Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.  (Read 9094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« on: August 15, 2012, 02:00:34 AM »
Just to let you know Mat, the photograph which has been posted on the blue forum as depicting Luke Mitchell on the day of the murder is yet another misrepresentation of the facts.

The photo (reproduced below) is actually a Polaroid taken by Lothian & Borders Police several weeks after the murder of Jodi Jones and used in a line-up with other photos for the benefit of potential witness identification.

This photo does not relate to the day of the murder and the taking of it raises many questions as to police procedures.



Luke Mitchell in August 2003.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 08:54:19 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.

Offline ActualMat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Newbie
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2012, 03:03:29 PM »
Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2012, 03:47:52 PM »
The obvious difference between Andrina failing to identify Luke in court and Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh managing to do so is simply explained by logic. Andrina didn't see Luke that day but Messrs Fleming and Walsh did.

If only one of the women had seen Luke lurking around at a wooden gate on the main road just a few yards from where Jodi was slaughtered then. I would have been concerned but both women saw him and were able to give a near perfect description of him and how he was dressed.  The other bit of evidence which falls nicely into place is that at this very moment in time ie 5.42pm on 30 June 2003, Luke Mitchell was not seen where he said he was.  It was only some 10 minutes later that he was seen further along the road as he attempted to create an alibi.

There is no way two boys who looked similar in appearance and who wore the same clothes could have been in the same area at the exact same time.  There only ever was one lad and his name is Luke Mitchell.


« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 09:12:49 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

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2012, 04:45:56 PM »
Thanks, John.

Could I ask you a few questions John - if you have the time. I seem to be having a few questions thrown at me and I'm in the deep end before I even have chance to read up on a case - which usually would take 3-4 weeks before you can feel comfortable enough to comment.

This DNA evidence - is there much to it?
The brothers alibi. To me there is a big change of story there.

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

This is just a short synopsis from memory.

I believe if there ever was a murder case where the police were grossly incompetent that it is this case. The SOCO female officer sent to the scene was so fat that she couldn't get over the wall and so retreated leaving sampling to much later.  The Victim's body was not covered in order to protect potential forensic clues from being lost to the elements. The police allowed a local who later became a suspect to traipse all around the murder scene with his dogs on the basis that they could track the perpetrator.  They allowed the bin men to empty all the bins without checking the contents.  The pathologist who attended the scene did so when it was far too late to properly determine the time of death.

As far as DNA is concerned and this is most surprising, none belonging to Jodi was found on Luke and none belonging to Luke was found on Jodi even though they had been together at school earlier that day.  There was a partial profile obtained which could have been from Luke but in any event could have been there completely innocently.  DNA was found at the scene from swabs taken from the t-shirt which Jodi had worn. This DNA was recovered from a sperm stain on the t-shirt. This was explained away as the DNA belonged to Jodi's sisters boyfriend and it was the sisters t-shirt which Jodi had borrowed earlier.  Several other profiles both full and partial were obtained from the victim and her clothing but never matched to anyone.

The so-called alibi is very weak and to be honest, disturbing.  Luke's elder brother Shane stated in evidence that he was the first one home that afternoon and that he went to his bedroom where he surfed porn sites on his computer.  He told the court that he would never do that if there was anyone else at home.  He said that he kept the bedroom door open so that he could hear his mother or brother come home.  He stated that he never saw or heard anyone in the house that day until his mother came in at 5.15pm.  Internet records established that his computer was used between 4.50 and 5.15pm.  When asked again in court about his brothers presence in the house he stated that he could have been there but he didn't see him. It should also be noted that when Shane went to the police station to make a statement initially that he failed to mention his brother being in the house. After speaking with his mother he went back later and changed his statement saying that he had forgotten that his brother had made dinner for the family that afternoon but he still hadn't seen him.  When asked about this omission at trial he said that he had a bad memory caused by drug abuse!

For Luke's part, he did not give evidence, his mother now says that he was badly represented by Donald Findlay QC.  In his police statement he says that he arrived home after his brother who was upstairs. He says that he had earlier telephoned his mothers caravan business and spoke with his gran who advised him to take a chicken pie out of the freezer for dinner.  He stated that he made dinner but burned the pie.  He stated that his mother returned from work at 5.15pm and helped him finish off making dinner. He also stated that Shane came down and got his dinner, moaned a bit about the burnt pie and returned back upstairs.

For the mothers part, Corinne Mitchell gave a statement and also testified at the trial. She told of returning home at 5.15pm to find Luke brandishing some broccoli.  She also says that Shane came down for his dinner before returning back up to his bedroom. She stated that Luke left the family home after 5.30pm although I have seen posts by Corinne which puts this as late as 5.40pm...remember the sighting by Messrs Fleming and Walsh half a mile away at 5.42pm!

It should also be noted that both Shane and Corinne were charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice but these charges were later withdrawn. During the trial Corinne was also warned by the prosecutor of the consequences of committing perjury as she testified about Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.

The alibi is certainly a problem for the defence and one which will be difficult to overcome. I have often wondered why, if Luke was in the family home that afternoon, was necessary for Shane to make such a song and dance about it?   If he was there, why not just say so? >@@(*&)


 

« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 11:17:36 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.

Offline ActualMat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Newbie
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2012, 04:55:13 PM »
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess somene told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my que to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM »
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!
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.

Offline Joanne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2012, 06:25:53 PM »
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2012, 06:40:55 PM »
Its seems you think rather highly of yourself mat as SL did not post simply to rebuke your interest or to simply highlight this case. The fact that it continues to be eroded by simple misrepresentation by the owner of this site stands to give "PR" as you state to the case, its what we strive for as having the case in the publics mind can only help.

John took it upon himself to try and belittle the blue forum again by highlighting our misrepresentation as he puts it but once again he has been shown to be so far out when it comes to this crime that its a wonder people like yourself even begin to listen to him.

It has now been corrected and as a matter of fact to show how wrong he was the picture he went on about being 9.5 months old was in fact  6 weeks old. I do wonder why he continues when he knows very little of the crime in question

John 2/10 must do better.

You lot are so transparent and deffo so predictable.  If you cannot provide any evidence of Mitchell's innocence then go on the offensive and attack everyone else. Gordo, nugnug and Sandra L are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to think I once fell for their crap.  The problem for them is that I know the case inside out, I know their flaws and weaknesses and I know when they are promoting bullshit as they are over on the blue forum.

Let's face it Mitchell's entire campaign depends on blaming other innocent bystanders for the crime. I have no doubt the CCRC will reject their Application because it is based on nothing more than wild theories and supposition.  If Luke Mitchell had one reliable witness who could place him at or near his home at the time of the murder he would be a free man today. The other big question of course is how a school boy who always walked home with his peers just so happened to become invisible on that particular day?

Another point worth mentioning is that Mitchell had used his knife previously to threaten a young girl and put her in fear of her life. Was this event a practice run coming just weeks before he cut Jodi's throat for real and cut it so brutally that it was nearly severed?

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

 
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.

Offline ActualMat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Newbie
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2012, 09:00:36 PM »
Its seems you think rather highly of yourself mat as SL did not post simply to rebuke your interest or to simply highlight this case. The fact that it continues to be eroded by simple misrepresentation by the owner of this site stands to give "PR" as you state to the case, its what we strive for as having the case in the public mind can only help.

John took it upon himself to try and belittle the blue forum again by highlighting our misrepresentation as he puts it but once again he has been shown to be so far out when it comes to this crime that its a wonder people like yourself even begin to listen to him.


You lot are so transparent and deffo so predictable.  If you cannot provide any evidence of Mitchell's innocence then go on the offensive and attack everyone else. Gordo, nugnug and Sandra L are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to think I once fell for their crap.  The problem for them is that I know the case inside out, I know their flaws and weaknesses and I know when they are promoting bullshit as they are over on the blue forum.

Let's face it Mitchell's entire campaign depends on blaming other innocent bystanders for the crime. I have no doubt the CCRC will reject their Application because it is based on nothing more than wild theories and supposition.  If Luke Mitchell had one reliable witness who could place him at or near his home at the time of the murder he would be a free man today. The other big question of course is how a school boy who always walked home with his peers just so happened to become invisible on that particular day?

Another point worth mentioning is that Mitchell had used his knife previously to threaten a young girl and put her in fear of her life. Was this event a practice run coming just weeks before he cut Jodi's throat for real and cut it so brutally that it was nearly severed?

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

Just to know that Sandra Lean is the one behind the website tells you all you need to know and will ever need to know. The fact that she's too busy with so many cases shows the thoroughness that she approaches her cases with. I am not shocked by her comments or by her delusion of grandeur. She probably hasn't had the time to fully inform herself of the case - which is the same rubbish they throw at me - since she is so busy with multiple cases.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 09:25:41 PM by John »

Offline ActualMat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Newbie
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2012, 09:01:52 PM »
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2012, 09:21:11 PM »
As far as the multiple cases are concerned the vast majority are stagnant in the water.   They are only window dressing for the WAP site, a means to an end.  Most of the people who have put their trust in WAP will be disappointed in the end because not even super woman could get them off the hook.  They are fighting a lost cause with one hand tied behind their backs.

You only need to look at who is actually running WAP.  An unemployed former mussel farmer from Lerwick whose only claim to fame is that he was found 'not proven' of molesting his ex wife and of murdering their baby daughter in a double arson attack at their home...I ask you?  Would you even buy a second hand car from such a clown?
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.

Offline devils advocate

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2012, 09:24:54 PM »
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*

In that case it is definately going downhill fast from now on.  Grahame reminds me of the master of the Titanic, hopeful to the bitter end and then content to go down with his ship.   8)-)))

Offline puglove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3092
  • Over 32 THOUSAND posts of lazy, ignorant bigotry.
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2012, 09:52:42 PM »
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess someone told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my cue to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.

Too true but lawyer is stretching it a bit!  I can tell you it was nugnug (Billy Middleton) who told her.

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!

Yeah, of course she was told I was posting about the case - why else would she show up there so suddenly. Doh!

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*

In that case it is definately going downhill fast from now on.  Grahame reminds me of the master of the Titanic, hopeful to the bitter end and then content to go down with his ship.   8)-)))

Master Bates?    >@@(*&)
Bamber's hot new team. Mr. Kipling, Miss Piggy, and a fat bloke. It's all looking very hopeful.

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2012, 11:23:14 PM »
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

She was a friend of the Mitchell family Joanne, she just sort of got involved.  Then along came Middleton with his case and she got involved with him too and formed the Wrongly Accused Person Org.  The rest as they say is history.   8)--))
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

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11848
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2012, 11:32:16 PM »
And it is worth pointing out to Gordo that the error in relation to the photo originated on the blue forum where it was wrongly claimed that the Luke Mitchell mugshot was taken on the day of the murder.

I didn't see clueless OnceSaid or anyone else rush to correct the error?

So much for accuracy and completeness but then again it is the Jeremy Bamber forum where fantasies abound.  Sandra Lean should feel right at home there!   @)(++(*

« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 11:39:27 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.