Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.  (Read 9506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puglove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Total likes: 72
  • Over 33 THOUSAND posts of lazy, ignorant bigotry.
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2012, 01:05:01 AM »
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.
There was an old woman called P@
Who worshipped a murdering tw@
She typed all day long
Getting everything wrong
Then her pussyc@ sh@ in her h@.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2012, 03:36:09 AM »
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.

But he later made a second statement and changed the time he returned home to nearly 5pm.

The trial hears that an examination of Shane's computer revealed that it had been used to view pornographic websites between 4.53pm and 5.16pm.

Shane tells the court he gave a number of statements to police in the weeks following Jodi's death.

Advocate Depute Alan Turnbull QC reads from the statement given on July 3 where Shane tells police he returned home from work at 3.40pm.

Shane says that he cannot remember what he said. He agrees he made a second statement on July 7 but he could not remember exactly how it came about.

He says: 'It is a long time ago and a lot has passed. I believe I wanted to make a second statement because there were errors in my first one.'

In his new statement he gave the time he returned home as 'between 4.55pm and 5pm.'

Shane also agrees with the Advocate Depute that he was questioned by police on April 14 last year, the same day his brother was arrested.

Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'
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 Angelo222

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2012, 10:29:35 AM »
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.

The answer to this is that his older brother by 7 years had a knife collection, something which Luke undoubtedly tried to emulate.  The family also went camping often and the larger knife was used for various things associated with that activity. Corinne Mitchell has said that she didn't allow him free access to the Bowie knife and kept it hidden under a bag of dry dog feed.  The living in squalor and the refusal to change his clothing regularly has been put down to his age but raises many questions concerning parental care.  The buying and selling of cannabis and the smoking of it by a 14 year old child also raises many questions.  The urine in the bottles in the bedroom only started after the murder and has been explained as a psychological reaction to the intrusion and trauma he suffered following the discovery of Jodis remains.

Luke was a spoiled child and Corinne has excused this by reason that she tried to make it up to him for the loss of his father from the parental home.  Whether she was successful is another question?
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 - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2012, 10:57:51 AM »
I suggested some time ago that the Mitchell's offer a reward for information but this was received with some hostility.  I always wondered at that reaction, anyone who was genuinely interested in procuring witnesses would do all and anything to achieve that end but not Corinne Mitchell. They rolled out all ther old excuses why offering a reward would not be appropriate but I still fail to see how any of these reasons could ever trump the need to get an innocent lad out of prison.  If you had something to hide however, that would be another story!    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.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2012, 02:42:17 PM »
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2012, 03:49:52 PM »
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!

But that is where you are so wrong.  The offer of a reward in several of our cases had the desired effect.  That's more than I would say a couple of junk science polygraph tests and blaming every other male in Easthouses and surrounds have brought to the Luke Mitchell case.  Terry Mullins must be raking it in now, he should team up with that other showman Derek Acorah.  Oh I forgot, Acorah was revealed as a fraud by Sky TV.
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.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2012, 04:03:29 PM »
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

That junk science happens to be at this moment under research as to it used with allowing child abuser's and rapist's from coming into our society., something I would have thought would have had your utmost backing!

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2012, 04:19:05 PM »
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

That junk science happens to be at this moment under research as to it used with allowing child abuser's and rapist's from coming into our society., something I would have thought would have had your utmost backing!

Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

In any event I have issued a formal challenge to any polygraph tester including Mr Mullins.  I can prove your science is fake! 

I wonder how many will put their hats in the ring or their careers on the line?
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.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2012, 04:43:00 PM »
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

That's your assessment and I have to agree, if however it was found to be of use even to those who believe as you do that it a junk science and therefore nothing to fear and proves helpful in allowing offenders the chance to be intergrated back into society then does it fail to be a junk science.

 What fear should there be to offenders who feel they have been rehabilitated in taking a test that may see the freed from the confinement? Fear would surely equal guilt!

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2012, 04:48:39 PM »
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

That's your assessment and I have to agree, if however it was found to be of use even to those who believe as you do that it a junk science and therefore nothing to fear and proves helpful in allowing offenders the chance to be intergrated back into society then does it fail to be a junk science.

 What fear should there be to offenders who feel they have been rehabilitated in taking a test that may see the freed from the confinement? Fear would surely equal guilt!

Because the test is flawed.  You will have liars passing and those who give honest answers failing.  That in itself is totally unacceptable.

We will see how many so-called experts are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

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 - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2012, 01:53:58 AM »
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.

Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )

Here are two examples from wrongly accused. I have changed the persons name with identified male. Now this has been pointed out before so look carefully, In the semen sample Jodi is there first, in the blood sample identified male is there first. Now these samples mean that amongst the profile of Jodi Jones blood was DNA belonging to a male, these were in fact both semen. The sample of semen can not be Jodi Jones!!!! This is what I mean about being careful. The semen full profile has been known since the beginning of the trial, there is no new evidence here that there was also blood.

Bottom line...don't be fooled by deceptive descriptions.    8(0(*
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 01:55:57 AM 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 - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2012, 02:05:42 AM »
It should also be noted that Steven Kelly's alibi for earlier that day was by his father, now deceased. Jodi's sister Janine met up with him later and they were together all evening. 

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 02:07:39 AM 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 James

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2012, 02:16:09 AM »
The Mitchells and Sandra Lean have had ten years to concoct some sort of cock and bull story to back up their innocence claims.   The more I read about Sandra Lean the more ridiculous she sounds to me.   @)(++(*

It should also be noted that Steven Kelly's alibi for earlier that day was by his father, now deceased. Jodi's sister Janine met up with him later and they were together all evening. 

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2012, 02:29:00 AM »
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2012, 02:51:35 AM »
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?
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.