Luke Mitchell - The other reported knife assaults on girls.

[Nicholas]

YOU don't have any idea about any of it yet devote your life to it 

 

[jixy]

You don't know any such thing - you're guessing.

You're right about one thing, though - you're not an authority.

And you will back Dr Lean to the hilt on any point.  I wonder why?

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

[Nicholas]

it is clear that some people on here do not like or agree with anything Sandra Lean says

You don't know any such thing - you're guessing.

You're right about one thing, though - you're not an authority.

And you will back Dr Lean to the hilt on any point.  I wonder why?

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt ?

[Venturi Swirl]

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

I am curious to know how you can be certain of Mitchell's innocence.  Has it ever occurred to you that you may in fact be lending your support to a vicious and evil murderer?

[Paranoid Android]

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

Nope - I'm not saying Faith is wrong - she's being asked to entertain the possibility that LM may have threatened girls with knives, based on actual accounts of people saying just that, but she would prefer to say that their accounts aren't credible rather than just admit the possibility.

I don't know whether LM is guilty or innocent - it's possible that Dr Lean could be right about his innocence, but I don't like how she's going about things, and that documentary annoyed me with it's one-sidedness.

Also, there is absolutely nothing remotely funny about this case.

[Nicholas]

she's being asked to entertain the possibility that LM may have threatened girls with knives, based on actual accounts of people saying just that, but she would prefer to say that their accounts aren't credible rather than just admit the possibility.

Why?

[Nicholas]

Is Sandra Lean now attempting to deny that other knife threats were made on young innocent girls by an out of control Luke Mitchell?

Is there a clip of her claiming this?

[jixy]

Nope - I'm not saying Faith is wrong - she's being asked to entertain the possibility that LM may have threatened girls with knives, based on actual accounts of people saying just that, but she would prefer to say that their accounts aren't credible rather than just admit the possibility.

I don't know whether LM is guilty or innocent - it's possible that Dr Lean could be right about his innocence, but I don't like how she's going about things, and that documentary annoyed me with it's one-sidedness.

Also, there is absolutely nothing remotely funny about this case.

Again jump on one word and take it out of context. Proves my point. Nowhere did I say anything about this case was funny

[Nicholas]

Again jump on one word and take it out of context

 

[Paranoid Android]

Again jump on one word and take it out of context. Proves my point. Nowhere did I say anything about this case was funny

Proves absolutely nothing.

[Nicholas]

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

Don’t you find the following ridiculous?

Excerpt by Sandra Lean from ‘No Smoke’
‘The similarities with the others by this stage hardly need to be highlighted: poor police procedures leading to evidence being contaminated or lost, heavy emphasis on innuendo and speculation, and accusations of behaviours which have never been previously displayed. 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 almost as fact – neither Luke nor Simon had a cast iron alibi at a specific time, therefore the prosecution presumes that to be the time of death.

The prosecution were found to have been accurate with regards ‘time of death’ of Halls victim JA

[faithlilly]

How could anyone not in court at the time possibly know that?

I'm not going to guess, either - that's your thing.

We know because such a crucial witness’s testimony would have been reported in the press...and it wasn’t. It really isn’t rocket science.

You can’t form a coherent explanation why this crucial witness wouldn’t be called to court, thats fine but you really do lose the argument when you lower this discourse to one of personal snipes.

[faithlilly]

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

It does seem that way.

[Nicholas]

We know because such a crucial witness’s testimony would have been reported in the press...and it wasn’t. It really isn’t rocket science.

You can’t form a coherent explanation why this crucial witness wouldn’t be called to court, thats fine but you really do lose the argument when you lower this discourse to one of personal snipes.

You are just being silly

Suspect it was down to ‘he said’ - ‘she said’

However in up to date research carried out by Prof Jane Moncton Smith on ‘intimidate partner homicide’ and the 8 stage timeline

‘Pre relationship history of allegations” of behaviour is a red flag regardless of a conviction (Stage 1)

Stage 2 & 3 are

2. Early relationship behaviours: early commitment
3. Relationship behaviours: risk markers

For me Luke Mitchell ticked these boxes

He’d already reached stage 7 - because we know he carried knives

And Mitchell mentioned suicide - which comes under stage 8 - the final stage

Jane Monkton Smith has a 30-year career in investigating sexual and fatal violence btw

And for anyone who may be interested her book ‘In Control: Dangerous Relationships and How They End in Murder’ may be of interest

[Nicholas]

You can’t form a coherent explanation why this crucial witness wouldn’t be called to court,

Luke Mitchell appears to me to have been ’Thin skinned and confrontational’ - these are warning signs

‘Inability to accept challenge’ - another warning sign

Mitchell was also showing sign of ‘sexual aggression’ at the age of 12 (Stage 3)

‘Threats to suicide or kill’ - further warning signs (Stage 3)

Stage 5 - ‘Concerning behaviours become more frequent’ &  ‘Concerning behaviours become more serious or severe’

Didn’t he also jab Jodi in the leg with a knife

‘Suicide’ is stage 7 - and Luke Mitchell referred to this