Luke Mitchell Theories

[Nicholas]

Sorry I don’t know anything about the Simon Hall case but denial and outright lies are 2 completely different things. I think we may have cross wires,  I just don’t believe Sandra would lie to people with regards to her answers to queries about Lukes case that are put to her or related to this case. I think she provides the information that she has as fact and is clear when it’s her opinion

Also to be clear I do not for a second think Sandra would cover anything up, I just wondered if you did. I think if they found any info that proved Luke’s guilt she would take it on the chin that she was wrong but was only standing up for something she believed, which is all any of us can do.

Anyway yet again we have somehow digressed from the Luke discussion back to Sandra. Let’s not.

I find Gordo’s comment in response to Parky’s here interesting http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452188.html#msg452188 

Parky stated
“Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.
The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment  for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.
All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.

gordo30 aka Gordon Graham
“It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.

Games to who?

And why choose to use the word games

What about paradoxes?

Sandra Lean featured killer Simon Hall case in her first book “No Smoke” alongside killer Luke Mitchell’s case and 5 other killers. It turned out after over a decade he was guilty after all.

Rather than publicly accept Simon Halls guilt she chose to mislead others by attempting to create uncertainty and doubt.

From my point of view, by doing so, she created her own paradox. I believe this was intentional.

“Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, writer, playwright and poet of the Renaissance period. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science. Wikipedia

Worth reading up on Mr Machiavelli imo.

”Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.

Another of his famous quotes being:

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”

For me, the latter quote in particular struck a chord with how Sandra Lean chose to publicly respond when I stated her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html

[Bullseye]

So what time do you think he put the chicken/steak pie in the oven? Which was it, chicken or steak?

And how does that fit into to your timeline?

What reason did he or his mother give for calling the speaking clock?

I think he spoke to his mum sometime between 1615 and 1630 and was told to put the pie in for dinner, no idea if it’s chicken or steaks or what relevance that has sorry?  So the pie was in for around 1630, plenty time to cook and even burn for his mum getting home at 1715. He text Jodi until around 1640, what happened next or where and why he called the speaking clock, only he knows. If you are asking what I think, its one of 2 things, he either called it for some innocent reason, which I did many many times when I was younger, from his home while cooking the dinner. Or he called it to see how long he had before Jodi turned up, if he had this all planned. Also why the pie was burnt as he was not home to watch it and take it out. For me there is not enough evidence on either side to say for sure. So again there’s that reasonable doubt again (for me anyway) again this is something the police might have been able to clear up if they had the phone location log from that call.

[Parky41]

I find Gordo’s comment in response to Parky’s here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452188.html#msg452188 interesting

Parky states:
“Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.
The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment  for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.
All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.

gordo30
“It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.

Games to who?

And why choose to use the word games

What about paradoxes?

Sandra Lean featured the Simon Hall case in her first book “No Smoke” alongside Luke Mitchell’s case and 5 others. It turned out after over a decade he was guilty after all.

Rather than publicly accept Simon Halls guilt she chose to mislead others by attempting to create uncertainty and doubt.

From my point of view, by doing so, she created her own paradox. I believe this was intentional.

“Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, writer, playwright and poet of the Renaissance period. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science. Wikipedia

Worth reading up on Mr Machiavelli imo.

”Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.

Another of his famous quotes being:

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”

For me, the latter quote in particular struck a chord with how Sandra Lean chose to publicly respond when I stated her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html

Thank You Nicholas, for purpose of writing it was imperative that I put something out with intentional play on information.

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”


Whilst studying some of Ms Leans podcast with James English, she highlighted how this is practiced with others. An example being of the school report. The teacher using the word missile to describe half a Mars bar. Ms lean then goes into, an attempt at discrediting the evidence of the eye witness at the top end of the path. (Easthouses end) I'm only going to highlight one area of this for purpose. The police arrived at the witnesses house with a picture of Luke and asked, is that him? Rather than say the police arrived at the witnesses house with pictures of several males (photo ID), asking the witness if any of them were the person she saw that evening?


The points I am writing around, misinformation and selectiveness are many. One or two may not cause much miconception. When you start to go into double figures it contorts the true events grossly.

[Nicholas]

Thank You Nicholas

You replied before I’d had chance to finish.

Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait which sees a person so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals

Someone Machiavellian is sneaky, cunning, and lacking a moral code. The word comes from the Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote the political treatise The Prince in the 1500s, that encourages “the end justifies the means” behavior, especially among politicians.

[Nicholas]

Thank You Nicholas, for purpose of writing it was imperative that I put something out with intentional play on information.

Didn’t Sandra Lean do this as jigsawman as well?

[Nicholas]

Ms lean then goes into, an attempt at discrediting the evidence of the eye witness at the top end of the path. (Easthouses end) I'm only going to highlight one area of this for purpose. The police arrived at the witnesses house with a picture of Luke and asked, is that him? Rather than say the police arrived at the witnesses house with pictures of several males (photo ID), asking the witness if any of them were the person she saw that evening?


The points I am writing around, misinformation and selectiveness are many. One or two may not cause much miconception. When you start to go into double figures it contorts the true events grossly.

Did you also get the sense she was attempting to make a covert plea to this witness?

[Nicholas]

Thank You Nicholas, for purpose of writing it was imperative that I put something out with intentional play on information.

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”


Whilst studying some of Ms Leans podcast with James English, she highlighted how this is practiced with others. An example being of the school report. The teacher using the word missile to describe half a Mars bar. Ms lean then goes into, an attempt at discrediting the evidence of the eye witness at the top end of the path. (Easthouses end) I'm only going to highlight one area of this for purpose. The police arrived at the witnesses house with a picture of Luke and asked, is that him? Rather than say the police arrived at the witnesses house with pictures of several males (photo ID), asking the witness if any of them were the person she saw that evening?


The points I am writing around, misinformation and selectiveness are many. One or two may not cause much miconception. When you start to go into double figures it contorts the true events grossly.

Until such time that the basic fundamental questions of this case have been sufficiently answered and all the facts established with regards Luke Mitchell and indeed his brother Shane’s evidence, calling for a (Hillsborough style) review as Sandra Lean refers to it, is premature.

[Nicholas]

Of course they do, everyone does. I’m not sure what you are referring to? Shane’s personal details have been posted on both forums, which is a total breach of privacy as far as I’m concerned. People can find out all kinds of info if they want to but I don’t agree with personal stuff being posted about anyone, Shane Sandra or Jodi’s family

Sandra Leans cherry picking of witness statements and comments about [Name removed], for example

[Nicholas]

Denial - Refuse to believe something to be true

Lie - deliberate intent to deceive others

Are we doing word play again, none of this matters, everyone can make up there own minds what info or people to trust or not.

Tbh I really don’t want to discus Sandra any more, you don’t believe or trust her, I do I don’t think there is anything more to be said we need to agree to disagree and move back to the topic.

I wonder why some phone messages were recovered and others not, like the ones that really mattered between Luke and Jodi, or maybe the were but as it did not help the prosecution case was not used, I don’t know how the info is shared with the defence in Cases though. I assume there is no way to try getting that info now, far to much time passed

Stop discussing her then

How can everyone make up their own minds if they don’t have all the facts?

You claim to not know about the Simon Hall. Imo its relevance crosses over into the Luke Mitchell case because of Sandra Leans involvement in both cases.

[Rusty]

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/&

Took me an age to find this forum I was talking about being a part off years ago. There may be some relevant information that may be of use. I was always very curious of the user AllanM & ConsiderThis, being the same person that inundated the forum, it is as if they were trying to convince others of lukes innocence. Don't understand why use 2 usernames to do it.

I'm still very much a novice on this case, but thank you again Nicholas for your input.

I think somebody wrote, that no harm giving him a retrial, I disagree, how much public money has been spent on his trial and appeals?

[Rusty]

Not quite worked out how to highlight/quote words  But also said witnesses were mistreated, can I ask, which witnesses and in what way where they mistreated? And where does this information come from that they were mistreated?

[Nicholas]

I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments. From an innocent stance she is proclaiming. Luke told her he was going out to search for Jodi, she told him no way , not at this time of night, he was adamant though so he was doing it, telling his mother that it wasn't up for discussion. She is giving the impression of concern. Why did she not go with him?  Onto the part when the police arrived at the scene. ‘They were trying to get the only child, he was the only child out of the search party, to go back over the wall. They wanted him back over the wall to try and get him to leave his DNA. Odd? Why from that very first instance would you feel the police were out to get you? Then on Newbattle Road she asked the police 'if he was under arrest?' Like myself, no doubt others this does seem suspicious. The police, IMO who first attended that night were probably in shock, perhaps being the worst thing they had ever had to attend. I struggle to believe that within less than a couple of hours the police chose to lie.

Corrine Mitchell stated,

“Luke wanted to take the stand, we wanted him to take the stand, but when you’re 15 you don’t argue with Findlay.”

Yet no problem arguing with “Hitler in a skirt?”

[Bullseye]

Not quite worked out how to highlight/quote words  But also said witnesses were mistreated, can I ask, which witnesses and in what way where they mistreated? And where does this information come from that they were mistreated?

Hey Rusty, yeah that was me, I believe some witnesses had been treated appallingly, again I was referring to lb police handling of the case, the witnesses mainly Luke and his family, that’s from court records, with the judge agreeing the police questioning being outrageous at times. Also from a book I read recently.  But I think this was already raised at one of his appeals though, but not accepted as grounds for a retrial.

I just think it might help stop all the doubt and ongoing question that some people feel have never been answered. I agree a whole lot of money has been spent on this so far but if there is any new evidence found from retesting items etc  that can help show once and for all if it was or was not Luke then it would be worth the money, whatever the outcome was. After all, after 16 years there are still people asking questions and more people taking an interest.  I for one would love to see Luke interviewed, also Shane to answer some questions that had been going around all these years. Get this shut down once and for all, the best way for everyone would just be for Luke to confess.

[Nicholas]

Nicholas, this is another area I have asked about, no reply as yet. From JB forum.

[What's surprising about all of this is that they were all talking from the early hours of July 1st - we know a group of Jodi's extended family members were in Judith's house by 4am and even more gathered in Alice's house later that morning - there was plenty of time to check with each other whether their recollections about June 30th tallied with other people's.] quote Sandra Lean.

Through many areas of study it has been shown that immediate corroboration of events usually happen with the perpetrators of a crime. I found Ms Leans statement above rather enlightening. Have no doubt that Ms Lean knows that people who are trying to cover something up, get their stories together from the onset. Why therefore would she show surprise at all of the Jones' family not discussing their recollection of events within hrs of what must have been a horrific, massive shock. Not that she is trying to imply anything with this type of word play?

It is suggestive of narrow mindedness.

I see nothing suspicious in a close and loving family of this size coming together at such an horrific and utterly shocking time.

[Parky41]

https://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/&

Took me an age to find this forum I was talking about being a part off years ago. There may be some relevant information that may be of use. I was always very curious of the user AllanM & ConsiderThis, being the same person that inundated the forum, it is as if they were trying to convince others of lukes innocence. Don't understand why use 2 usernames to do it.

I'm still very much a novice on this case, but thank you again Nicholas for your input.

I think somebody wrote, that no harm giving him a retrial, I disagree, how much public money has been spent on his trial and appeals?

Interesting. AllanM? Study this site properly when I finish off area, presently working on. Did Ms Lean state categorically that she had only used Jigsawman, Angeline and other forms of her real name, S Lean, Sandra, Dr? Could simply be someone copying her 'word for word' repeatedly. Who ever it is, for someone not personally involved in any way, shows passive-aggressive behaviour.