A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[Chris_Halkides]

How do you feel about Ms. Hamilton's reporting?

[William Wallace]

Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog" - We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so? And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place. So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.

The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.

Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying. As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path? What is evident from this is JaJ, must not have known the area, contrary to your opinion. What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.

And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.

What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC? 

And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance. - There are of course lots of questions to be answered around the information Ms Lean has touted out is there not?

All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial. The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless. -She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?

And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?

Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying

Easthouses/Mayfield does it matter? They're 1minute and 45 seconds apart in a car. People in both areas know the path well. Ja J knew the path and the area. That is one of the few things that is 100% certain.

[Paranoid Android]

How do you feel about Ms. Hamilton's reporting?

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.

It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.

[faithlilly]

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.

It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.

I think the most important question is not if Luke is innocent but was his guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Do you think it was?

[Chris_Halkides]

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.

It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.

The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it.  In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work.  Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary.  Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.

[mrswah]

The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it.  In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work.  Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary.  Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.

Of course they didn't.

I have read most of her articles on LM online, and she says exactly what the "detractors" would want her to say!

[Paranoid Android]

The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it.  In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work.  Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary.  Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.

If you say that Hamilton's piece is one-sided, I'm happy to take your word for it.

The point I'm making is that it works both ways.

[mrswah]

If you say that Hamilton's piece is one-sided, I'm happy to take your word for it.

The point I'm making is that it works both ways.

Yes, I would say you make a fair point!

[Nicholas]

The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it.

⬇️

Luke Mitchell was found guilty - slinging mud at Jodi Jones' family is desperate
Record columnist Jane Hamilton says those peddling half-truths about Jodi's murder are just adding to her family's heartache.

By Jane Hamilton
04:30, 1 MAY 2021

I’m loath to revisit this issue again because I feel the family of Jodi Jones have had enough but I’ll say it again for the hard of thinking – Luke Mitchell was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.

It shouldn’t need repeating.

But next Saturday there will be a protest by Mitchell’s supporters yet again demanding he be declared ­innocent.

For the family of Jodi, this is nothing more than a heartbreaking attack on his victim’s memory.

They have spoken to the Daily Record this week to plead that those peddling half-truths and slurs take a step back and consider the facts of the case.

Once more for those at the back – collectively, the Scottish justice system believes it has the right person for the crime he was charged with and is serving his time.

Four FAILED appeals including an independent Miscarriage of Justice investigation. Case closed. Done, dusted, finished.

And for the people who accuse journalists of turning a blind eye to the plight of an “innocent man” banged up for a crime he didn’t do, let me say this (yet again) – we have examined the case a gazillion times over the years and come up with nothing new.

There is no smoking gun, no “eureka” moment of uncovering a startling bit of new evidence that exonerates him.

The “new evidence” put forward by Luke’s supporters has been pored over time and again – but the conclusion remains the same.

Potential other people of interest were a factor of the original investigation and alternative suspects were traced, interviewed and eliminated from having the potential to be culpable.

Accusations of police corruption, collusion and personal insults have been winging their way to Daily Record towers daily.

Trust me, if you want a journalist to take your claims or suspicions seriously, here’s a wee tip - aggression, angst, insults and threats is not the way to do it.

Slinging mud at the innocent family of a murder victim to see if it sticks is also not a good way to change hearts or minds. If anything, it makes you look pathetically desperate.

The comments I’ve seen directed at the Jones family make me despair for the human race at times.

Where is the compassion and empathy for what they have been through?

Why can’t the supporters of Mitchell articulate their support for him and his family without dragging the Jones family down?

Oh yeah, because they’re among the dozens of suspects being bandied about by the Facebook sleuths. [Insert rolling eye emoji here].

But, hey, we live in a democracy and the beauty of that is we are free to have our own opinions and thoughts.

We can demonstrate and exercise our right to freedom of speech.

If you believe a miscarriage of justice has been done, you’re well within your rights to set up petitions, marches, videos and take to social media to put forward your case.

Such is our freedom that even a convicted murderer is allowed to protest his innocence on national television and take a lie detector test.

Nobody is denying you the right to bang your drum about your cause or your beliefs.

With social media, everyone can shout into the void – but while you’re screaming about innocence remember he had the best legal counsel in the country who did their damnedest for him and he has had the privilege of multiple legal options to have his case reviewed.

The life and voice of Jodi Jones has been lost to the world forever – remember that.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568

[William Wallace]

⬇️

What's that? An article by the highly regarded "journalist" of a tabloid lol? I challenged people to explain the 12 points credibly. I'm still waiting.

[Nicholas]

I challenged people to explain the 12 points credibly. I'm still waiting.

Did your miss this ⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650073#msg650073

[William Wallace]

Did your miss this ⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650073#msg650073

None of those answers are credible explanations. I don't think any rational person would say that they are whether one thinks Mitchell did it or not.

[Nicholas]

None of those answers are credible explanations. I don't think any rational person would say that they are whether one thinks Mitchell did it or not.

I don’t consider this to be from a rational person

⬇️

‘I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.

This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond.

Mr Middleton was acquitted.

Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.

I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted.  I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.

How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.

Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton?

Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.

Shame on you, Mr Beck.

It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.

Sandra Lean

[William Wallace]

I don’t consider this to be from a rational person

⬇️

‘I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.

This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond.

Mr Middleton was acquitted.

What's sandra Lean got to do with me? Oh and you didn't answer the 12 points.

Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.

I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted.  I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.

How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.

Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton?

Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.

Shame on you, Mr Beck.

It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.

Sandra Lean