emphasis on Luke and the dogs fitness, timings of getting from house/bottom of path to top at high speed. (impression given) Ms Leans podcast on Luke searching path on way up, found nothing. Ms Mitchell does mention that he would have tripped over anything on the path, if anything had been there. (most certainly, if travelling at speed) No mention of actually searching. (?) He had already found nothing, why therefore did Mrs Walker (granny) want to go back down? Ms Mitchell states the search party were looking for someone else?

Quite a lot to work through here. Will take some time. Also, there appears to be two points of search, by Luke over the wall. Search (trio) concentrating on verges/field. Luke, without dog alerting, jumping at wall, climbed the wall previous to this and shone his torch into the woodside?


Could take a while here.

Did you pick up on the story of why she claims she’d written the book when she did? Her age and her dads age when he died? Why choose this emotive reasoning? Doesn’t it suggest a cognitive distortion? Wonder how her daughters feel after listening to it; presuming they have?


“So what, exactly, is emotional reasoning?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/evolution-the-self/201706/what-s-emotional-reasoning-and-why-is-it-such-problem

[Nicholas]

Another area I've been working around. Not finished re misinformation etc on this via selectiveness. Please don't quote me on this as having all knowledge/attempting to mislead. The police had searched the house, had even put their fingers through the dog meat inside the bowl/s? A knife was later handed into the family lawyer with claims that it had been in a bag 'underneath' the dog bowl stand. Ms Mitchell putting forward the claim that, there was no missing knife (assuming the one from the pouch), that it had been there all the time. Evidence heard in court? disputing this, putting forward that the search team, in their expertise would not have missed this. If took the time to search the meat in the bowl, would not have failed to look underneath? This knife (black handle) missing knife (brown handle)?

I'm concentrating on Info from podcasts at present. No quotes yet. along the line though of Ms Mitchell in her podcast, emphasis on Luke and the dogs fitness, timings of getting from house/bottom of path to top at high speed. (impression given) Ms Leans podcast on Luke searching path on way up, found nothing. Ms Mitchell does mention that he would have tripped over anything on the path, if anything had been there. (most certainly, if travelling at speed) No mention of actually searching. (?) He had already found nothing, why therefore did Mrs Walker (granny) want to go back down? Ms Mitchell states the search party were looking for someone else?

Quite a lot to work through here. Will take some time. Also, there appears to be two points of search, by Luke over the wall. Search (trio) concentrating on verges/field. Luke, without dog alerting, jumping at wall, climbed the wall previous to this and shone his torch into the woodside?


Could take a while here.

This reminds me of Lynne Hall and the velvet jacket she produced in order to suggest this was where the flock fibres had come from.

[Nicholas]

And was Shane at home when Luke received the text from [Name removed]’s Mum? Why doesn’t he get mentioned but his torch does? And if he was in why didn’t he go with Luke on the search? “Not at this time of night your not laddie” Where was Shane?


His witness statements maybe?


“Mr Mitchell said Jodi was his brother’s girlfriend in 2003, and he gave a number of statements to police in the days and weeks following her death. The first occasion was on the night of 3 July. It was a "very lengthy statement", he added.
"It covered everything from years ago up to the weekend previously," Mr Mitchell told the jury. The information he had provided included the time he arrived home from work on 30 June, and what he did after arriving home. At this stage, he could not remember what he had said.
The advocate-depute, Alan Turnbull, QC, read from the statement, where the time was given as 3:40pm.
Mr Mitchell said he could not remember exactly how it came about that he made a second statement on 7 July. He thought he had contacted the police.
It is a long time ago and a lot has passed," he added. "I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one."
The new time he had given was "between 4:55pm and 5pm".
Mr Mitchell said he was questioned on 14 April last year, the same day his brother was arrested.
He agreed with the prosecutor that he had been cautioned in the police station that day.
Mr Turnbull asked: "Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?"
Mr Mitchell replied: "Yes."
He said he had visited his brother about two or three times since his arrest. The last time had been last summer.
Mitchell’s defence team had started the day one short of its usual complement. Junior counsel Jane Farquharson had gone into labour during the night, and Donald Findlay, QC, explained her absence in jocular fashion to the judge.
"Despite instructions I have given her to the contrary, she has gone to another place to attend to another matter and may be away for a day or two," said Mr Findlay.
Lord Nimmo Smith commented: "Please convey to her the best wishes of the court for a safe delivery."
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/jodi-accused-s-brother-suspected-of-giving-police-false-statement-1-670948

I suspect estrangement between the Mitchell family members.