Luke Mitchell Theories

[faithlilly]

If, if, if - If it swung your way the other way,  many more lives could have been lost with a killer being set free amongst society, if, if and if again.

It is important. Why else would you have tried to hoodwink those who follow the case with your ‘strong majority’ hokum?

[Parky41]

It is important. Why else would you have tried to hoodwink those who follow the case with your ‘strong majority’ hokum?

That was not what the If was about though, was it now!

The only people responsible for attempting to "hoodwink" the public at large are LM and his chief enablers. Little old me on an internet forum, a mere blip in cyber space, isn't that how it goes? Sharing information from other source is in no way attributable to trying to "hoodwink" anyone.

You see Faith, I would need to know that the information is wrong by direct source, if it turns out to be wrong I would adapt to that. There would still be no wilful attempt at hoodwinking anyone, with anything. Unlike your ego, those enablers, who instead of saying that information they adopted was wrong, they still manipulate and try to worm their way out of it all. They dig their heels in and double down!

I have adopted stuff from them, like many others. I have adapted from direct source (transcripts) errors in previous posts I have made. Here I am holding my hands up, admitting that I too was foolish enough to take on board some stuff directly from Ms Lean and co. More fool me. I will say the exact same if that direction turns out to be completely false. But we will have to wait and see what was actually said before that can be ascertained.

 

[faithlilly]

That was not what the If was about though, was it now!

The only people responsible for attempting to "hoodwink" the public at large are LM and his chief enablers. Little old me on an internet forum, a mere blip in cyber space, isn't that how it goes? Sharing information from other source is in no way attributable to trying to "hoodwink" anyone.

You see Faith, I would need to know that the information is wrong by direct source, if it turns out to be wrong I would adapt to that. There would still be no wilful attempt at hoodwinking anyone, with anything. Unlike your ego, those enablers, who instead of saying that information they adopted was wrong, they still manipulate and try to worm their way out of it all. They dig their heels in and double down!

I have adopted stuff from them, like many others. I have adapted from direct source (transcripts) errors in previous posts I have made. Here I am holding my hands up, admitting that I too was foolish enough to take on board some stuff directly from Ms Lean and co. More fool me. I will say the exact same if that direction turns out to be completely false. But we will have to wait and see what was actually said before that can be ascertained.

Didn’t you know that only a simple majority was needed in Scots law to bring in a guilty verdict?  That the judge would have known that so would never have directed in the way you claimed?

Don’t you do your own research?

[Parky41]

Didn’t you know that only a simple majority was needed in Scots law to bring in a guilty verdict?  That the judge would have known that so would never have directed in the way you claimed?

Don’t you do your own research?

As said, we will await and see what the direction was, the actual wording, word for word.

[faithlilly]

As said, we will await and see what the direction was, the actual wording, word for word.

Who was your source?

[Chris_Halkides]

As said, we will await and see what the direction was, the actual wording, word for word.

The onus is on the people who asserted that it was a strong majority to demonstrate that this was so.  They have fallen well short.

[Parky41]

The onus is on the people who asserted that it was a strong majority to demonstrate that this was so.  They have fallen well short.

As have you Chris, repeatedly may I add.

[faithlilly]

As have you Chris, repeatedly may I add.

Chris of course is correct. By insulting him it simply looks like more deflection from yourself.

Do you have a source or was it simply made up?

[Parky41]

Chris of course is correct. By insulting him it simply looks like more deflection from yourself.

Do you have a source or was it simply made up?

Chris as per is not correct. But nice of you to feel the need to speak for him.

[faithlilly]

Chris as per is not correct. But nice of you to feel the need to speak for him.

The question that you’re avoiding is

Do you have a source for your ‘majority verdict’ claim?

[Parky41]

The question that you’re avoiding is

Do you have a source for your ‘majority verdict’ claim?

_{https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sandra+lean}

I'll make a deal with you Faith. Pop over to the above channel, when you have finished watching every minute of each, applied demands for source/cites then move on to the books. When you have finished applying demands for source/cites around those then move on to Mr Forbes and do the same. Then work your way through the elite ilk spouting all sorts and do the same again.

I'll see you around 2026/27 then I will refresh your memory to my sources - That's the deal. Lay of the hypocrisy and misplaced focus and do it where it actually counts!

[Venturi Swirl]

_{https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sandra+lean}

I'll make a deal with you Faith. Pop over to the above channel, when you have finished watching every minute of each, applied demands for source/cites then move on to the books. When you have finished applying demands for source/cites around those then move on to Mr Forbes and do the same. Then work your way through the elite ilk spouting all sorts and do the same again.

I'll see you around 2026/27 then I will refresh your memory to my sources - That's the deal. Lay of the hypocrisy and misplaced focus and do it where it actually counts!

From the 20 minutes or so of the SL video I watched it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that the parole board has been asked to consider a possible offence committed by Mitchell prior to his arrest and conviction for murder, or did I misunderstand (likely as I was drifting in and out of sleep at the time)?

[Parky41]

From the 20 minutes or so of the SL video I watched it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that the parole board has been asked to consider a possible offence committed by Mitchell prior to his arrest and conviction for murder, or did I misunderstand (likely as I was drifting in and out of sleep at the time)?

It makes absolutely no sense. - That there is some type of action taken place but LM has not been told what? She applies that it can't have been whilst in prison as he has done no wrong? That it can't have been pre trial or it would have been dealt with then? Don't believe for one moment that whatever may be taken place has not been disclosed to LM himself?

I noted a hardened criminal had made comment, where he himself placed it as being "unheard of" I did reply and say, maybe that is because all is not as it seems, that one is not being given a truthful, accurate version of whatever is taken place? 'IF' there is actually anything at all of course?

[Venturi Swirl]

Also Lean is wrong to say you don't apply for parole (unless it's different in Scotland).  In England although your right to be considered for parole is automatic you do still have to fill in an application form
https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris as per is not correct. But nice of you to feel the need to speak for him.

When challenged, I give citations or modify my claims, as appropriate.  The people who assert that the judge required a strong majority have not provided a citation or modified/retracted their claims.