Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[rulesapply]

Not everyone who believes LM is guilty was seduced by media coverage.

Naughty.

Sorry, still not always getting this right.

[rulesapply]

I wouldn’t say they looked nothing like one another. There were, imo, some similarities — similarities that could easily result in a mistaken identity, especially as every eyewitness except the bicycle boys trio merely had a momentary glance  at this person from a passing car travelling at 30/40 mph. Furthermore, each eyewitness gave different descriptions of what they saw. For example, AB said she saw a male and female at the entrance to the path in Easthouses, that the male had thick shaggy brown hair sticking up in clumps at the back and was wearing a khaki hip-length fisherman’s type jacket with matching khaki trousers (LM was wearing baggy black jeans); LF & RW spotted a male youth leaning on a gate on N’battle rd and said he was wearing a parka-like jacket (cos it ‘went down to his bum’ and he ‘had a haircut that reminded them of Liam Gallagher’). And then, just to throw another spanner in the works, we had the couple (MO & DH) who claimed they saw a male youth on the N’battle rd wearing a green bomber jacket just before 6 o’clock (who both said categorically at trial that it definitely wasn’t LM they saw). You see the problem here? Lack of consistency with all of their descriptions & eyewitness accounts. And that’s not even factoring in that in 2 of those 3 aforementioned accounts, 1 (in the case of witness AB) was shown a photo of Luke from a photo album to ID him — in a photo with a white background so as to make it stand out more from the other photos! The rest of the photos never had a white background & were all quite similar in their own way; no variety in the photos. And the other (in the case of LF & RW), they had seen lots of photos of the prime suspect LM in newspapers and identified him from those. Totally unfair; an id parade should have been used. Moreover, what if the police and media had used a photo of Mark Kane? The investigation might’ve taken a very different path. I’m not saying Mark Kane was guilty, but given he was a person of interest and drawn to the police’s attention on 3 separate occasions in the initial stages of the investigation, he should have been traced and interviewed.

Luke Mitchell lived  near N’battle rd, too. What’s your point?

There were 3 independent witness accounts in the case files from the very beginning of the investigation — all placing MK on the N’battle rd on early evening of 30.06.03 and they all
gave different accounts of why he should have been traced and interviewed and why he had scratches on his face the day after the murder and all noted he was acting erratically in the few days after the murder, too. No prompts from SF; SL makes this clear in p.233-244 of her book, IB. It seems that they dismissed MK because they thought LM guilty quite early on and devoted all their resources & man hours into building a case around LM. I personally think it was quite unprofessional of the not to have fully checked MK out, given all they knew about him and the fact he was drawn to their attention on 3 separate instances within the first few weeks of the investigaton by 3 separate people. It seems they had a hunch early on that LM was the prime suspect and, as a result, devoted all of their resources and man hours into building a case around Luke at expense of exploring other leads. This, imo, highlights that this investigation wasn’t as thorough and professional as it should have been. Investigating MK further could’ve yielded some positive results and eliminated remaining doubts about this case. Like I said, I am more convinced than not that LM was responsible for this horrific crime, but would just like it if these niggling doubts, such as this MK aspect of the case, were banished.

They were/are both white and male.

[Paranoid Android]

Maybe you were seduced by media coverage, mrswah.

Or by that sham Channel 5 documentary.

[rulesapply]

Or by that sham Channel 5 documentary.

Ah, the soap opera. What a joke!

[rulesapply]

Or by that sham Channel 5 documentary.

What's the point in trying to debate with people about the honesty of anything that came after LM's conviction and the the honesty of anyone involved in LM's appeals if they're just going to quote from SL's books as if they're gospel? Not only can they not think outside the box, they don't know there's a box.

[mrswah]

Maybe you were seduced by media coverage, mrswah.

Ha ha!  I'm sure I have been, on numerous occasions!

However, I'd never heard of Luke Mitchell until I joined this forum.

[mrswah]

Sorry, still not always getting this right.

It was me being called naughty, not you!

[mrswah]

Or by that sham Channel 5 documentary.

Nope. If I was seduced by anything, it was SL's second book.

[rulesapply]

Ha ha!  I'm sure I have been, on numerous occasions!

However, I'd never heard of Luke Mitchell until I joined this forum.

So? You're supposed to be an unbiased moderator now.

[mrswah]

What's the point in trying to debate with people about the honesty of anything that came after LM's conviction and the the honesty of anyone involved in LM's appeals if they're just going to quote from SL's books as if they're gospel? Not only can they not think outside the box, they don't know there's a box.

So, what was it that persuaded you that LM is guilty?

[rulesapply]

So, what was it that persuaded you that LM is guilty?

You're off topic, mrswah. You said everyone was swayed by media and I said, I wasn't even if you were/are. In other words, don't speak for me. Speak for yourself.

[rulesapply]

It was me being called naughty, not you!

I know.  You must have missed the bit where I apologised for getting it wrong.

[Nicholas]

One of Philip Saunders killers (via Facebook) 27th February 2014

‘Sandra Lean has done so much for victims of miscarriages of justice and I am sickened that anyone could even suggest she was responsible for Simon Hall’s death so whoever is responsible for these malicious lies had better stop. Hope your health gets better soon Sandra thinking of you. XX’

What is it with charlatan Sandra Lean and dangerous men?

https://www.facebook.com/1533925607/posts/10227771973514837/

[Nicholas]

‘Hi Folks - I thought it might be appropriate to respond to the posts attacking my credibility here.

I am Stephen Manning - as mentioned above - and I strongly suspect that 'anonymous', 'wordsmith', and possibly also 'barry k' are some of the latest pseudonyms for Mrs Rosalind Franklin of Diggory Press.

Others on the web include 'Auntie Carol 123', 'Joy', 'Florida Oranges' etc - and I'm quite sure there are many more. One can usually identify Mrs Franklin in these posts by the attacks on myself, and the questionable defense of her three interchangeable businesses; Diggory Press, Exposure Publishing, and Meadow Books..

I paste here a copy of the recent Private Eye Magazine article, so that readers may see the truth for themselves: (The original can be viewed at the link soon to be posted below - along with other proofs of Mrs Franklin's duplicity)
WOULD-BE author Jack Havana (his pen-name) decided to self-publish his book after reading a website recommendation in the Sunday Times "In Gear" section last summer. "A self-publishing service I recommend is Diggory Press, which charges £30 for setup and reasonable fees for printing on demand," wrote columnist Nigel Powell.

Six months later, Jack is more than £600 out of pocket and doesn't have a single copy of his book to show for it. He says Diggory Press director Rosalind Franklin was initially enthusiastic and took his £160 for setup, printing and listing on Amazon but she then stopped replying promptly to messages and, despite attempts to contact her by recorded mail, stopped replying altogether. Jack is now trying to claim his money back through the courts.

The Eye knows of at least 17 writers pursuing Diggory Press in the small claims court, for sums between £200 and £5,000.

One author, Sandra Lean, has received plenty of feedback from readers, but she says Franklin has refused to pay royalties or to provide accounts or sales figures. The authors are asking the court to order printers Lightning Source to open up their books and thus reveal what royalties they are owed.

The Eye contacted Diggory Press and asked: why will you not give authors detailed sales figures or accounts? Why will you not remove authors' books from your website when they ask? Have you withheld any royalties owed? Why have you been so difficult to contact/failed to reply to correspondence? Diggory Press failed to reply to this correspondence either and answer came there none...

'Bookworm'
Source: PRIVATE EYE - No 1202 - 25/1/08

Is Sandra Lean still in cahoots with Stephen T Manning aka Jack Havana et al 🙄

And how many of the ‘17 writers’ were Manning or Lean or both?

[Nicholas]

Re the ‘West Memphis Three’

More on Stevie Branch, Michael Moore and Christopher Byers killers and of their numerous admissions of their guilt to their murders can be heard at the beginning of the Roberta Glass True Crime Report podcast - link included
here 👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/06/25/hornswoggler-nick-wallis-his-great-post-office-scandal-part-1/