Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?  (Read 3233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline devils advocate

Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« on: July 08, 2012, 11:27:33 PM »
I want to put this question out for public debate since the topic is so very important to the whole alibi story. 

Shane Mitchell told the court at his brothers trial that he (Luke) may have been in the house at the time Jodi Jones was murdered but that he didn't see or hear him.

Corinne Mitchell for her part tells of arriving home from work that afternoon about 5.15pm to find Luke prancing about the kitchen with some broccoli in hand.  She also insists that Luke had prepared the meal and in fact burned the chicken pie he was cooking. She added that brother Shane had come down for his tea before taking it back up to his bedroom to eat.

Now, in the latest instalment to this evolving story, it was stated in the Wrongly Accused Person forum a few days ago that Shane had stated that he could not remember seeing Luke.  I will hasten to add that this post has now been removed for obvious reasons.  It seems that Shane is indeed the weak link in this case and that any mention of him on the WAP forum is instantly removed.

Memory and the ability to remember events was a noticeable problem for Shane Mitchell at his brothers trial.  At the time he put this down to drug abuse.

Could there in fact be a more sinister reason?

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2012, 11:36:17 PM »
I want to put this question out for public debate since the topic is so very important to the whole alibi story. 

Shane Mitchell told the court at his brothers trial that he (Luke) may have been in the house at the time Jodi Jones was murdered but that he didn't see or hear him.

Corinne Mitchell for her part tells of arriving home from work that afternoon about 5.15pm to find Luke prancing about the kitchen with some broccoli in hand.  She also insists that Luke had prepared the meal and in fact burned the chicken pie he was cooking. She added that brother Shane had come down for his tea before taking it back up to his bedroom to eat.

Now, in the latest instalment to this evolving story, it was stated in the Wrongly Accused Person forum a few days ago that Shane had stated that he could not remember seeing Luke.  I will hasten to add that this post has now been removed for obvious reasons.  It seems that Shane is indeed the weak link in this case and that any mention of him on the WAP forum is instantly removed.

Memory and the ability to remember events was a noticeable problem for Shane Mitchell at his brothers trial.  At the time he put this down to drug abuse.

Could there in fact be a more sinister reason?

Yes, I remember seeing that post, I believe it was made by Sandra Lean in one of her daily rambling presentations which are supposed to convince people that Mitchell is somehow innocent.  She is noted for removing content as is her co director Billy Middleton who is quite adept at manipulating posts when it suits.

I have always said that two boys could not have been alone in such a small property for any length of time without them being aware of each other.  We are told that Luke Mitchell burned a pie yet Shane was seemingly oblivious to this as he sat looking at porn in his bedroom with, as we were told, one ear listening for anyone coming into the house. If he thought he was alone was he not suspicious of the burning smell?

Who did he think made the tea, if there ever was a tea made by anyone except of course Corinne Mitchell herself.

A quite implausible series of events, no wonder the jury didn't believe Shane or Corinne.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 11:38:10 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2012, 12:45:08 AM »
And just while we are on the subject of truth, Sandra Lean's support of confirmed wife killer Adrian Prout will be her undoing and the undoing of Luke Mitchell.

Lean and Middleton both promoted the idea that Kate Prout had run off when all the time she was lying buried in a hidden grave in the woods which formed part of the farm she and Adrian Prout shared.  For years they supported the idea that Kate had done a runner when all the evidence was so obviously against this. 

There is none so blind are those who cannot see!  Well done Sandra Lean, if your perspective in the Mitchell case is as good as it was in the Prout case then there isn't much hope for Mitchell is there?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online Angelo222

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2012, 01:50:33 PM »
Maybe this is the wrong thread to write this but the last few posts on the subject of Luke Mitchell got me thinking about the knife which Corinne Mitchell claimed was hidden in a bag of dry dog feed in the kitchen.  I have always wondered about this and how the police were never able to find this knife even though they made an extensive search of the family home.  Did this delay in finding this weapon afford Corinne an opportunity to dispose of incriminating evidence I ask myself?

On the subject of Sandra Lean and Adrian Prout I would offer the suggestion that she stops sticking her nose into cases where the suspects are obviously guilty or have dirty hands and there are lots of them on the Wrongly Accused forum.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2012, 07:59:21 PM »
I have to admit that when I see posts like Davids Its really makes me fear for anyone who may in the future or who is now a subject of a MOJ.

He asks Dr Lean to keep her nose out of MOJ,s, It would be good if every case was as clear cut as simply guilty/MOJ but of course that's not the case. If someone found guilty of a crime that they are indeed guilty of but prosecuted in a manner that may breech their human rights or even convicted under circumstance outwith the remit, procedural duties of those we place the protection of our society in then they are by definition a MOJ. Its people like Dr Lean who at least has the balls(for want of a better word) to approach all case's of MO J's with the same vigour and clarity to question those procedures and malpractices in all case's that could in the future lead to further suffering of people who are completely innocent.

This does of course leave her open to abuse when case's like the Prout case suddenly change direction but then she was not responsible for the way the police conducted investigations and the way lawyers and the authorities act in certain circumstance's. There was much in the Prout case that could be and should have been questioned and unless we have people willing to do that then nothing gets better.

This is not a post meant to apologise for anyone connected with the Prout case but merely to show my own view on what some people are doing in certain case's, Its heartening that we have people like Dr Lean and Mrs Hall who are willing to leave themselves open to those rigours that beset them when they take the opportunity to fight with all they have to finally get to the crux of a perceived MOJ's. I envy their determination and forsight to try and change things for the better for anyone facing such a trauma as a MOJ.

Online Angelo222

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2012, 02:04:37 PM »
I have to admit that when I see posts like Davids Its really makes me fear for anyone who may in the future or who is now a subject of a MOJ.

He asks Dr Lean to keep her nose out of MOJ,s, It would be good if every case was as clear cut as simply guilty/MOJ but of course that's not the case. If someone found guilty of a crime that they are indeed guilty of but prosecuted in a manner that may breech their human rights or even convicted under circumstance outwith the remit, procedural duties of those we place the protection of our society in then they are by definition a MOJ. Its people like Dr Lean who at least has the balls(for want of a better word) to approach all case's of MO J's with the same vigour and clarity to question those procedures and malpractices in all case's that could in the future lead to further suffering of people who are completely innocent.

This does of course leave her open to abuse when case's like the Prout case suddenly change direction but then she was not responsible for the way the police conducted investigations and the way lawyers and the authorities act in certain circumstance's. There was much in the Prout case that could be and should have been questioned and unless we have people willing to do that then nothing gets better.

This is not a post meant to apologise for anyone connected with the Prout case but merely to show my own view on what some people are doing in certain case's, Its heartening that we have people like Dr Lean and Mrs Hall who are willing to leave themselves open to those rigours that beset them when they take the opportunity to fight with all they have to finally get to the crux of a perceived MOJ's. I envy their determination and forsight to try and change things for the better for anyone facing such a trauma as a MOJ.

A rose tinted view if there ever was one but then it is not surprising given past history.  I can find little in common between Sandra Lean and Stephanie Hall.   The big apparent difference is that one fights a true miscarriage of justice while the other has become personally embroiled with several cases where there is some dubiety as to guilt or innocence.  You only have to look at the Adrian Prout case and Sandra Lean's involvement to realise that her actions have caused nothing but harm to the whole miscarriage of justice scene.  What must victim Kate Prout's family have thought of Sandra Lean and her murky attempts to smear them?  Personally I think what she did was criminal and there should be consequences for such conduct.

She continues to do the exact same thing in the Jodi Jones murder case by smearing just about every eligible male within a mile of that horrific event.  Both male and female family members and various associates have been tarnished and accused of all sorts including murder in a shoddy attempt to somehow extricate perpetrator Luke Mitchell from the endeavour.

Sandra Lean may wish to build a reputation on the back of murder victims but she doesn't fool me for a second.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 02:06:47 PM by David »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2013, 08:15:16 PM »
Why does the alibi story keep changing?

This is the very same question which is now being asked in the Simon Hall case.

I came across a post by the elusive Sandra Lean this afternoon who in response to a question by Mat on the blue forum responded,

Quote from: Sandra Lean
"Although some people might find it hard to believe, I do, actually, have a real life, and I wouldn't waste a minute of it (a) fighting for someone I thought might be guilty..."

So what happened in the Adrian Prout case Sandra or were you just unlucky?  You thought he was innocent as well and we all know where that ended up. 

So can we infer by this that just because Sandra Lean thinks someone is innocent we shouldn't automatically believe that she is correct?

And by the same logic, just because Sandra Lean thinks that Luke Mitchell is innocent doesn't mean a thing!

« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 08:18:37 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2013, 08:30:47 PM »
SODDI principle-again. Some Other Dude Did It or "If I follow enough cases, I'm bound to be right-eventually".

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Why does the alibi story keep changing?
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2013, 08:34:06 PM »
SODDI principle-again. Some Other Dude Did It or "If I follow enough cases, I'm bound to be right-eventually".

She didn't even know Luke Mitchell at the time of the murder and it was only later that she got involved.  She has admitted herself on many occasions that she thought he was guilty from the outset.   8(0(*
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.