Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews

[Nicholas]

There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.

For me Sandra Leans behaviour is extremely cruel and calculating and behaviour I recognised in her several years ago

I do however agree with this. Sandra Lean is a fraud. She goes out of her way in an attempt to confuse people, then plays the victim. This is what abusive people do. They will go to any length in order to hide behind the lie.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383150.html#msg383150

Sandra Lean was NOT worried these claims would reflect badly on me, she was worried these claims would reflect badly on her!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383160.html#msg383160

The pity play. The sympathy seeking. It's all there. Sandra attempts to assert she is a victim when in actual fact she is the aggressor.

Sandra Lean is indeed unreliable and dishonest. No one undermined the Luke Mitchell case. Luke Mitchell is also guilty!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383164.html#msg383164

You are an extremely cruel women Sandra and your actions are callous and your motives are malicious!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383174.html#msg383174

All statements I made above I still stand by today

Sandra Lean reminds me in some ways of Stephanie Bon

Stephanie Bon

“However, as I told you privately, it isn’t Simon I want to show up, it’s you. So go ahead and make things up about what happened or didn’t happen, I don’t care. You can also ask Simon to tell you what really happened. Anyway, I thought you didn’t like the Halls? So what do you care? You F*** up Simon’s case as much as you like stupid.”

(Source: 4th February 2013 https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/)

Stephanie Bon

‘Now do you believe me?! If you ask your husband, he will tell you that he brought 2 cd players to my house when we were going out after he had disappeared for a weekend and noone knew where he was. He’d been nicked for the night but this was way before Joan was murdered, nothing to do with the case, so do you want to add another robbing to the list? maybe he’s lying to you? My brother was there and other people saw them, I went mental and threw them out! You stupid cow, are you going to announce another f**& up of his publicly? Shall i? unlike you, its not Simon i want to damage, its you!

[Nicholas]

So we have three people recollecting those events, and one person with this OTT, over egging the pudding claims of precise details. And they were taken back to that path, and they did have to go over that evenings events. To jog their memory, to give a more expansive account of what had taken place. And they do, and for the trio it is of Mitchell leading that search with his dog. Of him commanding his dog, and getting his dog to obey his actions, on that tight reign. Of Mitchell, he further egged that pudding, where he had his dog and the search trio parallel to where Jodi lay in the woodland, at that exact spot. For he was being asked further questions, of how he knew to go left, and he was making it clear that it was due to his dog being almost upon where Jodi lay.

And of going over those events, and that clear attempt in the book to implant seeds - "The agreed facts" that blatant manipulation

I spoke to Sandra Lean following killer Simon Halls suicide in February 2014 and told her of a letter he’d written to me about previous suicide attempts.

She asked me if I would mind sending her a copy of it

I’ve just told her Killer Simon Hall is dead. She asks if she can post this information on her and ex ex boyfriend Billy ‘spammer’ Middleton’s WAP forum - then some time later asks me if she can actually see the letter to “analyse it”.

I had totally misinterpreted some of the contents of his letter, due in part to the shock of the situation.

The letter has been in the public domain for several years btw

[Nicholas]

One can not change the events that took place from around 10.38pm. It does not matter a jot what that dog or it's master was doing on approaching that V - It was in complete contrast to Mitchells claims. There was nothing other that special knowledge, that accounted for Mitchell jumping over and heading directly to his left. To have walked around 10ft through greenery, overhanging branches, in a very narrow passage with no clear view in the dark. That time it took Kelly and JaJ to walk around 10ft, on an unobstructed path, with nothing in their way, with more light.  To miraculously see something and shout out instantly what he knew it to be. To describe the tree and all else. Where Kelly had to walk around 20ft to have any view, and of AW going right down to check properly. There was no time in the slightest for any of Mitchells claims. It was rapid and to the point. - He knew exactly where he was going, knew exactly in every detail what was there, there was no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of steps - clear special knowledge.

Yep

[Nicholas]

The sequence. The text the response. Jodi is missing. Judith gets her mother out of bed, JaJ notes the time, remembers the time, it was near to a Qtr to 11. The others, it is guesstimates. They do not know, they are not clock watching. What we do know from this, irrespective of how many friends were phoned or otherwise - Jodi's mother was frantic, she knew something was wrong, the very reason she was on to the police in no time. She knew if her daughter had not been with Mitchell then something must have happened. There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.

I have no doubts regarding this

For me, her and Stephanie Bon have a lot in common

There are no news articles anywhere referring to Stephanie Bon as killer Simon Hall’s girlfriend at the time he committed murder but that’s exactly what she believed herself to be at that time

From April 2007 - ’Stephanie fights to clear friend’s name’ the ‘friend’ who was her boyfriend at the time of the murder https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/1330630.colchester-stephanie-fights-to-clear-friends-name/

Who was cheating on her left right and centre and who took stolen goods round to her house on the day after he committed murder and she said nothing to police about this - even though they were investigating a murder of a 79 year old women

For all those years Stephanie Bon’s website promoting killer Simon Halls innocence fraud, stating he had never burgled before in the full knowledge she knew he had

And just like Sandra Lean, Stephanie Bon also appeared on the last ever BBC Rough Justice documentary in 2007

Short clip at approx 53:30 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI

[Nicholas]

Why? she claims is there not information on what Judith was texting to her husband prior to him coming home from work, whilst Jodi had just arrived home from school? 

This sounds like yet more abuse to me

[Nicholas]

it does not pay to concentrate on the above, the clear reasons as to why that guilty verdict was brought about. - let's instead 'tunnel in' on the authors questions of vital importance. What was AB doing AFTER  the sighting? Let's wonder why no CCTV footage was obtained to make sure the banking system was not accurate? But let's NOT check or wonder if AB's phone time was out, like Mitchells? As above: "nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.

I don’t suppose Corrine Mitchell asking her son to take the dog for a walk ever happened

Killer Luke Mitchell may well have gone off out with Mia on his own accord and for more sinister reasons than taking her out to ‘pee’ - there was a back and front garden for that!

The, ‘Not at this time of night you’re not young man’ comment was, I suspect , another bare faced lie 

[Nicholas]

"nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.

 

[Nicholas]

Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,

For me this is extremely telling about Sandra Leans personality

Why did Sandra Leans eldest daughter live with her father and not her mother - from a young age?

And why didn’t Sandra Lean acknowledge her mother in her book ‘No Smoke’?

To my dad, Sandy King.

and to Skooby, Chi, Caz and Simon,

for helping me find the strength and courage to fly.

‘Skooby’ and ‘Chi’ are her daughters - ‘Caz’ is/was(?) a friend and according to Sandra Lean - she thought ‘Simon’ - one of her former partners - to be a ‘psychopath’

[faithlilly]

Nonsense - LK heard noises that made him stop to listen, the noises stopped. Like rustling and movement. Asked to expand on this, he still heard rustling, it did not morph in to something else. He heard rustling/movement and a strangling sound, like someone in a headlock. Not the easiest thing to describe, but the clearest thing in this, it was enough for him to stop, there was something not right about the noise, it did not sit well with him - not just simple rustling. We hear of trauma people suffer from, does one imagine there was no trauma with this man? Whilst it is all very well highlighting, yet again the defence questioning, of DF "you heard noises yet did nothing?" - "yes" And he made it clear of how bad he felt afterwards, he also made it clear had the noises not stopped he would have investigated. Much like AB,with LK, the noises warranted worry/concern to stop. Something not right. Like AB, the male, he instantly caught her attention, something not right. He looked confrontational, beckoning the girl towards him. And she remembered him. And LK remembered those noises, of how they made him feel and he also went forward. LK was nervous of going forward, of being in the vicinity should he become suspect. This was the pressure he felt, not actual pressure from the police.

Now let us expand just a little more on this search party: The dog! The claims of going up that path. Firstly that prepped and ready and onto that path by 11pm. There is not doubt just how ready he was. Here again, no deliberation, nothing, straight into that role and off he goes. Those calls. Judith tells him she is phoning the police, she tells him in the call at 10.59pm that she has called the police. This is the call that was made to the emergency services around 10.50pm. Lean has an uncovered call 6 years later made around 10.45pm. It is the same call! Times marked wrong or otherwise. Only one call to the emergency services, from Judith Jones. In those statements, to Luke that she is going to make it, and to Luke that she had made it. To her mother also. Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm, thus the call could not have been from her, even though she gave her name!? And there is only ever one call mentioned to them pre 11 and only one call logged, not two! But the author tries to grasp at that time of 10.45pm, and those claims of not knowing Jodi was missing - Absolute BS. Judith knew her daughter was missing, immediately those words were spoken from Mitchell, that he had "not seen her" And as soon as she had spoken with her mother, that hope her daughter may be there, she was not. All prior to 10.45pm, and of course the actual time was, at around 10.50pm.

For now, we do not need to go into the superfluous IF's the author consistently uses, of - IF we believe JF here, there or anywhere - then we have Jodi missing from around 10pm when the news was on! Just ignore everything else, and go with his guesstimates! - BS

The sequence. The text the response. Jodi is missing. Judith gets her mother out of bed, JaJ notes the time, remembers the time, it was near to a Qtr to 11. The others, it is guesstimates. They do not know, they are not clock watching. What we do know from this, irrespective of how many friends were phoned or otherwise - Jodi's mother was frantic, she knew something was wrong, the very reason she was on to the police in no time. She knew if her daughter had not been with Mitchell then something must have happened. There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.

But Mitchell, prepped and ready and that dog - the family guard dog for the caravan park. Not a tracker a guard dog, this was the side that was a little more than the family pet. A work dog for guarding the business. The claims:

That Mitchell instantly offered his services to Judith, that he would look on the path that Jodi would need to use to get to his, to go to her house to look through his phone with numbers. He/they claim that he just wanted up and off this path as quickly as possible. There is a call whilst this search trio were apart at 11.18pm. Of, the going to meet with Mitchell and all else. Just as the trio were heading out the complex, a couple of minutes prior to the meet. There we have those two clear outside factors of calls. One at 10.59pm where Mitchell tells Judith he is on/at the path. The entrance. The other just prior to the meet. And we have Mitchell on this path for at least 20mins. A journey, by those claims of rushing, should have taken less than ten mins: 11 by police timings walking. And which fitted exactly in with what the search trio accounted for. Of that call just after 11pm in AW's, just before they left, to her landline. And those timings to get to the path.

So Mitchell and that call at 10.49pm where he offers to search, to go to Judith's. To get ready and claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm. 3mins to get ready and out that door. 7mins later and on that path. 20mins later and he is still on that path.

The trio. That call to AW prior to 10.45pm and it is 18mins later before they are ready to leave Mayfield, 17mins later they are at the paths.

There is no doubt to be had here, these are factors that can not be changed. Mitchel was ready and out that door in a flash. Mitchell did not rush up any path, he was on that path for at least 20mins. Which wipes completely out any claim around that dog, of not having in seek mode due to wanting up and off the path. This is why we have the nonsense, as above, with those IF's around JF. Of claims of Jodi being known to be missing earlier and every other piece of nonsense, for deflection - for nothing changes those clear facts, it makes absolutely no difference to Mitchells actions, in the slightest. An abundance of time for that dog to pick up anything - equally an abundance of time for Mitchell to be doing anything?

The dog and this seek mode! First AW, and in her statements, that they headed to the path rather than go to Judith's to collect something of Jodi's at that point (Lean puts a ? around this, why?, as it was only minutes away) The point here is, that she knew something had been asked for of Jodi's from Mitchell, prior to meeting with him. That their aim after heading out, was to meet with him, that loose arrangement of half way. And contrary to Mitchell/Lean, they did not wait about at the junction of the paths, they each saw the others torch light and AW shouted out "is that you Luke" and they walked to meet each other, slightly down from the Junction.

Seek: After being asked if he had saw anything, and no. AW wanted to have a proper look, check it thoroughly, she stated in case Jodi had fallen and hurt herself - the reality, they did not expect to be finding anything at all, did they? caught up in this rapid series of events. And LM asked "did you bring anything of Jodi's?" So he puts this dog, which is on a tight reign into  seek mode!  And it is him with JaJ and Kelly directly behind and AW directly behind them. Looking into different areas. Why did Mitchell therefore climb the wall at the Gino break? The dog did not seek/scent Jodi, he just did it. He climbed down and again took himself into the front. He wandered slightly into the field. And again, he just did it. And again he took himself into the front.

And here is where those clear attempts to turn the search trio's words into something they were not. Not one of that search trio made any such claim of the dog alerting to anything. It had, as with at other points being doing as dogs do, sniffing about, scenting at the path and to the sides, peeing! Which dogs in tracking and seek modes do not do! They are completely focused on the task at hand. They approach that break and both Mitchell and his dog go to it, directly to it. These are the words used - standing up at the V, pulling. Not alerting, not leading to anything. The stark contrasts to Mitchell. Of bounding (on a short lead), Of ears up, alerting, of jumping up at the wall, of air sniffing, of leading them to. And that further stark contrast, of being some distance past where there was a break in the wall. Of having to go back to the break in the wall to access the woodland. On his own with AW being there to take the lead. No Kelly, no JaJ. - they were all there together, not a foot past that V had, been had. And they saw everything, Of the lead being handed over, of Mitchell in the wood and turning directly left.

So we have three people recollecting those events, and one person with this OTT, over egging the pudding claims of precise details. And they were taken back to that path, and they did have to go over that evenings events. To jog their memory, to give a more expansive account of what had taken place. And they do, and for the trio it is of Mitchell leading that search with his dog. Of him commanding his dog, and getting his dog to obey his actions, on that tight reign. Of Mitchell, he further egged that pudding, where he had his dog and the search trio parallel to where Jodi lay in the woodland, at that exact spot. For he was being asked further questions, of how he knew to go left, and he was making it clear that it was due to his dog being almost upon where Jodi lay.

And of going over those events, and that clear attempt in the book to implant seeds - "The agreed facts" that blatant manipulation, where the author claims "they all walked several meters past". Then of the dog and of them all agreeing to it alerting to Jodi - BS. No they did not, the only time Kelly and JaJ mentioned walking past was after Mitchell entered that woodland, and their several metres was around 10ft! And it was whilst they were walking that 10ft or so, that Mitchell was "looking around". And this raised further flags with the police. For the short distance he could only have walked, he could NOT have seen what he made claim to. Furthermore, when Kelly and JaJ darted back those 10ft or so, Mitchell was yet again on the other side of that V. He made not claim of rushing back, therefore it was unlikely he had even walked as much as ten feet.

One can not change the events that took place from around 10.38pm. It does not matter a jot what that dog or it's master was doing on approaching that V - It was in complete contrast to Mitchells claims. There was nothing other that special knowledge, that accounted for Mitchell jumping over and heading directly to his left. To have walked around 10ft through greenery, overhanging branches, in a very narrow passage with no clear view in the dark. That time it took Kelly and JaJ to walk around 10ft, on an unobstructed path, with nothing in their way, with more light.  To miraculously see something and shout out instantly what he knew it to be. To describe the tree and all else. Where Kelly had to walk around 20ft to have any view, and of AW going right down to check properly. There was no time in the slightest for any of Mitchells claims. It was rapid and to the point. - He knew exactly where he was going, knew exactly in every detail what was there, there was no unfamiliarity, no trepidation of steps - clear special knowledge.

And that Jury, taken to the path, hearing all the evidence, even DF's attempts in those meaningless clarifications in statements. It did not change or alter the impossible!

And you tie in that non alibi, those ludicrous claims of hanging around for 90mins, of waiting for his girlfriend not appearing on the other side of that isolated path. Of not arriving home until 10pm after leaving the boys before 9pm. Of the lies, the denial of being in that woodland before, of never seeing that V break. Of not knowing of the ban on the path. Of saying she was not coming out or grounded. Of those fires. That missing knife, that missing jacket and boots. That calm collectiveness. Those witnesses who saw him and the list goes on. - Tunnel vision??

"nine days and seven statements later" - police presence with the Mitchells at all times, they were certainly with the Jones family at all times. Ms Lean claims they were not investigated thoroughly enough, yet she can tell you from those statements, if those first days, every movement of [Name removed] down to the clothes he was wearing? - Brushed over? Every movement of JF and GD, every movement of SK and JaJ - brushed over? - contradictory nonsense! No clothes taken on the first day! AW and SK's shoes were taken, AW's jacket.

Why? she claims is there not information on what Judith was texting to her husband prior to him coming home from work, whilst Jodi had just arrived home from school? - A whole page on different phone numbers and who's belonged to who, not the Mitchells though. - yet nothing at all to merit a ? around those 90mins on Newbattle Road. Nothing to merit a ? or a mention of the rest of the Mitchell phone logs, or phones?  Why did the search trio not search the caravan park, I mean she was not with Luke, surely the sensible thing to do, would be to check his mothers work place?? - waffle to fill pages on others, with no common sense and sheer deflection - it does not pay to concentrate on the above, the clear reasons as to why that guilty verdict was brought about. - let's instead 'tunnel in' on the authors questions of vital importance. What was AB doing AFTER  the sighting? Let's wonder why no CCTV footage was obtained to make sure the banking system was not accurate? But let's NOT check or wonder if AB's phone time was out, like Mitchells? As above: "nine days and seven statements later" - shows just how much is missing, the context that is everything to the depth of the investigation. And that is only one person and only 9 days.

Not interested until you provide sources and stop obfuscating. I believe Mr Apples also has some questions that he wants you to answer.

[Nicholas]

I can only imagine the sheer volume of BS in Sandra Leans 2nd book and it’s partly why I wasn’t going to read it

Plus seeing her pull those weird looking faces and expressions on channel 5 was bad enough

I don’t recall her being as facially expressive when we previously met face to face on those few occasions

It struck me as really odd

Sandra Lean

This case spans 16 years

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

No - Her promotion of killer Luke Mitchell’s actual factual guilt and the innocence fraud  ‘spans 16 years’

Sandra Lean

There was no opportunity for anybody to dispose of ash because as I say they were in the police station all night

Killer Luke Mitchell has plenty of time to dispose of ‘ash’ or anything else whilst he was out walking Mia the dog at 10pm and doing whatever else he was doing then - he could have put the ‘ash’ in the river nearby for example

Where was Corrine Mitchell at 10pm that night anyway? What was she doing? Drinking?

Where was she drinking ? In her lounge ? I don’t recall any of the neighbours saying they saw her in the garden?

[Nicholas]

There is a lot more to this, and Nicholas is correct, the author is being a hell of lot less than truthful. And it is all done with deceitful intention - to take all the attention away from LM. Her game of Cluedo and innuendo, deflection from the killer. It is every side of that in depth investigation that she attempts to shore over with waffle. That taster by Nicholas, of statements - Lean in the book tells us of Judith Jones, of "nine days and seven statements later" just from her, gives you a sense of just how intense that investigation was.

For me Sandra Leans behaviour is extremely cruel and calculating and behaviour I recognised in her several years ago

I recall the statement made by [Name removed]’s uncle


‘After the verdict, Jodi's uncle, Kevin Walker, said the family had had to bare its soul to ensure justice.

In a prepared statement on behalf of the family he said:

"We will not and cannot speak after today of the effect on us individually and as a family.

"To do so would only feed the evil that has caused our grief. The family has had to bare its soul to ensure that justice could prevail.

"This has meant being totally honest about all aspects of our lives and it is a pity that that honesty was not being shown by other parties involved in the investigation."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4194463.stm

[Nicholas]

Nonsense - LK heard noises that made him stop to listen, the noises stopped. Like rustling and movement. Asked to expand on this, he still heard rustling, it did not morph in to something else. He heard rustling/movement and a strangling sound, like someone in a headlock. Not the easiest thing to describe, but the clearest thing in this, it was enough for him to stop, there was something not right about the noise, it did not sit well with him - not just simple rustling. We hear of trauma people suffer from, does one imagine there was no trauma with this man?

Yet more telling factors to consider about the author

Why would Sandra Lean choose to omit the emotions of LK?

And he made it clear of how bad he felt afterwards

Did she not recognise them?

[Nicholas]

Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm,

It sounds like Sandra Lean has failed to bother to put her parent hat on

And alll those comments to her being a mother of two girls (Altohugh she omitted to mention the fact only one daughter lived with her at the time and didn’t bother to explain to her readers why and how this came about)

Sandra Lean

I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383624.html#msg383624

Stop attempting to emotionally manipulate by bringing your daughters to the board Sandra, it won't wash anymore.

[Nicholas]

Yet more telling factors to consider about the author

Why would Sandra Lean choose to omit the emotions of LK?

Did she not recognise them?

Sandra Lean

There was so much damage done at the beginning of the investigation

Sandra Lean

It’s very easy to convince people beyond reasonable doubt if you only tell them half the story

Sandra Lean

If you don’t give them anything to counter then you can make it appear there is no doubt

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

[Mr Apples]

I don’t suppose Corrine Mitchell asking her son to take the dog for a walk ever happened

Killer Luke Mitchell may well have gone off out with Mia on his own accord and for more sinister reasons than taking her out to ‘pee’ - there was a back and front garden for that!

The, ‘Not at this time of night you’re not young man’ comment was, I suspect , another bare faced lie 

I would tend to agree with all of this. When she made the ‘not at this time’ comment during the JE podcast, I got the feeling it was exaggerated and insincere. I felt a tad embarrassed for her, tbh.