UK Justice Forum

Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones. Case currently being reviewed by the SCCRC. Confidential Hotline No 07092 984231. => Topic started by: TheArmchairDetective on June 08, 2019, 11:52:40 AM

Title: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 08, 2019, 11:52:40 AM
Let me start with this:

The knife pouch with ‘666, JJ 1989-2003, The Finest Day I Ever Had, Was When Tomorrow Never Came’.

It’s probably the most controversial and damning piece of evidence against him.  Only a psychopath would keep something as morbid.  This could be argued as a trophy, suggesting he is in fact proud that she is dead.  Only a psychopath capable of being behind such a murder would inscribe ‘666’ on this too.  This is clearly a nod to Satan, which is not surprising in this case as Mitchell has shown in the past some unusual interest in this.

Jodi’s favourite song lyric - The Finest Day I Ever I Ever Had Was When Tomorrow Never Came.  Only someone with low self-esteem and/or depression would view such a lyric in a meaningful way.  This lyric suggests she may have wanted to die.

IMO, Mitchell sensed she was weak and honoured this wish for her, but I am not entirely sure exactly how he managed to avoid detection. This aspect is perplexing.  However, I have a feeling he stood with his arms folded whilst others carried it out.  IMO, Mitchell met Jodi on the path, coaxed her over the wall to smoke cannabis where she was ambushed by other males waiting at the other side.  Why or how Mitchell had the means or the power to engineer and orchestrate such a plan is not for me to comment, but keeping a trophy of her in such a morbid way does not sit with me.

I do not disagree that the Police investigation was a circus.  I do not disagree with many of the points Sandra Lean has made with regards to this case, particularly those in her new book.  However, I am not actually that surprised a Jury convicted him.  If my girlfriend or wife was murdered by a baseball bat, the last thing I would want to see is a baseball bat, let alone owning one and writing her name on it.

Mitchell engineered this, and so happened to do it without leaving a trace of DNA.  He managed this because he wasn’t actually the one who carried it out.  I suspect it was others, and maybe either another unaccounted for individual or two.  Nonetheless, I do not believe Mitchell is an innocent party. 

He engineered the killing.  He is as guilty as the ones who carried it out.   It was a nod to Satan.

Does anyone else have a theory?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 05:21:58 PM
Let me start with this:

The knife pouch with ‘666, JJ 1989-2003, The Finest Day I Ever Had, Was When Tomorrow Never Came’.

It’s probably the most controversial and damning piece of evidence against him.  Only a psychopath would keep something as morbid.  This could be argued as a trophy, suggesting he is in fact proud that she is dead.  Only a psychopath capable of being behind such a murder would inscribe ‘666’ on this too.  This is clearly a nod to Satan, which is not surprising in this case as Mitchell has shown in the past some unusual interest in this.

Jodi’s favourite song lyric - The Finest Day I Ever I Ever Had Was When Tomorrow Never Came.  Only someone with low self-esteem and/or depression would view such a lyric in a meaningful way.  This lyric suggests she may have wanted to die.

IMO, Mitchell sensed she was weak and honoured this wish for her, but I am not entirely sure exactly how he managed to avoid detection. This aspect is perplexing.  However, I have a feeling he stood with his arms folded whilst others carried it out.  IMO, Mitchell met Jodi on the path, coaxed her over the wall to smoke cannabis where she was ambushed by other males waiting at the other side.  Why or how Mitchell had the means or the power to engineer and orchestrate such a plan is not for me to comment, but keeping a trophy of her in such a morbid way does not sit with me.

I do not disagree that the Police investigation was a circus.  I do not disagree with many of the points Sandra Lean has made with regards to this case, particularly those in her new book.  However, I am not actually that surprised a Jury convicted him.  If my girlfriend or wife was murdered by a baseball bat, the last thing I would want to see is a baseball bat, let alone owning one and writing her name on it.

Mitchell engineered this, and so happened to do it without leaving a trace of DNA.  He managed this because he wasn’t actually the one who carried it out.  I suspect it was others, and maybe either another unaccounted for individual or two.  Nonetheless, I do not believe Mitchell is an innocent party. 

He engineered the killing.  He is as guilty as the ones who carried it out.   It was a nod to Satan.

Does anyone else have a theory?

Welcome to the forum TAD, I have edited you interesting initial post in order to comply with specific forum rules.

My own theory is that Mitchell did indeed murder Jodi in a moment of insanity and was very lucky not to have been discovered doing so. He was seen however by two women in a passing car standing looking very suspicious by the side of the main road. This location just happens to be where the public footpath leading to the spot where Jodi's body was found emerges and would be the route Mitchell would have taken had he been returning home via an off-road route to avoid being detected. There is much more to all this off course including the refusal of his older brother to vouch for his presence in the family home when the murder occurred.  Luke Mitchell claimed that he was home making tea yet his brother Shane testified that he was home alone after returning from work.  Bottom line is that they both can't be right!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Myster on June 08, 2019, 06:14:40 PM
Have a listen to what Corrine Mitchell recently had to say... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: John on June 08, 2019, 06:49:06 PM
Have a listen to what Corrine Mitchell recently had to say... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4)

Thanx Myster.  I think Corrine has had plenty of time to polish her tale and can use some choice language when it suits..  She claims to be Luke's alibi but she was at work when the murder was committed and she had no way of knowing what he was up to. She also denies that there was any evidence against him yet he was seen by two independent witnesses at the end of the path leading to the murder scene, he denied being there. As for the polygraph, well, anyone who believes in that fake science has got to be desperate. Terry Mullins does quite nicely out of it as did Jeremy Kyle up to a few weeks ago. Corrine paints an idyllic scene of family normality and conveniently leaves out all reference to Luke's history of knife violence towards other young girls or to his cannabis dealing activities. According to Corrine Mitchell, her son was a normal well adjusted young man (laughs). She claims that they were a normal law abiding family...hello!!  ...he was flogging cannabis to children ffs!!

It seems that everyone else were the bad guys but Luke Mitchell was the saint. Nothing could be further from the truth IMO. I once gave Corrine Mitchell the opportunity to answer very specific questions on another forum about the night Jodi was murdered after she publicly volunteered to do so but she backed out when she realised she was digging a hole for herself. That says it all really...it seems that denial has become a way of life for her.


PS.  One would have thought that James English could at the very least have spelt the murdered girl's name correctly!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 09, 2019, 03:24:53 PM
I have to agree - Corrine Mitchell left a lot out, but it has to be expected.  Her son was convicted of one of the highest profile murder cases in the UK.  She’s not going to tarnish his reputation anymore than it already is.

All the omissions are pretty relevant to be honest.  The fact he was sent to a psychiatrist after writing sadistic essays; the school jotters with 666 and references to hell; the knife pouch with Jodi’s name etc.  It’s no surprise that the Jury convicted him.

The lack if DNA is alarming, and probably impossible.  This suggests someone else did it, but keeping the pouch suggests he was proud of it.  He was glad that it happened.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Angelo222 on June 09, 2019, 03:51:46 PM
I have to agree - Corrine Mitchell left a lot out, but it has to be expected.  Her son was convicted of one of the highest profile murder cases in the UK.  She’s not going to tarnish his reputation anymore than it already is.

All the omissions are pretty relevant to be honest.  The fact he was sent to a psychiatrist after writing sadistic essays; the school jotters with 666 and references to hell; the knife pouch with Jodi’s name etc.  It’s no surprise that the Jury convicted him.

The lack if DNA is alarming, and probably impossible.  This suggests someone else did it, but keeping the pouch suggests he was proud of it.  He was glad that it happened.

Welcome to the forum. I am not that well read on this case but I do recall the fact that Luke Mitchell was out in the woods for several hours after the murder so he had plenty of time to get muddied up and destroy any evidence.  The unexplained differences in testimony between Luke and his brother are baffling too, you could drive a coach and horses through their story imo.

Are you aware that Jodi was almost decapitated in the attack such was the visciousness of it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 09, 2019, 05:04:22 PM
Many thanks.

He was in the woods? Where abouts? I know a knife was discovered by a member of the public in 2010 on waste-ground 0.5 miles from the locus, but the police appeared unable to extract DNA from this.  The knife had the name Luke on it which, given his girlfriend was murdered by a knife, is highly suspicious
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Angelo222 on June 09, 2019, 09:57:00 PM
Many thanks.

He was in the woods? Where abouts? I know a knife was discovered by a member of the public in 2010 on waste-ground 0.5 miles from the locus, but the police appeared unable to extract DNA from this.  The knife had the name Luke on it which, given his girlfriend was murdered by a knife, is highly suspicious

Woods around Newbattle Abbey College I believe.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 09, 2019, 10:47:37 PM
Really? I wasn’t aware of that.  Was that ever published in the media? I wonder if this is where the ‘Luke’ knife was found.

I also wasn’t aware she was nearly decapitated.  The knife would have to have been quite large in that case. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 10, 2019, 01:47:41 PM
Really? I wasn’t aware of that.  Was that ever published in the media? I wonder if this is where the ‘Luke’ knife was found.

I also wasn’t aware she was nearly decapitated.  The knife would have to have been quite large in that case.

You would think that would mean quite a lot of blood on the killer but the witnesses that saw "Luke" after the killing didn't describe him as bloody and none of Jodi's blood was found at Luke's house. (This is all from memory, and I haven't read into the case for a few years!)

I wasn't aware of that knife being found but as police wouldn't say if it matched the wounds inflicted, can we assume it was not the murder weapon? I feel they would have been quite vocal about it had they been able to match the knife to the crime.

Still feels like an unsafe conviction to me.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 10, 2019, 02:16:02 PM
Yeah, I think if Luke was the killer, there would have been traces of blood found somewhere, whether that would be on his own person, personal belongings, or that of Jodi herself.  I think it is reasonable to assume that it would be probably impossible to commit such an act without leaving an evidence trail.

I also agree with you 100% about the Police being vocal about finding the knife.  If the police found the knife and were sure it matched the wounds and indeed belonged to, or was used by Mitchell, they’d have been extremely vocal about this as it would have confirmed their circumstantial case.  The fact that nothing more came of this knife tends to suggest otherwise.

The conviction is unsafe.  Do you think it’s possible someone else carried it out, albeit Mitchell was maybe more of a backseat driver? Could he have at the very least lured Jodi to the area where he knew others would be waiting?

This is what I feel is the case.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 10, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Yeah, I think if Luke was the killer, there would have been traces of blood found somewhere, whether that would be on his own person, personal belongings, or that of Jodi herself.  I think it is reasonable to assume that it would be probably impossible to commit such an act without leaving an evidence trail.

I also agree with you 100% about the Police being vocal about finding the knife.  If the police found the knife and were sure it matched the wounds and indeed belonged to, or was used by Mitchell, they’d have been extremely vocal about this as it would have confirmed their circumstantial case.  The fact that nothing more came of this knife tends to suggest otherwise.

The conviction is unsafe.  Do you think it’s possible someone else carried it out, albeit Mitchell was maybe more of a backseat driver? Could he have at the very least lured Jodi to the area where he knew others would be waiting?

This is what I feel is the case.

I think it's possible but unlikely. I think after all these years Luke would have mentioned it.

The main problem for me is the investigation was so awful that we will never really know the truth. Things that always stick with me though are that Jodi's family members, that were with Luke when he found the body, all changed their stories of what happened that night, all to make Luke seem more guilty.

Also, the witness who testified about hearing the noises behind the wall also mentioned the moped being parked at the exact spot at the wall where people climbed over. The two guys on the moped's behaviour after the crime was quite suspect but they were cleared as suspects very early, when all attention was on Luke. That's not to say they did it but they should surely have been considered as suspects just as carefully as Luke. But as I said earlier, this is all from memory, I may be wrong in some of the details now.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: John on June 11, 2019, 09:47:39 AM
Yeah, I think if Luke was the killer, there would have been traces of blood found somewhere, whether that would be on his own person, personal belongings, or that of Jodi herself.  I think it is reasonable to assume that it would be probably impossible to commit such an act without leaving an evidence trail.

I also agree with you 100% about the Police being vocal about finding the knife.  If the police found the knife and were sure it matched the wounds and indeed belonged to, or was used by Mitchell, they’d have been extremely vocal about this as it would have confirmed their circumstantial case.  The fact that nothing more came of this knife tends to suggest otherwise.

The conviction is unsafe.  Do you think it’s possible someone else carried it out, albeit Mitchell was maybe more of a backseat driver? Could he have at the very least lured Jodi to the area where he knew others would be waiting?

This is what I feel is the case.

The terrible reality is that Jodi was not only murdered by having her throat cut but the killer set about mutilating her body. One can only but wonder what kind of depraved mind does such a deed.

If I recall correctly, the knife which was found was not connected to Luke Mitchell.

The police theory was that Mitchell met Jodi at the V in the path wall and she confronted him about two-timing her with another girl. They claim he snapped when challenged and hit her over the head with a piece of wood as she walked away before standing over her and cutting her throat.  LM was a loner, I don't believe anyone else was involved, the two louts with the moped passed the scene of the murder on the opposite side of the wall, they were most likely totally unaware of what had gone on.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 11, 2019, 10:40:25 AM
The terrible reality is that Jodi was not only murdered by having her throat cut but the killer set about mutilating her body. One can only but wonder what kind of depraved mind does such a deed.

If I recall correctly, the knife which was found was not connected to Luke Mitchell.

The police theory was that Mitchell met Jodi at the V in the path wall and she confronted him about two-timing her with another girl. They claim he snapped when challenged and hit her over the head with a piece of wood as she walked away before standing over her and cutting her throat.  LM was a loner, I don't believe anyone else was involved, the two louts with the moped passed the scene of the murder on the opposite side of the wall, they were most likely totally unaware of what had gone on.

I'll reiterate that I'm going by memory here and so may be wrong but as I recall the moped was seen parked at the V at the wall at around the time of the murder without either of the passengers being spotted around it. To my mind that would indicate that they had gone over the wall. Wasn't one of the "louts" related to Jodi too? And didn't one of them dramatically change their appearance (cutting off his own hair??) when the description of possible suspect was released? Sorry my memory isn't great! I'd love to know how these two were cleared so definitively and so quickly (before the forensics came back - again... if memory serves!)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: John on June 11, 2019, 11:02:34 AM
I'll reiterate that I'm going by memory here and so may be wrong but as I recall the moped was seen parked at the V at the wall at around the time of the murder without either of the passengers being spotted around it. To my mind that would indicate that they had gone over the wall. Wasn't one of the "louts" related to Jodi too? And didn't one of them dramatically change their appearance (cutting off his own hair??) when the description of possible suspect was released? Sorry my memory isn't great! I'd love to know how these two were cleared so definitively and so quickly (before the forensics came back - again... if memory serves!)

Your recollection is correct, their conduct was very suspicious and they were excluded too quickly from the investigation IMO.

Lothian & Borders Police were totally out of their depth in this murder enquiry. In fact, the forensics lady was so overweight apparently that she couldn't get over the wall initially to do her job. As for messing up the crimescene and failing to protect it from the elements, well that is another story of incompetence.

Mitchell (14) was interviewed without a lawyer present yet none of this apparently counts for anything in Scots Law these days which really comes as no surprise to me at all given my own long experience of it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 11, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
Another thing:

Has anyone read Sandra’s book Innocents Betrayed? I don’t think this so-called criminologist is really of a high caliber.  She doesn’t have any credible publications other than a couple of self-written books, hasn’t had anyone else credible work alongside her for any substantial period of time, and she also doesn’t appear to be associated with, or affiliated to, any university.   

Normally, experts are usually lecturers or professors and are research orientated.  They carry out research and publish frequent peer-reviewed articles in journals that contribute to our learning and understanding of complex, current issues. Dr Lean appears to have done none of this and is only associated with tabloid press.

Further, I noticed she also made a complete hash of another notable case where she wrongly defended an individual who later came out with a confession for the murder, and people said she hadn’t even apologised to the victims family.  She’s been working on the Mitchell case alone for 15 years.  I suspect she only gained a PhD in criminology so she could gain access to the case papers due to an obsession and infatuation with it. 

I don’t actually think she is a credible researcher at all, but more a self-styled sleuth who takes the pride and pleasure of having Dr as her title.  She loves the attention from the media, but hasn’t got a reputable peer-reviewed publication to her name.  She doesn’t work on behalf of any university, and also therefore doesn’t have an office for people to write to or communicate with her. 

Therefore, her input in this case has very much given the public a chance to read case files as presented in her new book, but her overall stance has to be taken with a pinch of salt.  She believes Mitchell is innocent.   Her ‘expertise’ doesn’t really give her argument much weight due to the previous, and I would actually argue that Mitchell isn’t innocent.  She’s not credible or well known enough to pass judgment.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 11, 2019, 02:23:07 PM
There are, it seems, a few who agree with you and your criticisms of Sandra Lean. And there are people here who know her in real life and so are perhaps better placed to comment than you and I are. However, I feel she gets judged unfairly and by some it is for personal reasons rather than honest criticisms of her efforts.

As I understand it she lived in the area when Jodi was killed and it was her involvement in this that led her to study to gain qualifications and to work on other potential miscarriages of justice. Basically taking a giant leap from being an armchair detective, as most of us here are, to trying to actually be of use. Admirable, in my opinion. And yes she was involved with Adrian Prout and Simon Hall who both ended up being guilty. I for one though don't believe that discredits her. She believed them, she tried to help and she was wrong. I'm sure most people who have an interest in potential miscarriages of justice have been wrong at some point. I was sure Simon Hall was innocent, for instance.

I have interacted with Sandra on numerous occasions when I was fascinated by Luke's case and I always found her to be open and willing to share information; knowledgeable and dilligent; and, frankly, incredibly patient in the face of personal insults from other forum posters.

I have read No Smoke but am yet to read Innocents Betrayed. I will do at some point.

(I presume you meant self published rather than self written because that would be an extremely strange criticism)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 11, 2019, 02:30:06 PM
sandra has been very unprofessional over the years, pointing the finger at anyone. theres a strong case against luke, nothing against anynumber of people shes tried to point the finger at. hes guilty, end of!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 11, 2019, 05:05:50 PM
Well, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions regarding Sandra.  I think she has done an excellent job at exposing this case in her new book, but she does go in extremely hard on the police, almost to a point where it looks very slanderish.  I don’t know.  She seems and comes across too involved in the case to be entirely objective and has no doubt been influenced by the Mitchell’s over the years.

Something about this case that always confused me was the telephone call from Luke’s mobile at 16:54pm to the ‘Speaking Clock’.  In one of the appeals outlined on scotcourts.gov, Mitchell phoned the ‘Speaking Clock’ at 16:54.  Why would he want to find out the exact time? This is a service provided that tells you what the time is in the UK.  If he was at home cooking dinner, why would he have to use this service? Surely he would have had access to the time via other means, such as NTL, Virgin Media, SKY, a watch or a clock in his house.  He seemed pretty concerned about the time, and the phone call was made from his MOBILE telephone, suggesting that either he did not have a landline, which in 2003 most people probably would have, or that he was indeed mobile and wanting to know the exact time. 

In any case, his mother confirmed that they DID have a landline, as apparently Mitchell was on it to his mother.  This begs the question then why use the mobile to find out the time from the speaking clock? He could’ve asked his mum what time it was on the landline, or if he was adamant he wanting to hear the speaking clock, then he could have used this.

It’s unlikely in 2003 that he would have had easy internet access on his phone.  His phone would likely have been a brick at that point, like a Nokia or something.  Why did he want to know the exact time? He phoned the speaking clock at 16:54 to find out the time as he was not at home.  He wanted to clarify this and crystallise it.

It would be interesting to know whether the speaking clock had been phoned at any other time in his call history.  Was this a one off occasion or a pattern? Mobile phones have a clock on them.  If he was at home as his mother said, then why is he phoning for the time? There would’ve been an item at home that could’ve told him that information, such as the computer.  The last thing you would think about to find out what time it was would be to dial the speaking clock. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 11, 2019, 05:12:05 PM
sandra has been very unprofessional over the years, pointing the finger at anyone. theres a strong case against luke, nothing against anynumber of people shes tried to point the finger at. hes guilty, end of!

I have occasionally seen Sandra bring up other possible suspects. These are, as far as I am aware, people who have been linked by DNA or by witnesses to the scene. I think she generally caveats these mentions with warnings about this not making them necessarily guilty (and often even only refers to them by initials) but only that they should be considered. Doesn't seem unprofessional to me. But, again, this is only in my limited experience of her.

The annoying thing is of course that trying to discuss the Luke Mitchell case inevitably seems to become a discussion about Sandra Lean which people then use as an excuse for airing their own personal grievances with her.  People apparently will even create accounts just to be able to anonymously 'throw shade' at her.

As for the  talking clock. I agree it's weird. If memory serves (I have to keep saying that because I will get something wrong eventually!!) this wasn't a one off. He phoned the talking clock occasionally, at home and outside. I remember doing that sometimes as a kid. It is weird but then sometimes kids are weird. Hardly damning evidence.

Luke's brother's evidence is more concerning to me. But doesn't prove guilt by any stretch of the imagination.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 11, 2019, 05:44:43 PM
Why would he do that from his mobile when he had a landline next to him, though? Why would he do it at all when he was “at home” anyway? I’m not saying it is damning per se, and ultimately much less so than when his brother couldn’t confirm if he was home, but it is another one for the strange basket.

His brother said he didn’t know Luke was at home.  I think when watching porn, you’re likely to be much more aware of your surroundings and who may or may not be at home compared with looking at holidays.  Shane would have been heightened, and would have likely checked the house before switching on his computer.  Being caught using porn is embarrassing.  Nobody wants caught doing this.

Basically, he must have known.  If Mitchell was downstairs cooking dinner, then Shane would have said so.  He would have categorically said so.  The fact he wasn’t sure, which I don’t buy anyway, tends to suggest he wasn’t, as does the mobile telephone to the talking clock, which so happened to be made four minutes after Jodi had left her grandmothers.

The amount of ‘coincidences’ in this case that point to Mitchell are a bit uncanny.  I also wouldnt trust his mother as far as I could throw her let alone use her as an alibi.  She seems unhinged to me, somewhat on the autistic spectrum.  I’m not slandering autism or suggesting anything, but she just doesn’t strike me as a credible witness, and coincidentally again she happens to be Mitchell’s alibi.

We don’t know who was on the end of the phone when the call was made to her work.  It could have easily been Shane, as already we know he was at home.  What we don’t know is whether Mitchell was at home, and why he phoned the talking clock four minutes after Jodi had left to meet him.  That implies to me, on the face of things, that he was checking the time to ensure that he was exactly where he should have been at that point in time.  Why else would he phone the talking clock? We all do strange things when we are younger as you say, but it seems such an outrageous coincidence that this call was made four minutes after she left and that she died on a path that was known to them.  She didn’t die on her way to the local grocery store to get shopping for her gran, or even on her way to her sisters.  It seems such a coincidence that she died on her way to meet him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 12, 2019, 12:28:09 AM
Are you also aware that Mitchell had spoken with Jodi’s step-father Alan Ovens at 17:40 asking if she was “coming out”? Mr Ovens has confirmed to Mitchell that she had already left (which was about 50 minutes prior) yet Mitchell makes no further enquiries all evening as to why she hadn’t appeared at the path where they were supposed to meet.  He only made an effort to find her around five hours later after receiving a text from Jodi’s mother.

Overall, this would suggest Mitchell sat on the fact that Jodi hadn’t appeared for several hours without making one single enquiry as to where she went.  It was actually Jodi’s family who messaged him first after several hours of no contact.  If it was my girlfriend who hadn’t appeared at the path, the first thing I would have done would be door to door enquiries with all the people she may have seen or been with.  Exchanging texts and arranging to meet Mitchell then suddenly not appearing would most certainly have been out of character, yet he did absolutely nothing to try and trace her?

I don’t buy it.  It took until nearly 23:00pm that evening for Jodi to even be mentioned again, which was when her mother messaged Mitchell’s phone looking for her. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on June 12, 2019, 12:32:23 AM
Why do these threads all turn into a discussion about Sandra, or a personal slagging match as it appears most of the time. As far as I’m concerned she has always tried to answer peoples questions when really she doesn’t have to. She has set me right a few times both stuff that goes for and agains Luke. All she is trying to do is help people she believes to be innocent and I take my hat off to her for putting up with all the crap she gets but still carries on. She would certainly be someone I’d contact if I’d been done for something I didn’t do.

I think the reason he used the mobile to call speaking clock was because he was cooking tea and was getting the time right, I use to call the speaking clock all the time, any excuse really, one reason was for timing the dinner, he used his mobile as the landline would have been engaged as Shane was using the internet. But Shane’s statements have always been confusing to me, did he say he was looking at porn or could he not remember?   There has always been a lot of debate over that and what he remembers from that evening. For me whatever he remembers is proof of Luke’s innocence or guilt, was Luke home, who cooked the dinner, did he see Luke at all, was he watching porn, all this has been mixed up over the years both online and in the papers that’s why I think it be great if he was to release an open letter or statements to clear up the confusion once and for all.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 12, 2019, 10:11:13 AM
To remind you about Shane Mitchell’s testimony -

Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advovate

[89] Shane Mitchell's ultimate position in cross-examination appeared to be that he could not be sure whether the appellant was in the house between 1653 and 1716 on the evening of the murder. At its highest, that evidence undermined the appellant's alibi, and allowed an inference that he was more likely out of the house at that time.

Shane was viewing porn at the time.  In my opinion, I think it is reasonable to say that whilst engaging in such a task, Shane would have ensured he was safe to do this.  Viewing porn is a private act, one of which would be highly embarrassing if caught, perhaps even highly off-putting if your younger sibling is moping around the house.  You just wouldn’t do it if someone else was at home, unless by todays standards you could view it using a smart phone and used the bathroom.  This wouldn’t have been the case in 2003.  The porn was on a computer.

Shane said he couldn’t be sure Mitchell was in the house, therefore he is not able to confirm his alibi.  Shane would only have viewed porn had the house been empty.  His testimony in court doesn’t explicitly state that Mitchell was 100% out the house, but it does cast severe doubt over whether he was at home, and this is a close member of his own family.  That to me is extremely concerning.  In fact, it is the most concerning part of the case. When all of the circumstantial evidence is put together, it is no surprise a Jury convicted him.  The circumstantial evidence in this case was like an 80ft Tsunami washing over the DNA side to it. 

You say he phoned the speaking clock from his mobile to ensure he had the time right for cooking tea.  Why didn’t he simply 1) check a clock, 2) if he didn’t own a clock, check the television or some other device.  You’re saying Shane was on the internet using the landline, then how would it have been possible for Mitchell to have contacted his mother? She claims they had exchanged a telephone call using the landline.  Furthermore, Donald Findlay said in his defence that Mitchell may have phoned the speaking clock out of pure idleness whist at home.  Funnily enough, he didn’t suggest that Mitchell had ever used this service previously at any other time, other than - very coincidentally - four minutes after Jodi had left to come and meet him on June 30th 2003.  If Mitchell had used the speaking clock as a regular service, then we could claim it would have likely been another innocent phone call.  There was never any mention in the defence that he had used this service before for anything else, so why at 16:54 on the day he is supposed to meet Jodi?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 11:33:34 AM
Normal tenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that Shane Mitchell, Luke Mitchell's brother runs his own company in Livingston, Scotland.
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont is because he knows his brother is guilty?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on June 12, 2019, 11:47:55 AM
I believe the calls to his mum was before Shane was home and online. I don’t know why he called the speaking clock I was only suggesting an explanation going on the reasons I used it when I was younger. I got in big trouble for calling it so much, any reason and making tea was one of them, I had a clock in the kitchen too by the way but would still use the speaking clock. But that’s just me. If I remember correctly was there not call logs on both his mobile and landline to show he called the speaking clock lots of times before? Why It was not used in court I’m not sure but I think there was a fair bit that Findlay didn’t use ie the dog training experts and tests carried out don’t think that was used in the defence either.

The circumstantial evidence is huge as you say, just a lot of it for me doesn’t sit right and as he was only a young laddie at the time I’d hope for something a bit more concrete as I’m sure a lot of others would. I hope he is guilty, I really do but I’d just like to hear something that makes me say Yes, it was him. For me it comes down to what the brother can remember, I’d love to ask him what he does remember from that day, who made the tea, was he watching porn and tossing off, did he think Luke was home, did he see or hear Luke at all, did him mum try to make him give a story he knew to be a lie, does he think his brother did it. Either that or some new full dna evidence found, Luke’s or someone else’s. But I doubt we will ever know for sure unless he or someone else confesses.

I just seen this new post, I don’t think it’s right to put up peoples personal information on an open forum.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 11:52:09 AM
Sandra Lean claims its the reason we dont hear from Shane Mitchell. Its no secret.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 12, 2019, 11:53:51 AM
Shane said he couldn’t be sure Mitchell was in the house, therefore he is not able to confirm his alibi.  Shane would only have viewed porn had the house been empty. 

I don't know if that's necessarily true. He was a young man. More than capable of making bad decisions, especially with all those hormones!! You can't say that he would only have done watched in an empty house because you weren't him. Also, I agree that his evidence on the stand is troubling, but I don't think it is quite as damning as you appear to. He was humiliated on the stand having to talk about watching porn and he would have been nervous enough as it was. It's also important to point out that his evidence doesn't rule out Luke being in the house. He says he could have been home.

As for the talking clock, again. If you're saying that him using the talking clock proves he was out of the house because otherwise he would have just looked at the cooker (or whatever!) Why wouldn't he have just looked at the time on his phone? Also, why is wanting to know the time proof of his murderous intent rather than checking the time because he was meeting someone?


Exchanging texts and arranging to meet Mitchell then suddenly not appearing would most certainly have been out of character, yet he did absolutely nothing to try and trace her?

I don’t buy it.  It took until nearly 23:00pm that evening for Jodi to even be mentioned again, which was when her mother messaged Mitchell’s phone looking for her. 

He was a 14 year old kid. Maybe he assumed her mum had changed her mind about lifting her grounding? Who knows? He was meant to meet his girlfriend, she didn't turn up so he went off to meet some mates. Hardly surprising behaviour for a teenager.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 12, 2019, 12:00:33 PM
I feel there are too many coincidences in the case that simply don’t add up.  There is too much strange behaviour, from the satanism and getting tattoos to writing on knife pouches.  I guess we won’t get anywhere debating our differences, but as for the previous post - I’m surprised the forum admin allowed someone’s workplace to be shared.  How do we know for certain that’s Shane Mitchell’s work anyway? I hardly think he’s going to come on a forum like this to give any sort of opinion anyway.  The case is dead and buried. 

Again - there are too many unexplained coincidences for me in this case.  I appreciate your personal input from what you might have done as a child, but if I am honest, I was the same age roughly as Mitchell and I didn’t even know what the talking clock was until I started reading more about his case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 12:43:35 PM
Didnt jodis step father tell luke she was on the way to meet him, when david later asked luke where jodi was, luke said she was grounded?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 12, 2019, 02:21:46 PM
Didnt jodis step father tell luke she was on the way to meet him, when david later asked luke where jodi was, luke said she was grounded?

Jodi’s step-father Alan Ovens did indeed tell Mitchell that she had left to come and meet him.  This phone call was at 17:40pm, approximately 50 minutes after she had left.  Assuming the walk from Jodi’s house took 10 minutes to the rendezvous point with Mitchell, he supposedly waited for 40 minutes before initiating contact with Jodi’s parents asking where she was. 

I personally think this in itself seems quite a while to be waiting on someone who lived ten minutes away from the meeting point.  Why didn’t he raise the alarm sooner?

What’s more concerning is what happened after the phone call with Alan Ovens - Mitchell returns to Newbattle and tells a friend by the name of David High that she wasn’t coming out, hence why he was alone.  Why would he do this, given her step-father had just categorically told him over the telephone that she had left to meet him?

For the rest of that evening, Mitchell failed to raise the alarm that she was missing, however so did Alan Ovens.  When Alan Ovens exchanged communication with Mitchell at 17:40pm, he would have then been made aware that Jodi hadn’t arrived to meet Mitchell, hence why he was phoning looking for her.  Neither Mitchell or the Jones family raised the alarm that she had left the house and hadn’t arrived at her destination.

This is extremely bizarre.  The next time Jodi is even mentioned is via a text message from her mother to Mitchell’s mobile telephone telling her she’s grounded.  At that point, the mother obviously thought she had sneaked away somewhere else that nobody knew about.   However, why did Mitchell want to know the exact time at 16:54pm just after Jodi had left the house? Findlay, in Mitchell’s defence, didn’t mention that Mitchell used the speaking clock service before, so why did he do it on the evening Jodi died? If Mitchell was at home cooking dinner when this call was made at 16:54, then we could have expected him to have arrived at the rendezvous point around 15 minutes later, probably around 17:10pm.  Jodi was expected to be there before this, as she would have had less distance to walk.  Jodi left about 16:50pm.  Her arrival time would have been around 17:00pm.  Seems like a fair time to meet - it’s a whole number and likely to have been the arranged time.

Why, then, was Mitchell phoning the speaking clock after she had already left the house? If Mitchell was at home preparing dinner at between 16:50-17:40, then why was an arrangement made in the first place to meet at the Easthouses end of the path?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 12, 2019, 02:47:41 PM
This is also interesting:

A series of texts between Jodi and Mitchell were exchanged just before she left to meet him.  They were unable to recover the content of these texts, but going by what Jodi said to her mother on her way out the door at 16:50 - that she was going to meet Mitchell  - then why, as I said in the previous post, would he be at home? Are we to believe his word over a girl who is unable to corroborate her version of events because she is deceased?

The simple, most obvious reason she told her mum she was going to meet Mitchell is because she was.  That’s what was arranged via the texting.  That’s what the plan was.  Why would Jodi leave the house and tell her mum this if it wasn’t true? She most likely was going to meet him, and assumed he would be there at 17:00pm.  He probably was there.  Is he trying to say that after a series of text and Jodi leaving her mums to say she had gone to meet Mitchell that he just thought he would stay at home and leave her standing at the end of the path herself?  He claims they hadn’t arranged a time.  Why the f..k, then, did Jodi tell her mother that she was away to meet him?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on June 12, 2019, 04:44:11 PM
I believe Luke usually made the tea, ready for his mum getting home, ate tea then went out around 1730 ish. On this day Luke’s mum was at work, Shane on the internet til his mum got home. So was the tea cooked as normal for her getting home? We don’t know there were any arrangements to meet at the path or anywhere else as we don’t know the txt content. Is it not also logical to think in the txt said she was not grounded and they would meet up after he had cooked and had tea as usual? Jodi just being ungrounded maybe didn’t want to sit around for another 30 mins and went out, there are 1000 scenarios but only one truth which we will never know as the txts content is not known.

Ao and Luke were both were aware Jodi had left the house. If she left 40 mins earlier and ao was not worried why should luke be, did Luke even know when she left or just that she had left? Either way he waited for her for a while longer then told his mum where he would be incase she did turn up but by that point he just thought she was no longer coming. Not unusual for 14 year olds. Nothing to be overly concerned about, catch up at school tomorrow. Maybe if Jodi had a working mobile at the time he would have sent her a quick text. Who knows.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 12, 2019, 05:00:17 PM
I believe Luke usually made the tea, ready for his mum getting home, ate tea then went out around 1730 ish. On this day Luke’s mum was at work, Shane on the internet til his mum got home. So was the tea cooked as normal for her getting home? We don’t know there were any arrangements to meet at the path or anywhere else as we don’t know the txt content. Is it not also logical to think in the txt said she was not grounded and they would meet up after he had cooked and had tea as usual? Jodi just being ungrounded maybe didn’t want to sit around for another 30 mins and went out, there are 1000 scenarios but only one truth which we will never know as the txts content is not known.

Ao and Luke were both were aware Jodi had left the house. If she left 40 mins earlier and ao was not worried why should luke be, did Luke even know when she left or just that she had left? Either way he waited for her for a while longer then told his mum where he would be incase she did turn up but by that point he just thought she was no longer coming. Not unusual for 14 year olds. Nothing to be overly concerned about, catch up at school tomorrow. Maybe if Jodi had a working mobile at the time he would have sent her a quick text. Who knows.

And then tells his mate she's not coming because she didn't show up and so he assumed she wasn't coming.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 14, 2019, 09:33:53 AM
I have occasionally seen Sandra bring up other possible suspects. These are, as far as I am aware, people who have been linked by DNA or by witnesses to the scene.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Donald Findlay QC put forward James Falconer as an alternative suspect and by the time he was named in the press - by the next day he was ruled out?

”The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected



12th February 2008
“A MAN named by Luke Mitchell's lawyers as an alternative suspect in the Jodi Jones murder today declared he was "100 per cent innocent".
James Falconer hit out after being identified as a possible suspect in papers lodged by Mitchell's defence team at the Court of Appeal.

He accused Donald Findlay QC, who is leading the appeal, of dragging his name into the mud and accused the lawyer of "sheer desperation".

Mr Falconer, who lives only a few minutes' walk from the secluded spot were 14-year-old Jodi was killed, has been questioned by police in connection with the brutal murder. But detectives are understood to have ruled him out of their investigations.

Mr Falconer, of Reed Drive, Dalkeith, was identified by Mitchell's legal team after being linked to a condom found near the woodland murder scene.

He said: "I was questioned by police and they cleared me. I think it's tragic my name has been dragged into this by Donald Findlay.

"I had nothing to do with the murder. I could never do something like that. I'm 100 per cent innocent."

The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police.

The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.

The defence has yet to decide whether to pursue the "fresh evidence" as part of their bid to free Mitchell. Judges would also have to rule whether the evidence was admissible.

Mr Falconer – who is in his mid-20s and lives with his mother Ann and brothers Bryan and Mark – said he had been worried about being targeted as a hate figure. He said: "I didn't know what would happen when it came out. But I've had a great reaction from family, friends and neighbours, who have been very supportive.

"We all know that Luke did it. This case has been hanging over Dalkeith for years. It must be terrible for Jodi's family, so the sooner it goes away the better."

His mother Ann, a nurse, said: "I know my son has done nothing wrong. He didn't have anything to do with the murder."

Mitchell, now 19, was sentenced to serve at least 20 years for the murder of his girlfriend, but the courts started hearing his appeal against the conviction last week.

Court documents submitted by his lawyers said a DNA match between the used condom and Mr Falconer would have been "the cornerstone of the defence case" in the original trial.

The papers added: "This additional evidence is of such significance that the verdict returned in ignorance of it must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice.

"His explanation given to police for semen in a condom lacked credibility and aspects of his statement have proven to be false.

"This condom directly links James Falconer to the scene at or around the time of the murder."

A second "suspect" was also named by Mitchell's team as Mark Kane, an alleged drug user studying at Newbattle Abbey College in Dalkeith, who was "untraceable" during the murder hunt.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/i-didn-t-kill-jodi-1-1249412


13th February 2008
Mitchell legal team drops interest in Jodi 'suspect'


“LAWYERS for Luke Mitchell have dropped their interest in one of two new "suspects" for the murder of Jodi Jones, it was announced yesterday.
Attention continues to be focused on the other man, but a court heard that the person who had put forward his name had been hoping to sell the story to the media.

Meanwhile, the prosecution began its reply to claims Mitchell's conviction for murdering Jodi should be quashed, and insisted that there had been no miscarriage of justice.

"There was no direct evidence against him and the case was entirely circumstantial in nature. But there was both sufficient evidence and a rational basis for the conviction," argued the advocate depute, John Beckett, QC.

Mitchell, 19, was found guilty of murdering Jodi in woods off a path near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in June 2003, when they were aged 14, and he was ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years under a life sentence. His appeal is based on several grounds, including that he had not received a fair trial and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

His lawyers have also reported to the Court of Criminal Appeal that they are working on an additional ground, which would require the leave of the court to be presented because the time for lodging it has expired.

That ground related initially to two men, Mark Kane and James Falconer, against whom, it was suggested, there was evidence as compelling as the case made against Mitchell.

Donald Findlay, QC, told the appeal judges yesterday that inquiries were continuing in respect of Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College, Dalkeith, at the time of the killing. He said Mr Kane "ticked all the boxes" as much as Mitchell was alleged to do.

We have a man who managed to stay below the police radar, a man who lived in the vicinity and who knew the vicinity. He has said to a witness that he was passing the end of the path at or about the time of the murder. He is a man who, in the days after the murder, is behaving oddly, even bizarrely, and has scratch marks to his face which he is trying to hide. He gives an explanation that does not convince those who receive it," said Mr Findlay.

This week, in a newspaper interview, Mr Falconer said he was "100 per cent innocent".

Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer.

The Crown objects to the new ground being presented, and Mr Beckett told the court that investigations had been carried out after a witness, Scott Forbes, put forward Mr Kane's name.

He indicated Kane had written an essay, Killing a girl in the woods. The Crown had police take a statement from a lecturer and the lecturer confirmed that Kane wrote no such essay. I have information that Scott Forbes told Mark Kane, 'Just admit it … we will get 50,000 from the newspapers'," Mr Beckett said.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest-in-jodi-suspect-1-1154608
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 14, 2019, 10:10:35 AM
There are, it seems, a few who agree with you and your criticisms of Sandra Lean. And there are people here who know her in real life and so are perhaps better placed to comment than you and I are. However, I feel she gets judged unfairly and by some it is for personal reasons rather than honest criticisms of her efforts.

Sandra Lean recently stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451892.html#msg451892

So that everyone reading this forum, new and old, is absolutely clear, I posted under one username that was not my own at the very beginning of this case for my own safety and that of my children. My identity was outed by a troll with no concern for the potential consequences. I have not posted using anything other than my own name (or variations of it, depending on the protocols of various sites - so, Sandra L, Dr Sandra, Sandra Lean, etc) in over a decade.


Is she referring to Angeline?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 11:04:43 AM
I think thats one of a few
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 14, 2019, 01:27:04 PM
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Donald Findlay QC put forward James Falconer as an alternative suspect and by the time he was named in the press - by the next day he was ruled out?

”The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected



12th February 2008
“A MAN named by Luke Mitchell's lawyers as an alternative suspect in the Jodi Jones murder today declared he was "100 per cent innocent".
James Falconer hit out after being identified as a possible suspect in papers lodged by Mitchell's defence team at the Court of Appeal.

He accused Donald Findlay QC, who is leading the appeal, of dragging his name into the mud and accused the lawyer of "sheer desperation".

Mr Falconer, who lives only a few minutes' walk from the secluded spot were 14-year-old Jodi was killed, has been questioned by police in connection with the brutal murder. But detectives are understood to have ruled him out of their investigations.

Mr Falconer, of Reed Drive, Dalkeith, was identified by Mitchell's legal team after being linked to a condom found near the woodland murder scene.

He said: "I was questioned by police and they cleared me. I think it's tragic my name has been dragged into this by Donald Findlay.

"I had nothing to do with the murder. I could never do something like that. I'm 100 per cent innocent."

The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police.

The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.

The defence has yet to decide whether to pursue the "fresh evidence" as part of their bid to free Mitchell. Judges would also have to rule whether the evidence was admissible.

Mr Falconer – who is in his mid-20s and lives with his mother Ann and brothers Bryan and Mark – said he had been worried about being targeted as a hate figure. He said: "I didn't know what would happen when it came out. But I've had a great reaction from family, friends and neighbours, who have been very supportive.

"We all know that Luke did it. This case has been hanging over Dalkeith for years. It must be terrible for Jodi's family, so the sooner it goes away the better."

His mother Ann, a nurse, said: "I know my son has done nothing wrong. He didn't have anything to do with the murder."

Mitchell, now 19, was sentenced to serve at least 20 years for the murder of his girlfriend, but the courts started hearing his appeal against the conviction last week.

Court documents submitted by his lawyers said a DNA match between the used condom and Mr Falconer would have been "the cornerstone of the defence case" in the original trial.

The papers added: "This additional evidence is of such significance that the verdict returned in ignorance of it must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice.

"His explanation given to police for semen in a condom lacked credibility and aspects of his statement have proven to be false.

"This condom directly links James Falconer to the scene at or around the time of the murder."

A second "suspect" was also named by Mitchell's team as Mark Kane, an alleged drug user studying at Newbattle Abbey College in Dalkeith, who was "untraceable" during the murder hunt.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/i-didn-t-kill-jodi-1-1249412


13th February 2008
Mitchell legal team drops interest in Jodi 'suspect'


“LAWYERS for Luke Mitchell have dropped their interest in one of two new "suspects" for the murder of Jodi Jones, it was announced yesterday.
Attention continues to be focused on the other man, but a court heard that the person who had put forward his name had been hoping to sell the story to the media.

Meanwhile, the prosecution began its reply to claims Mitchell's conviction for murdering Jodi should be quashed, and insisted that there had been no miscarriage of justice.

"There was no direct evidence against him and the case was entirely circumstantial in nature. But there was both sufficient evidence and a rational basis for the conviction," argued the advocate depute, John Beckett, QC.

Mitchell, 19, was found guilty of murdering Jodi in woods off a path near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in June 2003, when they were aged 14, and he was ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years under a life sentence. His appeal is based on several grounds, including that he had not received a fair trial and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

His lawyers have also reported to the Court of Criminal Appeal that they are working on an additional ground, which would require the leave of the court to be presented because the time for lodging it has expired.

That ground related initially to two men, Mark Kane and James Falconer, against whom, it was suggested, there was evidence as compelling as the case made against Mitchell.

Donald Findlay, QC, told the appeal judges yesterday that inquiries were continuing in respect of Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College, Dalkeith, at the time of the killing. He said Mr Kane "ticked all the boxes" as much as Mitchell was alleged to do.

We have a man who managed to stay below the police radar, a man who lived in the vicinity and who knew the vicinity. He has said to a witness that he was passing the end of the path at or about the time of the murder. He is a man who, in the days after the murder, is behaving oddly, even bizarrely, and has scratch marks to his face which he is trying to hide. He gives an explanation that does not convince those who receive it," said Mr Findlay.

This week, in a newspaper interview, Mr Falconer said he was "100 per cent innocent".

Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer.

The Crown objects to the new ground being presented, and Mr Beckett told the court that investigations had been carried out after a witness, Scott Forbes, put forward Mr Kane's name.

He indicated Kane had written an essay, Killing a girl in the woods. The Crown had police take a statement from a lecturer and the lecturer confirmed that Kane wrote no such essay. I have information that Scott Forbes told Mark Kane, 'Just admit it … we will get 50,000 from the newspapers'," Mr Beckett said.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest-in-jodi-suspect-1-1154608

I'm confused by this. The defence have said Falconer is connected to the DNA on the condom but the prosecution said in court that he wasn't. I don't understand how that happens. Why were the defence under the impression that he was? Sounds like the defence was trying to introduce different suspects, which to me is understandable if they have evidence. They presumably thought they did. I'm not expert though. What do you think about it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 14, 2019, 01:29:09 PM
Sandra Lean recently stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451892.html#msg451892

So that everyone reading this forum, new and old, is absolutely clear, I posted under one username that was not my own at the very beginning of this case for my own safety and that of my children. My identity was outed by a troll with no concern for the potential consequences. I have not posted using anything other than my own name (or variations of it, depending on the protocols of various sites - so, Sandra L, Dr Sandra, Sandra Lean, etc) in over a decade.


Is she referring to Angeline?
I think thats one of a few

Seems hypocritical to judge when neither of you are posting under your real names? Unless you were Christened Guiltyascharged? Is it a family name?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 14, 2019, 01:33:23 PM
Seems hypocritical to judge when neither of you are posting under your real names? Unless you were Christened Guiltyascharged? Is it a family name?

What’s your response to the following Baz? (Highlighted in blue)

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why Donald Findlay QC put forward James Falconer as an alternative suspect and by the time he was named in the press - by the next day he was ruled out?

”The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected



12th February 2008
“A MAN named by Luke Mitchell's lawyers as an alternative suspect in the Jodi Jones murder today declared he was "100 per cent innocent".
James Falconer hit out after being identified as a possible suspect in papers lodged by Mitchell's defence team at the Court of Appeal.

He accused Donald Findlay QC, who is leading the appeal, of dragging his name into the mud and accused the lawyer of "sheer desperation".

Mr Falconer, who lives only a few minutes' walk from the secluded spot were 14-year-old Jodi was killed, has been questioned by police in connection with the brutal murder. But detectives are understood to have ruled him out of their investigations.

Mr Falconer, of Reed Drive, Dalkeith, was identified by Mitchell's legal team after being linked to a condom found near the woodland murder scene.

He said: "I was questioned by police and they cleared me. I think it's tragic my name has been dragged into this by Donald Findlay.

"I had nothing to do with the murder. I could never do something like that. I'm 100 per cent innocent."

The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police.

The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.

The defence has yet to decide whether to pursue the "fresh evidence" as part of their bid to free Mitchell. Judges would also have to rule whether the evidence was admissible.

Mr Falconer – who is in his mid-20s and lives with his mother Ann and brothers Bryan and Mark – said he had been worried about being targeted as a hate figure. He said: "I didn't know what would happen when it came out. But I've had a great reaction from family, friends and neighbours, who have been very supportive.

"We all know that Luke did it. This case has been hanging over Dalkeith for years. It must be terrible for Jodi's family, so the sooner it goes away the better."

His mother Ann, a nurse, said: "I know my son has done nothing wrong. He didn't have anything to do with the murder."

Mitchell, now 19, was sentenced to serve at least 20 years for the murder of his girlfriend, but the courts started hearing his appeal against the conviction last week.

Court documents submitted by his lawyers said a DNA match between the used condom and Mr Falconer would have been "the cornerstone of the defence case" in the original trial.

The papers added: "This additional evidence is of such significance that the verdict returned in ignorance of it must be regarded as a miscarriage of justice.

"His explanation given to police for semen in a condom lacked credibility and aspects of his statement have proven to be false.

"This condom directly links James Falconer to the scene at or around the time of the murder."

A second "suspect" was also named by Mitchell's team as Mark Kane, an alleged drug user studying at Newbattle Abbey College in Dalkeith, who was "untraceable" during the murder hunt.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/i-didn-t-kill-jodi-1-1249412


13th February 2008
Mitchell legal team drops interest in Jodi 'suspect'


“LAWYERS for Luke Mitchell have dropped their interest in one of two new "suspects" for the murder of Jodi Jones, it was announced yesterday.
Attention continues to be focused on the other man, but a court heard that the person who had put forward his name had been hoping to sell the story to the media.

Meanwhile, the prosecution began its reply to claims Mitchell's conviction for murdering Jodi should be quashed, and insisted that there had been no miscarriage of justice.

"There was no direct evidence against him and the case was entirely circumstantial in nature. But there was both sufficient evidence and a rational basis for the conviction," argued the advocate depute, John Beckett, QC.

Mitchell, 19, was found guilty of murdering Jodi in woods off a path near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in June 2003, when they were aged 14, and he was ordered to serve a minimum of 20 years under a life sentence. His appeal is based on several grounds, including that he had not received a fair trial and that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict.

His lawyers have also reported to the Court of Criminal Appeal that they are working on an additional ground, which would require the leave of the court to be presented because the time for lodging it has expired.

That ground related initially to two men, Mark Kane and James Falconer, against whom, it was suggested, there was evidence as compelling as the case made against Mitchell.

Donald Findlay, QC, told the appeal judges yesterday that inquiries were continuing in respect of Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College, Dalkeith, at the time of the killing. He said Mr Kane "ticked all the boxes" as much as Mitchell was alleged to do.

We have a man who managed to stay below the police radar, a man who lived in the vicinity and who knew the vicinity. He has said to a witness that he was passing the end of the path at or about the time of the murder. He is a man who, in the days after the murder, is behaving oddly, even bizarrely, and has scratch marks to his face which he is trying to hide. He gives an explanation that does not convince those who receive it," said Mr Findlay.

This week, in a newspaper interview, Mr Falconer said he was "100 per cent innocent".

Mr Findlay told the appeal court that "as a result of investigations" he was no longer pursuing an interest in Mr Falconer.

The Crown objects to the new ground being presented, and Mr Beckett told the court that investigations had been carried out after a witness, Scott Forbes, put forward Mr Kane's name.

He indicated Kane had written an essay, Killing a girl in the woods. The Crown had police take a statement from a lecturer and the lecturer confirmed that Kane wrote no such essay. I have information that Scott Forbes told Mark Kane, 'Just admit it … we will get 50,000 from the newspapers'," Mr Beckett said.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/mitchell-legal-team-drops-interest-in-jodi-suspect-1-1154608
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 14, 2019, 01:36:52 PM
What’s your response to the following Baz? (Highlighted in blue)

I responded already:

I'm confused by this. The defence have said Falconer is connected to the DNA on the condom but the prosecution said in court that he wasn't. I don't understand how that happens. Why were the defence under the impression that he was? Sounds like the defence was trying to introduce different suspects, which to me is understandable if they have evidence. They presumably thought they did. I'm not expert though. What do you think about it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 14, 2019, 02:21:13 PM
I have occasionally seen Sandra bring up other possible suspects. These are, as far as I am aware, people who have been linked by DNA or by witnesses to the scene.

And this?

”Officers want to trace two youths spotted on Monday night on a motorbike near the Roman Dyke pathway where Jodi's bloodied and partially dressed body was found in undergrowth. Police do not believe the pair are directly linked to the incident, but they want to know what - if anything - they saw.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/ukcrime.scotland
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 14, 2019, 02:22:04 PM
I responded already:

So you have  8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 14, 2019, 02:40:59 PM
And this?

”Officers want to trace two youths spotted on Monday night on a motorbike near the Roman Dyke pathway where Jodi's bloodied and partially dressed body was found in undergrowth. Police do not believe the pair are directly linked to the incident, but they want to know what - if anything - they saw.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/ukcrime.scotland

I'd be interested in why they weren't considered to be linked considering that the moped was seen parked at the V break in the wall at the supposed time of the murder. Perhaps the police were only aware that they were in the area and not the fact that they were seen so close to the scene of the crime? This is a very early newspaper report after all.

What are your thoughts on it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 14, 2019, 05:21:21 PM
Baz, you said people had been linked via DNA. We know SK was one of these.  Any idea who the other people were?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 14, 2019, 06:08:53 PM
Baz, didnt the guy on push bike say he didnt see them.

Are you sandras mate baz from twitter, the rangers fan
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Angelo222 on June 15, 2019, 10:50:50 AM
Baz, didnt the guy on push bike say he didnt see them.

Are you sandras mate baz from twitter, the rangers fan

Please...no personal questions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Angelo222 on June 15, 2019, 10:53:14 AM
I'd be interested in why they weren't considered to be linked considering that the moped was seen parked at the V break in the wall at the supposed time of the murder. Perhaps the police were only aware that they were in the area and not the fact that they were seen so close to the scene of the crime? This is a very early newspaper report after all.

What are your thoughts on it?

Given that one of them immediately set about changing his appearance, I find that suspicious.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 15, 2019, 11:44:15 AM
Baz, didnt the guy on push bike say he didnt see them.

Are you sandras mate baz from twitter, the rangers fan

Is that the same guy who saw the moped parked at the v in the wall? I can remember.

Bit of a creepy question but no, all my interactions with Sandra were on the blue forum. My name was Baz on there too if you want to check up.

Given that one of them immediately set about changing his appearance, I find that suspicious.


And did they change their story about the times they were there etc? And didn't come forward originally. All quite suspicious.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 01:27:57 PM
Given that one of them immediately set about changing his appearance, I find that suspicious.

Corrine claimed he done that not to look different from who was spotted but to look like them, wtf?? Recent interview
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 01:30:12 PM
Is that the same guy who saw the moped parked at the v in the wall? I can remember.

Bit of a creepy question but no, all my interactions with Sandra were on the blue forum. My name was Baz on there too if you want to check up.

And did they change their story about the times they were there etc? And didn't come forward originally. All quite suspicious.

Go back and check with sandra, who spotted the moped. Its a shame your relying on her only for your facts, what if she was misleading?

My bad, i thought you were same guy posting.

Admin, thats noted.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 15, 2019, 01:41:50 PM
Corrine claimed he done that not to look different from who was spotted but to look like them, wtf?? Recent interview

I heard this in her interview too.  She seemed to put a lot of emphasis on the importance of what this person done too.  I didn’t really understand what she was implying with this.

There were two boys on a moped right? One of them changed their hair so that they looked like the sighting by the witness.  What exactly is she implying, that before he shaved his hair he would have looked like the other boy, basically saying it was the other one who was on the moped and not him?

There was a lot of emphasis placed on her comment about this, but James English didn’t pick her enough to elaborate on it. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 01:45:07 PM
James english didnt press any of them, hand picked questions. I think thats why corine done the interview.

Didnt corrine mention her and sandra theory on the moped guys and how they Couldve got rid of the knife

Then she said it was the guy who confessed and was there was possitive sighting.

How many people have they tried to blame over the years, 8-9?

If someone confessed,  what does it take for them to be taken seriously? Because anyone could confess and be talking crap. If its as simple as corine makes out, why is luke in jail and guy who confessed not in his place? After all they claim theres no evidence against luke.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2019, 01:58:18 PM
https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y

@ around 1:00:22 of the above blog the “description” could be linked to the following article as opposed to someone with “special knowledge?”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/delight-jodi-jones-mum-killer-977591

(Article By Gordon Mcilwraith
00:00, 17 MAY 2008 UPDATED 11:32, 9 SEP 2013
)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 15, 2019, 02:05:53 PM
James english didnt press any of them, hand picked questions. I think thats why corine done the interview.

Didnt corrine mention her and sandra theory on the moped guys and how they Couldve got rid of the knife

Then she said it was the guy who confessed and was there was possitive sighting.

How many people have they tried to blame over the years, 8-9?

If someone confessed,  what does it take for them to be taken seriously? Because anyone could confess and be talking crap. If its as simple as corine makes out, why is luke in jail and guy who confessed not in his place? After all they claim theres no evidence against luke.

English didn’t probe either of them enough or offer any sort of challenging questions.  It was all about how Luke was just an average, easy-go kid like the rest of the population.  That’s far from the truth whether he’s guilty or not anyway, as it is already evident from the court reports that he had seen a psychologist at age 11 and had started carrying knives and showing interest in satanic material in his early teens.  Most school incidents are dealt with internally and are resolved by teachers, such as guidance teachers.  The mere fact Mitchell was referred to a psychologist tells you that there’s clearly been genuine concerns and that the school didn’t think they were able to deal with him.

Therefore - he was not just an innocent little boy.  He had the emotional and social intelligence of someone much older, evidenced by his composure during police interrogations and his overall demeanour.  To pass him off as an ordinary little boy is nonsense and misleading in all respects. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 03:09:17 PM
https://youtu.be/uK7OVE_5L7Y

@ around 1:00:22 of the above blog the “description” could be linked to the following article as opposed to someone with “special knowledge?”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/delight-jodi-jones-mum-killer-977591

(Article By Gordon Mcilwraith
00:00, 17 MAY 2008 UPDATED 11:32, 9 SEP 2013
)

Sandra lean comes accross as smug, up herself. Why would anyone talking about things as serious. Its like shes enjoying the attention.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2019, 03:38:41 PM
I'd be interested in why they weren't considered to be linked considering that the moped was seen parked at the V break in the wall at the supposed time of the murder. Perhaps the police were only aware that they were in the area and not the fact that they were seen so close to the scene of the crime? This is a very early newspaper report after all.

What are your thoughts on it?

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451924.html#msg451924

I notice on the red forum, there's a discussion about the QC at the appeal saying the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to James Falconer.

Quote
The defence team alleges that a recently-used condom was found 50 metres from the spot where Jodi was killed, in June 2003. They added that DNA swabs matched a sample taken from Mr Falconer, who they claim also gave false statements to police.

The DNA link, however, has been disputed in court, with prosecutor John Beckett QC telling a recent hearing that DNA from Mr Falconer was "no match whatsoever" with samples collected.

How did he ever get away with that? It was the Crown that discovered the match (when Falconer's DNA was run through the database in relation to another matter) and alerted the defence - what Beckett did in court was deny the Crown's own evidence. Falconer wasn't "identified by Mitchell's defence team" - they were told his DNA matched the DNA from the condom by the Crown!

The defence didn't just "claim" Falconer made false statements to the police - when the police went back to him after finding out the information he'd given them was untrue, he is on record as saying, "I had to say something."

Findlay never explained why he "dropped interest" in Falconer - the first we heard about it was in court that day



Was Luke Mitchell not responsible for instructing Donald Findlay/his legal team? What conversations were had between the 2 (And solicitor)?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 15, 2019, 04:03:21 PM
English didn’t probe either of them enough or offer any sort of challenging questions.  It was all about how Luke was just an average, easy-go kid like the rest of the population.  That’s far from the truth whether he’s guilty or not anyway, as it is already evident from the court reports that he had seen a psychologist at age 11 and had started carrying knives and showing interest in satanic material in his early teens.  Most school incidents are dealt with internally and are resolved by teachers, such as guidance teachers.  The mere fact Mitchell was referred to a psychologist tells you that there’s clearly been genuine concerns and that the school didn’t think they were able to deal with him.

Therefore - he was not just an innocent little boy.  He had the emotional and social intelligence of someone much older, evidenced by his composure during police interrogations and his overall demeanour.  To pass him off as an ordinary little boy is nonsense and misleading in all respects.

Came on here for something completely different. Started reading some of this again over the past couple of days. Followed a site a while back , still left with the same ? around this laddies guilt. Not so refreshing to see as you state above , the misleading opinions regarding this laddie in the fight for Justice for him are still full on. Be honest, be open . Any fight is going to lack support if deliberately getting misled.

I stopped following it due to the constant accusations getting thrown around. Pointing the finger and blaming others. Not fair and not Just.  One hand doing what the other most certainly isn't.

On further examination back then it was shown that some of  the parital DNA male samples matched the laddies. Not full profiles but could have been his. The defence and the prosecution decided to omit then from the trial. Why?! I believe it could have been an endless argument of IF's. If the laddies? from contact at school? or from that evening? The misleading part is saying there was none whatsover that could?! have been his. FALSE!
!


My theory: This was something that had been well thought of and fantasised about. Not premeditated for that evening. The lack of forensics outwith the rain shows that the person(s) had thought about leaving no trace. They knew what they were doing.

Guiltyascharged: I believe that the cyclist who gave evidence re:noises, did not see the motorcycle. Also, comment from the 'blue forum' : There may indeed have been other murders of young females over time. Have yet to hear of any that are/were similar in make up. This heinous crime was, to myself, not a spur of the moment thought. This would make me think,  that the person responsible , if still at large would have commited similar.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 15, 2019, 09:00:34 PM
Its the same poor tactics they've been using for years on the deleted wap forum, mostly the same small group of people doing same stuff minus billy, or is he still there...  and the ones who left when they realised luke was guilty and seen first hand how they operate.

Why doesnt sandra post here under her own name?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 16, 2019, 06:22:55 PM
“THE Jodi Jones murder trial was told yesterday that the record of Luke Mitchell's phone had been wiped out hours after the schoolgirl died.

A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted, along with Judith Jones's attempt to contact her daughter to tell her she was "grounded" for staying out late.

Donald Findlay QC, defending Mr Mitchell, returned to evidence heard earlier this week when the so-called Black Dahlia murder of Elizabeth Short, the Hollywood actress, was raised.

Mr Findlay at the High Court in Edinburgh, asked Anthony Busuttil, pathologist :

"If, bizarre as it may seem, what happened to Jodi Jones was an attempt to replicate the injuries on Elizabeth Short, as portrayed by Marilyn Manson, that bears no scrutiny at all?"

Professor Busuttil replied:

'Some similarities, perhaps, superficial similarities."

Mr Findlay produced a report from another leading pathologist which concluded that there was no forensically significant similarity.

The report ended: "In summary I see no forensically significant similarity between the injuries present on the two victims, allowing for the fact that they are both, apparently, sexually motivated homicides of young women."

Mr Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi near a woodland path between their homes in Dalkeith, Midlothian, on June 30, 2003.

Derek Morris, 56, from Lothian and Borders Police technical support unit, said he had carried out tests on Mr Mitchell's mobile phone the day after Jodi's death.

Mr Morris said the phone's record of last numbers dialled showed only one call instead of the usual 10. It was to Mr Mitchell's mother at 39 minutes past midnight. "That was the only one listed. He must have deleted the call register and started again, " said Mr Morris.

Records from the mobile phone company listed a call from Mr Mitchell's mobile to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight. Mr Morris said he thought the records had been deleted between the two calls.

Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.

Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".

In questioning, Mr Findlay and Mr Morris agreed that text messages on Jodi's mother's mobile had also been deleted and there was nothing unusual about people doing that.

Alan Turnbull QC, for the prosecution, told the jury that before the Crown case closes, probably some time next week, he would be asking experts about a computer found in the bedroom of Shane Mitchell, Mr Mitchell's brother.

The court has heard that someone made a 22-minute internet connection from the Mitchell home in Newbattle, Dalkeith, just before 5pm on June 30, 2003.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 16, 2019, 06:37:06 PM

All the omissions are pretty relevant to be honest.  The fact he was sent to a psychiatrist after writing sadistic essays; the school jotters with 666 and references to hell; the knife pouch with Jodi’s name etc.  It’s no surprise that the Jury convicted him.

“In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 16, 2019, 08:07:58 PM
“Mitchell may have been calm, but his story was erratic. The accounts he gave of why he never showed any concern over Jodi's non-appearance varied with every person he spoke to: his friends, Jodi's family, the police. It was these fabrications that initially roused police suspicions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/22/ukcrime.gerardseenan


Suspicion fell on Mitchell within days of the crime because of inconsistencies in his story, witness accounts of his suspicious behaviour and a sighting of somebody matching his description at the murder scene.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/convicted-of-murder-teenager-obsessed-by-occult-487831.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 17, 2019, 12:29:14 AM
“In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

Iria Suárez González was a teenage girl obssessed with satanism. Her and her friend Raquel Carlés “started to play with the idea of killing somebody. They had been thinking about it for a short time when they heard about the crime of José Rabadán. The girls decided to take "The Katana Killer" as a role model, and made their fantasies real. They would declare that they killed to know how it feels.

In May 23, 2000, they tried to attack a woman called María Regla in a public WC, but she had a feeling about their intentions when she saw them, and ran away, saving her life.

Then, the looming killers decided to attack someone who knew and trusted them, someone who would not flee. The chosen one would be Clara García Casado, an old friend of theirs. Raquel took the phone that May 26, and told Clara that they wanted to meet her to remember old times.

That night, the three girls were on an open ground area with some beers, talking. Suddenly, Iria grabbed Clara from behind, immobilizing her, and Raquel cut the victim's throat with a knife. Clara fell off on the ground, and Raquel stabbed her fourteen times in the back. After that, they went home to change their blood soaked clothes, and then went out for a walk, as if nothing had happened.

They had been seen with Clara, and the victim's boyfrend knew that she was with them, so they were soon arrested after the discovery of the corpse.

https://serialkillercalendar.com/THE-MOST-EVIL-AND-DEMENTED-KILLERS-IN-SPAINS-HISTORY.php



The body of Clara Garcia Casado was found early on Saturday morning on scrubland in the southern town of San Fernando, bearing more than 18 knife wounds and with her head almost severed by the violence of the assault.

Two girls, aged 16 and 17, were charged with premeditated murder late on Monday and detained after eight hours of questioning. As they were led from court, some 1,500 enraged neighbours shrieked insults at them, including ``witches to the pyre''.

The judge, Juan Jose Parra, said that the elder suspect had confessed to inflicting the fatal wounds, while the other willingly participated in the premeditated slaughter.

The two had made no attempt to destroy their blood-stained clothing after the attack, or to dispose of the weapon, a small knife that was later found in the kitchen of one of theteenagers.

Judge Parra said ``there was no clear motive'' for the crime, but said that the girls wanted ``to experience something new'' and ``to become famous''. They had also told him that Clara was ``weak and easily impressionable''.

The girls had invited Clara to join them on a night out, and she had accepted because her boyfriend was watching a football match. Then, under the influence of a cocktail of alcohol and drugs, they are said to have carried out their gruesome assault.

Several young girls had apparently received similar invitations in past weeks, but Clara was the first who was willing and able to agree to the fatal escapade. Several of the victim's fingers were broken and all her nails torn, suggesting that a fierce struggle had taken place.

Investigators initially suggested a ``satanic'' motive or that role games were involved, but it seems a morbid lust for violence lay at the root of the murder. Each girl had copious literature in her bedroom exalting bizarre and cruel acts of violence.

They also kept newspaper clippings about a teenage boy, Jose Rabadan, who was arrested in April in Alicante for hacking his parents and his Downs' syndrome sister to death with a Japanese Samurai sword. The judge said the two accused had told him of their admiration for Jose, a martial arts fanatic whom they apparently considered a role model.

Spanish psychologists warned yesterday that cold-blooded acts of violence by alienated youngsters were increasingly common. These acts were often accompanied by a complete lack of remorse, or even pride, by the perpetrators.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/spanish-teens-murder-school-pal-for-fame-26119091.html

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 17, 2019, 05:02:47 PM
Go back and check with sandra, who spotted the moped. Its a shame your relying on her only for your facts, what if she was misleading?

My bad, i thought you were same guy posting.

Admin, thats noted.

That's simply not true. When I was a bit obsessed by the case (2015) I trawled through every news article I could find, every forum (current and archived) and every result google could find. I then took everything I found on to the Blue forum. It's all there on that forum still if you want to go back and see the efforts I went to. I'm not sure what else I could reasonably have done to be informed short of bothering people actually involved?!


Why doesnt sandra post here under her own name?


Maybe because there are whole topics dedicated to hating her here?

English didn’t probe either of them enough or offer any sort of challenging questions.  It was all about how Luke was just an average, easy-go kid like the rest of the population.  That’s far from the truth whether he’s guilty or not anyway, as it is already evident from the court reports that he had seen a psychologist at age 11 and had started carrying knives and showing interest in satanic material in his early teens.  Most school incidents are dealt with internally and are resolved by teachers, such as guidance teachers.  The mere fact Mitchell was referred to a psychologist tells you that there’s clearly been genuine concerns and that the school didn’t think they were able to deal with him.

Therefore - he was not just an innocent little boy.  He had the emotional and social intelligence of someone much older, evidenced by his composure during police interrogations and his overall demeanour.  To pass him off as an ordinary little boy is nonsense and misleading in all respects. 


It will be interesting to see what his interview with Luke is like. But he doesn't strike me as someone who is determined to get the truth. I mean he's not doing any actual investigating, right? Just interviews with people involved? Perhaps he's more interested in getting the word out (because he believes Luke) rather than looking to uncover anything really revelatory?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 17, 2019, 07:16:13 PM
Youll find out for yourself one day baz. She cant convince the people who matter, why? Sandra will be found out.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 17, 2019, 09:26:33 PM
It will be interesting to see what his interview with Luke is like. But he doesn't strike me as someone who is determined to get the truth. I mean he's not doing any actual investigating, right? Just interviews with people involved? Perhaps he's more interested in getting the word out (because he believes Luke) rather than looking to uncover anything really revelatory?
[/quote]

I don’t believe an interview with Mitchell will take place.  There would have to be a change in policy, as by interviewing one prisoner would encourage other prisoners to be allowed this too.  I can’t see this happening as it would then become out of control, at least in the near future anyway.

I personally don’t think the intention of James English was to pose challenging questions in these cases.  Am I right in saying he’s relatively new to the scene? As a reporter/journalist type? Had it been Piers Morgan, both Corrine and Sandra would’ve crumbled, but James sounded more reserved, maybe somewhat cautious as to what and how he was saying things.  I guess this is to be expected with such a case, but no, he didn’t press them enough regarding the anomalies and aspects that are concerning.  This is most likely because he himself doesn’t know the full story.  He doesn’t strike me as someone who would sit and read the full court appeal papers or Sandra’s new book.  He’s juggling multiple topics, but fair play to him for what he did do.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 17, 2019, 10:05:28 PM
It will be interesting to see what his interview with Luke is like. But he doesn't strike me as someone who is determined to get the truth. I mean he's not doing any actual investigating, right? Just interviews with people involved? Perhaps he's more interested in getting the word out (because he believes Luke) rather than looking to uncover anything really revelatory?


I don’t believe an interview with Mitchell will take place.  There would have to be a change in policy, as by interviewing one prisoner would encourage other prisoners to be allowed this too.  I can’t see this happening as it would then become out of control, at least in the near future anyway.

I personally don’t think the intention of James English was to pose challenging questions in these cases.  Am I right in saying he’s relatively new to the scene? As a reporter/journalist type? Had it been Piers Morgan, both Corrine and Sandra would’ve crumbled, but James sounded more reserved, maybe somewhat cautious as to what and how he was saying things.  I guess this is to be expected with such a case, but no, he didn’t press them enough regarding the anomalies and aspects that are concerning.  This is most likely because he himself doesn’t know the full story.  He doesn’t strike me as someone who would sit and read the full court appeal papers or Sandra’s new book.  He’s juggling multiple topics, but fair play to him for what he did do.

I would hazard a guess that the questions were probably set in some way to serve the purpose. An exchange of conditions for allowing the interviews to happen ( Outwith Terry's)

Interviewing Mitchell as you state would open flood gates. Right or wrong as human rights and equal oppertunities may well win the day. IF it were to go ahead, can see pretty much the same standard of Q's. Set in advance per agreemen/conditions of doing. IMO
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 18, 2019, 01:24:26 PM
Corrine spotted colecting papers from mojo, she also said in je interview lawers wont touch them, wonder why?

"Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC."

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

How come sandra lean, phillip and shane mitchell arnt there helping corine?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 18, 2019, 02:09:04 PM
Corrine spotted colecting papers from mojo, she also said in je interview lawers wont touch them, wonder why?

"Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC."

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

How come sandra lean, phillip and shane mitchell arnt there helping corine?

Interesting article, would not take it all as fact. I don't trust the media, full of misinterprets to gain an audience. However IF parts of the article are to be, believed.  This Knife found in 2015, are we to believe that this has never been examined before?


Theory here. Let's put a big IF on this having anything to do with this case. IMO this would lead me to believe that the person/s responsible are either locked up or dead. IF again a big IF this were the weapon, then it would not have been left here to be found at a later date. Not exactly buried well under ground???!!!

Interesting to see yet another avenue closed down with MOJ . Pity for if anything could have been done to fight this laddies cause (IF Innocent) these IMO would have been that chance. A fair organisation not led by misleading information.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 18, 2019, 05:11:19 PM
“In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/bunch-of-scumbags-father-of-boy-b-loudly-condemns-verdict-1.3929674

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48674668

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/judge-asks-jurors-to-take-into-account-age-of-boys-accused-of-anastasia-kriegel-murder-929908.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/book-detailing-satanic-pledge-found-in-room-of-ana-kriégel-murder-accused-1.3908177 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/book-detailing-satanic-pledge-found-in-room-of-ana-kriégel-murder-accused-1.3908177)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 18, 2019, 06:23:14 PM
“In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes?

Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist?

"Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help."

He also admitted stubbing out cigarettes on his hand as a "party trick" and had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stm

”The court was told that his English teacher, Geraldine Mackie, 41, of St David's High School in Dalkeith, Midlothian, referred Luke to a guidance teacher after he wrote a disturbing essay.

"Some of the content I found quite worrying and quite unusual for a pupil," she said.

The essay, where pupils were asked to imagine the end of the world, included the passage: "If you ask me, God is just a futile excuse, at the most, for a bunch of fools to go around annoying others who want nothing to do with them. Are these people insane? Open your eyes. People like you need satanic people like me to keep the balance. Once you shake hands with the devil you then have truly experienced life."

The essay, which Luke called "Pain and Suffering", ended with the words, "Lucifer is a fallen angel", and contained a picture of a face with two tridents crossed beneath it.

Several other jotters contained slogans such as: "Evil is the way"; "Depression is only a stage in my life, so f**k off and stay out my mind", and "the finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came" - a quotation from Nirvana frontman, the late Kurt Cobain.

Portions of Jodi's diary were read out in court in which she laid bare her feelings for the accused after the death of her father.

She wrote: "I think I am actually in love with Luke, well nearly ... God, I think I'd die if he finished with me. When I'm not with him I want to be. When I'm with him I'm happy. He's the only person that makes me forget about most of the shit in my life, but sometimes when I can't forget he helps make me feel better. No matter what he says, I believe him and that is really dangerous."

Earlier, the trial heard from Michelle Tierney, 17, who described a conversation in an area of Woodburn, Dalkeith, where young people went to smoke cannabis.

She recalled: "He said that he could just imagine himself going out and getting stoned and killing somebody and how funny it would be."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/nov/26/2


When the Devil Dares: Teenagers and Satanism
“First, recognize that satanism appeals to teenagers who have significant problems dealing with the world and who are convinced that satanism is their solution. Eight major risk factors often accompany teenage satanism: (1) extreme alienation; (2) morbid fascination with horror, death, and pain; (3) drug and alcohol use; (4) difficulty conforming to the system (whether in school, at home, or on the job); (5) a frustrating sense of powerlessness; (6) an excessive need to control; (7) high intelligence and creativity that often is used destructively; and (8) unnatural attraction to the mysterious, the occult, or the magical. Each of these risk factors are experienced to some degree by all adolescents, but for the teenager who gravitates toward satanism, these factors are consuming motivators.

Second, be aware of specific signs of satanic involvement. Watch for the teenager who seems obsessed with power, both exerting his own power over others and rejecting power over himself. Watch for the teenager whose words and actions display unusual destructiveness, who openly defies authority, and who seems almost consumed by feelings of vengeance and hate. Notice the teenager who seems absorbed with himself or herself, preoccupied with self-interests and self-indulgence.

Third, recognize that for most teenagers, satanism is an expression of rage, hostility, and self- indulgence more than it is a developed religious conviction

Teenagers and Satanism: Danger Signs
Satanic and/or occult symbols on schoolwork, clothes, personal belongings.
Attitudes of extreme isolationism, hatred, vengeance, and personal destructive power, all seemingly without remorse.
Obsession with death, violence, evil, the mysterious, and the occult.
Concurrent drug, alcohol, and sexual activity.
Reputation among peers as someone to be feared or catered to because of his/her personal power. (Or, appears to follow someone with such a reputation.)
Self-proclaimed satanist, devil-worshipper, or "witch."
Preoccupation with colors red and black (such as clothing), knives, candles, and other occult paraphrenalia.
"Book of Shadows" (secret ritual book), backward writing, occult-themed writing
http://answers.org/satan/teens_satanism.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 18, 2019, 08:05:14 PM
The Speaking Clock

Mitchell phoned the speaking clock at 16:54pm. He was at home, so are we suggesting there were no clocks, televisions, watches or other devices at home? If he wanted to know what the time was, couldn’t he have asked his brother? Findlay never mentioned in the 2008 appeal that he was a frequent user of this service, which is surprising given he would have his phone records. If Mitchell used this frequently, is it reasonable to suggest that this may have been something Findlay would have brought to the attention of the appeal court? He didn’t mention he used it frequently, and also never produced any evidence to show this. One can only assume he only ever phoned this once, with Findlay’s explanation of Mitchell phoning it out of “pure idleness” remaining unsubstantiated and subjective.

Andrina Bryson

Andrina Bryson, a key witness for the Crown, seen a male and a female at the Easthouses end of Roan’s Dyke Path somewhere between 16:50pm and 16:55pm. No two other people were traced, and no two other people have since come forward to say it was them. Given the scale of the Police investigation, this is very surprising. This timeframe (16:50-16:55) also provides an opportunity for Mitchell to call the speaking clock. Bryson can’t be sure of the exact time, therefore Mitchell may have already called this service, or was just about to call it, when he was seen. This explains why Andrina Bryson never mentioned if the person was on a telephone at the time. He had either already phoned it, or was just about to phone it.

Trial by Media and Satanism

People say it was a ‘trial by media’ due to the way Mitchell was treated, portrayed, and considered a suspect. The early reports and headlines of Mitchell being involved in satanism and having an infatuation for this may have appeared prejudicial. However, one only has to read the court appeal in 2011 to discover that he did indeed express an unusual interest in this. Not only was he involved in fights with other pupils and scribbled satanic slogans and emblems on his school work, but he was referred to an educational psychologist at age 11 due to increasingly concerning behaviour. Carrying knives and smoking cannabis was also common, as were writing concerning essays in his English class.

Ridiculous Coincidences and Strange Behaviour

Jodi Jones was murdered in an area known to both of them, evidenced by tree-bark with both their initials present. She was murdered on her way to meet Mitchell. She wasn’t going to meet her gran, mother or sister. She wasn’t going to Tesco to buy groceries. She was going to meet Mitchell.

In 2010, a knife with the name Luke was discovered relatively near to the crime scene. How many people with the name Luke lived in that area between 2003 and 2010? How many of them were passing by and decided to throw a knife away? How many of them carved their name onto this? Please do not forget that Mitchell has a habit of carving his name onto things.

During the investigation, a knife pouch with the carving ‘JJ 1989-2003 The Finest Day I Ever Had Was When Tomorrow Never Came, 666’ was found in Mitchells possession. Coincidentally, another knife had disappeared around the time of the murder. Mitchells mother also ensured her son was safe and healthy during the investigation by comforting him with knives. Not only this, she also ensured he was secure by buying him a tattoo of a skull with flames emanating from it.

When Jodi Jones left her mother's house just before 17:00pm, Mitchell called Alan Ovens twice – once at 17:32pm, and another at 17:40pm. Only the second call connected, where Ovens informed him that Jodi had left to meet him. This indicates that Ovens was aware that she had left to meet him, otherwise he would have asked Mitchell why he was phoning. Jodi had informed Alan Ovens and/or her mother that she was away to meet Mitchell, yet Mitchell failed to raise the alarm when she never appeared. Instead, he proceeds back to Newbattle and discusses with his friend David High that Jodi would not be coming out. Given that he was made aware by Ovens that she had already left, Mitchell can’t have assumed she was staying at home.

It was said that after Mitchells last text at 16:40pm to Jodi, he states he listened to music whilst cooking dinner. However, Ovens said at 17:40pm to Mitchell during a phone call that Jodi had left to meet him, as evidenced in Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008. Mitchell had replied “ok, cool”. At no point did Mitchell argue with Ovens on the telephone that an arrangement between him and Jodi had not been made. According to this exchange, it is apparent that an arrangement had indeed been made. Why would Jodi lie about who and where she was going? She had no reason to, hence why she told the truth by saying she was away to meet Mitchell.

With regards to Mitchell being at home during this timeframe, it is also evidenced in the appeal papers (Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008, section 89, that “Shane Mitchells ultimate position in cross-examination appeared to be that he could not be sure whether the appellant was in the house between 1653 and 1716 on the evening of the murder. At its highest, that evidence undermined the appellant's alibi, and allowed an inference that he was more likely out of the house at that time”.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 18, 2019, 10:13:40 PM
[Byline: GORDON McILWRAITH

LUKE Mitchell's brother recoiled in horror yesterday as he was shown gruesome pictures of Jodi Jones' naked and mutilated body.

Witness Shane Mitchell, 23, turned away after being shown the first photo of the teenager and immediately asked for a break.

After wiping away tears he was forced to look at four more photos.

He then described how, when he returned home on the day Jodi died, he watched porn on his computer because he thought he was alone in the house.

Luke Mitchell, now 16, who is on trial for murdering Jodi, insists he was at his home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, or in its immediate vicinity, between 5pm and 5.45pm on June 30 2003. Shane told the High Court in Edinburgh he arrived at the house at about 4.50pm.

He went upstairs to his bedroom and watched porn on the internet.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, asked him if he did anything else. After Shane denied it, Mr Turnbull asked him to look at photos of 14-year-old Jodi's body.

He said: "I'm not surprised at your reaction. These are not pleasant. The reason I've asked you to view them is so you can appreciate what we're dealing with here.

"Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?"

Shane said: "Yes."

He then admitted he had committed a sex act on himself and that he wouldn't have done so if he thought he wasn't home alone. Mr Turnbull added: "Who did you think was in the house?"

Shane: "No one at that time."

Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."

Shane said his mum arrived home about 5.15pm and shortly after that he joined her downstairs.

Mr Turnbull read out a police statement from Luke Mitchell in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.

And Mitchell had added: "Shane was not in when I left."

Shane agreed that if his brother had been in each would have been able to see the other. ]


Dr lean now professes simply that Shane Mitchell couldn't remember if his brother was in or out.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 18, 2019, 10:23:18 PM
[
Corinne Mitchell
Posts
256


May 06, 2010#37
Like all miscarriages of justice....the police make the time of death....when the suspect has no alibi.
It was difficult for patholigist to give accurate time of death due to Jodis body being left all night uncovered and it was raining that night.
Why did Dobbie not give instructions for the body to be covered....it beggars belief!]


Really? The police claimed the time of death was when there was no alibi for her laddie?


Raining all night? Was Mrs Mitchell not sitting out in the sun eating her dinner? after being cooped up all day in the office?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 18, 2019, 11:12:18 PM
Two good points. Sandra lean also claims shane mitchell wasnt watching porn, it was just internet pop ups, she leaves out the sex act part.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 19, 2019, 11:49:41 AM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 12:09:07 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

@ 10.11 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
5.03pm Luke phones the speaking clock from his mobile

Allegedly Corrine Mitchell arrived home from work at 5.15pm and Luke Mitchell left the house at 5.30pm

How long does it take to cook and burn a pie? (Pies usually take over half an hour to cook)

5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

“Mitchell may have been calm, but his story was erratic. The accounts he gave of why he never showed any concern over Jodi's non-appearance varied with every person he spoke to: his friends, Jodi's family, the police. It was these fabrications that initially roused police suspicions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/22/ukcrime.gerardseenan


Suspicion fell on Mitchell within days of the crime because of inconsistencies in his story, witness accounts of his suspicious behaviour and a sighting of somebody matching his description at the murder scene.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/convicted-of-murder-teenager-obsessed-by-occult-487831.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 12:42:01 PM

@ 10.11 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother

Speaking clock phoned at 5.03pm from mobile

Allegedly Corrine Mitchell arrived home from work at 5.15pm and Luke Mitchell left the house at 5.30pm

How long does it take to cook and burn a pie? (Pies usually take over half an hour to cook)

5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

@ approx 5.20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corinne Mitchell claims Luke phoned her whilst she was in the back garden, looking for JJ?

@ approx 6.34 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 there’s mention of the text message from JJ’s mum re: right toad you’re grounded etc

@ approx 7.17 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 there’s mention of another phone call to Luke and a search party being organised

@ 45.15 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell discusses the phone call made by Luke to ask her what to cook for dinner (ergo the pie has yet to go in the oven)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 01:40:38 PM
@ approx 10.47 here  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell claims Luke dialled 999 in the first instance (After discovery of JJ)


“The trial also heard how Mitchell's mobile phone records showed he had tried to concoct an unbreakable alibi.

After killing Jodi, he phoned her home to find out where she was.

On the night of her death, Jodi and Mitchell had been seen together at the start of Roan's Dyke.

It is still not known exactly what happened as they walked the path but Jodi's body was found in the woods half way along it.

Mitchell's story was he was at home all the time, making a meal, and that he was alone until his mother returned.

But the evidence of Luke's brother Shane was crucial.

Computer records revealed he was in the house viewing internet porn and he testified that he had taken precautions to ensure he was alone.

But Mitchell's mother Corinne backed his story, insisting he was in the house. Mrs Mitchell had stood by her son all the way through the trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

THE Jodi Jones murder trial was told yesterday that the record of Luke Mitchell's phone had been wiped out hours after the schoolgirl died.

A "Love U" text message from Kimberley Thomson, a former girlfriend of Mr Mitchell's, three days before the murder, had also been deleted, along with Judith Jones's attempt to contact her daughter to tell her she was "grounded" for staying out late.

Derek Morris, 56, from Lothian and Borders Police technical support unit, said he had carried out tests on Mr Mitchell's mobile phone the day after Jodi's death.

Mr Morris said the phone's record of last numbers dialled showed only one call instead of the usual 10. It was to Mr Mitchell's mother at 39 minutes past midnight. "That was the only one listed. He must have deleted the call register and started again, " said Mr Morris.

Records from the mobile phone company listed a call from Mr Mitchell's mobile to his mother at 31 minutes past midnight. Mr Morris said he thought the records had been deleted between the two calls.

Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.

Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".

The court has heard that someone made a 22-minute internet connection from the Mitchell home in Newbattle, Dalkeith, just before 5pm on June 30, 2003.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 02:13:03 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

“The court earlier heard of a six-hour police interview with Luke Mitchell where he was asked why he had not contacted Jodi when she failed to turn up to meet him as arranged.

Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.

But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."

Sgt Thomson replied: "That is correct
."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on June 19, 2019, 02:13:49 PM
Nicholas - Can you please stop spamming the thread with links to websites? There’s no discussion taking place relating to them, and that’s after I posed a couple of interesting conversation starters.

The links are of no relevance at the particular time you are posting them, and it is actually appearing to look as though you are now spamming the thread.

Please ask some questions or take part in some discussions.  This is my thread, so I am asking you politely to do something constructive. 

Thank you.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 02:16:53 PM
appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011)

Events prior to the murder
[10] The deceased's freedom to go out of an evening was restricted by her mother in the weeks prior to her death, but she was released from that restriction on the afternoon of the murder. She arrived home at around 1605 hours. At 1635 she used her mother's mobile phone to send a text message to the appellant. The appellant responded at 1636. A further text was sent by the deceased to him at 1638. The terms of these text messages were not preserved. The deceased left her house at about 1650, informing her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and would be "mucking about up here". At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock.

[11] The appellant telephoned the deceased's house at 1732, but received no reply. At 1740 he called again, and spoke to Alan Ovens, asking if the deceased was in. He was informed that she had left to meet him. He replied, "OK, cool". Ovens informed Judith Jones about this call. The deceased was due to return home by 2200, but did not. At 2241 Judith Jones sent a text to the appellant's mobile phone, indicating that the deceased was again grounded. The appellant then telephoned Mrs Jones, informing her that he had not seen the deceased. At 2300 a search party, consisting of the deceased's grandmother, Alice Walker, Janine Jones and her boyfriend, Steven Kelly, left the deceased's house and began walking along the path from the Easthouses end heading west. The appellant, accompanied by his dog, walked from the west end of the path heading in the opposite direction. He met the rest of the search party near the east end of the path. Thereafter all the members of the party headed west along the path.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 02:25:58 PM
Please ask some questions or take part in some discussions.

Why did Luke Mitchell telephone the speaking clock 1 minute before allegedly telephoning his mother at work?

At 1654 a call was made from the appellant's mobile telephone to the speaking clock.

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
5.03pm Luke phones the speaking clock from his mobile

Why do the times change over the years and new details appear to have been added to the original story?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 02:43:16 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

How long does it take to cook and burn a pie? (Pies usually take over half an hour to cook)

In 2010 Luke Mitchell’s apparently doesn’t remember exactly what was said.

5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html


“The court earlier heard of a six-hour police interview with Luke Mitchell where he was asked why he had not contacted Jodi when she failed to turn up to meet him as arranged.

Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.

@ approx 5.20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corinne Mitchell claims Luke phoned her whilst she was in the back garden, looking for JJ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 08:40:59 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

I agree.

During Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English she claimed Luke left the house at 5.40pm yet in 2010 the time was allegedly 5.30pm?

5.30pm Luke leaves the house and walks to the end of the street
5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said.
5.40pm Judy and Alan leave the house to go to the cemetery immediately
following the phone call from Luke (therefore Joseph now has no alibi)

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

She also says as soon as Luke would get in from school he would phone her at work to see what was for tea? Hasn’t it been suggested somewhere that he phoned the speaking clock to time the pie? Yet according to the above times here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg537880#msg537880 he phoned the speaking clock before phoning his mum, so he’s yet to know what’s for tea?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 19, 2019, 08:54:29 PM
During Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English

she’s asked who she thinks carried out the murder and suggests it’s “the person who confessed and the person who was positively ID’d but she gives mixed messages because she also says that her and Sandra Lean think the motive for the murder was a punishment killing?

“He’s had helpers 
“we think it’s been a punishment killing 
“he’s found out something that she’s done and he’s punished her for it
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 12:31:57 PM

@ 10.11 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
5.03pm Luke phones the speaking clock from his mobile

Allegedly Corrine Mitchell arrived home from work at 5.15pm and Luke Mitchell left the house at 5.30pm

How long does it take to cook and burn a pie? (Pies usually take over half an hour to cook)

5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

Quote
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.

A frozen chicken pie would take over half an hour to cook and burn! (I would estimate it would take at least 40-50 minutes to cook a chicken pie from frozen)

Quote
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!
 

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.'
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/jodi-accused-s-brother-suspected-of-giving-police-false-statement-1-670948
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 04:13:08 PM
A frozen chicken pie would take over half an hour to cook and burn! (I would estimate it would take at least 40-50 minutes to cook a chicken pie from frozen)
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/jodi-accused-s-brother-suspected-of-giving-police-false-statement-1-670948

This person thinks around 45 minutes https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4368699

Plus you’d need to allow time for the oven to heat up

In reality the pie would still be in the oven when Luke Mitchell is alleged to have left his house.

Quote
4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother

Quote
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.

45 minutes would take the time to 5.40pm - not allowing for time for the oven to heat up

Here https://www.livestrong.com/article/458292-how-to-bake-a-frozen-cooked-chicken-pie/ it recommends 50 minutes plus time to pre heat oven
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 04:32:42 PM
A STEAK pie is mentioned here:


“THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family’s house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell’s statement given on the previous day to Shane’s. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 20, 2019, 04:43:57 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.

Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

Many a controversy over this has been had. Didn't the laddie phone his pal several times chasing him up yet failed to chase up his GF? Why for a mate and not for the lassie? IF he believed she had been grounded which I believe was later stated, then why agree that the stepfather had said she was on her way. Did he think she had returned home and then grounded? Still doesn't make sense that he chased his pal up and not phone to confirm if she had been grounded. Bit of a puzzler thus the controversy IMO
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 05:44:47 PM
@ approx 5.20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corinne Mitchell claims Luke phoned her whilst she was in the back garden, looking for JJ?

I presume the above is related to this?

7pm Luke phones his mother to tell her if Jodi comes to the house, he is in The Abbey, and to tell Jodi to come there.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 09:11:13 PM
A STEAK pie is mentioned here:


“THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family’s house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell’s statement given on the previous day to Shane’s. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502

So is the STEAK pie a mistake of the media’s or Shane Mitchell’s?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 20, 2019, 09:41:15 PM
It’s suggested here https://www.academia.edu/4093239/Serial_Murder_and_the_Psychology_of_Violent_Crimes (Page 63 onwards) Luke Mitchell met JJ in the woods at 5pm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on June 21, 2019, 03:18:13 PM
Many a controversy over this has been had. Didn't the laddie phone his pal several times chasing him up yet failed to chase up his GF? Why for a mate and not for the lassie? IF he believed she had been grounded which I believe was later stated, then why agree that the stepfather had said she was on her way. Did he think she had returned home and then grounded? Still doesn't make sense that he chased his pal up and not phone to confirm if she had been grounded. Bit of a puzzler thus the controversy IMO

Maybe it was because Jodi's phone was broken at the time (I think?!) and so to chase her would have been more difficult and involved phoning her house again, potentially getting her into more trouble.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 21, 2019, 04:34:06 PM
Maybe it was because Jodi's phone was broken at the time (I think?!) and so to chase her would have been more difficult and involved phoning her house again, potentially getting her into more trouble.

Certainly a theory.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on June 24, 2019, 11:44:25 PM
My first thoughts on the debates against this laddies conviction started with why?

A fit up begged the Q why?

We all know it happens in our society, many a miscarriage has taken place.  Why frame this youth of 14yrs of age?

20 points of circumstantial evidence were presented against him. It mattered to me not that there was no physical evidence, (maybe I have a deviant mind) In a world of revolving ways, technology becoming more precise from then with major advancements still. The deviant mind would first and foremost concentrate on DNA and all that is attributable to it.


There were no full profiles of Lukes DNA. Not what we are led to believe in the minority of there being 100% nothing. I am by no means a scientist. From then til now? 20 markers make a full profile. At this time there were x amount of male DNA profile markers, this does not mean that there were x amount of unknown males, it simply meant that there were DNA male factors that could have been Lukes, but if more were given could have matched up to perhaps another 10 different male profiles. Every DNA profile has similarities with at least 10 other people. Thus why we need more than 10 to akin them to one person alone. For some who are fair minded, it was thought strange that no FULL DNA profile matched Lukes, they had been in close contact that day. The defence and prosecution decided to put this to the side for that very reason. It would not have mattered one Iota if Lukes DNA had been present. A relentless , time consuming argument would have unfolded as to why it was present.

There was DNA present from other males. The main one debated about resulting in every scenario imaginable was that of the sisters boyfriend. Some time ago it was stated that there was both blood and semen, now retracted back to simply being semen. (Many times, probably with much damage) I looked into this, did not take it a face value. Tried very hard to discount the simple explanation behind it and drew a blank.


Condom man, I drew a blank from the first instance, simply because, IMO, a crime that warranted intelect. You don't just deposit your full DNA. Does it matter, yes it does. Damages done to those behind a screen mean nothing to those it affects. IMO


So 3 major points of DNA , the markers not making a full profile, matched Lukes, The sisters boyfriend, went through every test and , dare I say , stould the test of time and still does. Condom man, really?


Move on from DNA. We have 2 lads on a bike, they lied, they were in the vicinity. They were not seen by the witness on his cycle who heard strange noises. there was no DNA even in 1 marker of the 20 attributable of theirs. There was of Lukes.


Their kin, dad with the dogs, spaniels, Over the wall between 5.30 onwards. Police tested the dogs, they passsed, did not pick up police scents re blood etc ( For those who may be led to believe this is a small area, it's pretty widescale. )

BUT , from here we have, liars on bikes at the location, we have condom man, we have the dad and spaniels, we have the sisters boyfriend. If what is put forward re times, reasons WHY target this 14 yr old laddie?

So WHY? for me would spell , it was the prime ministers son, got to pick someone else. Yes I'm being facetious. Simply asking WHY pick Luke?. NO DNA, absolutely no evidence , circumstanial etc against him So WHY?


Because it simply ain't true, Can juggle about just about everything, and everyone this case revolves around. Not one of the scenario of suspects could even come close to 20 avenues of circumstantial evidence. Not even one of them.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2019, 12:53:08 AM
Condom man, I drew a blank from the first instance, simply because, IMO, a crime that warranted intelect. You don't just deposit your full DNA. Does it matter, yes it does. Damages done to those behind a screen mean nothing to those it affects. IMO

Corrine Mitchell did claim Luke was more intelligent than the police however deviance does not make Luke intelligent.

Condom man may have simply had protected sex with someone and chose to omit this detail to protect the identity of the other person.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on June 28, 2019, 07:01:18 PM
In response to Gordo30 here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452104.html#msg452104

Nugnug states: “well shel ilived in the same house as her mum but her mum didn't know

He clearly has no understanding of how secretive many teenagers can be at that age; which is telling in itself. Nor does he appear to comprehend self harming. Luke Mitchell was also self harming. Stubbing out cigarettes on his hand, using a compass on his arm, drugs. Some ‘experts’ also suggests tattoos and body piercings to be linked. Self harming is often a way young people deal with overwhelming emotions.

How didn’t Corrine Mitchell know about her sons hidden bottles of urine?

He then states: “the question for me is why the police even asked abut her sexual activity and her self harming what was the relevance.

Could it be for the pathologist and to rule out what injuries were linked to the murder and what weren’t?

Common sense often goes out of the window in cases like this.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 10:55:20 PM
So is the STEAK pie a mistake of the media’s or Shane Mitchell’s?


“THE mother of Luke Mitchell yesterday claimed that her son was at home cooking dinner at the time he is alleged to have murdered the schoolgirl Jodi Jones.

Corinne Mitchell, 45, was giving evidence at the trial of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies strangling and repeatedly stabbing his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Dalkeith, Midlothian, on June 30 last year.

The court was also told that Mrs Mitchell had been arrested and charged last April at the same time as her son. But she was told yesterday that there were now no outstanding criminal proceedings against her.

Mrs Mitchell, of Newbattle, Dalkeith, told the High Court in Edinburgh that on the day Jodi was killed she arrived home from work at about 5.15pm. She said her eldest son, Shane, 23, was in his bedroom and Luke was in the kitchen. She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead.

She said he ate his meal in the living room before setting off to meet Jodi at around 5.40pm. They had made an arrangement to meet that evening by text message, she said. “They arranged to meet. He wasn’t sure what time. All he knew was she was coming down.”

Mrs Mitchell added that her son told her he planned to wait for Jodi at the end of the road.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her son’s movements that day. “Luke and I talk a lot,” Mrs Mitchell replied.

Mr Turnbull went on to say that if her account was correct then the accused could not have been sighted at the other end of Roan’s Dyke, close to Jodi’s home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, at around 4.55pm, as earlier witnesses had suggested.

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been “impossible”.

She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.

“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Yes, it did,” she replied.

She said they thought perhaps Jodi had gone to a friend’s house or had been grounded.

“How would you describe the way he was reacting to the fact she hadn’t turned up?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Mrs Mitchell replied: “I think more miffed that she hadn’t turned up.”

Asked whether he had seemed anxious, she said: “Not at that point, no.” She said he then went up to his bedroom before taking the dog for a walk.

Later that evening the police told her that Jodi Jones was dead. She denied she then said to police: “Is Luke a suspect?”

Mrs Mitchell explained she would not have said that, because she thought at that stage Jodi had died an accidental death. “I worried that she might have left her inhaler and suffered a breathing attack.”


She told the court that Jodi’s mother banned her and Luke from attending Jodi’s funeral in September 2003. She said she had written a reply to Mrs Jones, informing her that they would respect her wishes, but had also felt the need to say goodbye. Mrs Mitchell said she had a “very good” close relationship with her son. She said she liked Jodi.

Earlier, the court had been told by Shane Mitchell that he had thought he was alone in the house watching internet pornography between 4.55pm and 5.15pm on the day Jodi died.

The court was told that he had given two conflicting statements to police about the events of that night, because he had a poor memory due to previous drug use and had been reminded of the evening’s events by his mother. In his first statement he told police he thought Luke was at home cooking a steak pie in the kitchen while he was upstairs. But a few days later he changed his statement and said that he could not remember seeing Luke in the house between 4.55pm and 5.15pm.

Luke Mitchell’s special defence of alibi claims that he was at or near his home between 5pm and 5.45 pm, around the time Jodi is thought to have been murdered.

Mr Turnbull asked Shane Mitchell: “If you had not been in discussion with your mother, could you have given any information to the police?” He replied: “Not much. I could not remember anything.”

He agreed he now had no recollection of seeing his brother Luke in their home between 5pm and 5.45pm that day.

Mr Turnbull said: “Have we now reached the truth, Mr Mitchell?” The witness replied: “Yes”
The trial continues.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jodi-boyfriend-was-cooking-dinner-xpv2b0l6xn8
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 11:04:44 PM
She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead.



“When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 02, 2019, 10:53:26 AM
My first thoughts on the debates against this laddies conviction started with why?

A fit up begged the Q why?

We all know it happens in our society, many a miscarriage has taken place.  Why frame this youth of 14yrs of age?


.....WHY target this 14 yr old laddie?

So WHY? for me would spell , it was the prime ministers son, got to pick someone else. Yes I'm being facetious. Simply asking WHY pick Luke?. NO DNA, absolutely no evidence , circumstanial etc against him So WHY?

According to Sandra Lean the people in her book “No Smoke ”were just ordinary citizens, living ordinary lives, until they became caught up in a nightmare from which there was no escape. (Luke Mitchell & Simon Hall were 2 of the 7 people in her book)
As hard as it is for us to believe, there was nothing in their lifestyles, background, or personalities which brought them into the criminal justice system as “suspects,” quite aside from any consideration of evidence.


I strongly disagree with the above, for obvious reasons, and wonder what lessons, if any, have been learned since Simon Halls confession in 2013 and how he was able to con so many people over such a long period of time?

Remember Sandra Leans “imaginary 12 points for a new justice system, where she claimed Luke Mitchell scored 12 points and Simon Hall scored 10 out of the 12?

Simon Hall was guilty therefore it would surely follow 10 of those 12 points in her “imaginary new justice system require reexamination and revision?

But in January 2017 Sandra Lean stated, in response to me suggesting her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn.

”I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

Surely a synopsis of the revision of her book should also contain a reference to the Zenith burglary omission along with all the other details that came to her attention in the time leading up to Simon Halls confession? By leaving these facts out she’s misleading her readers.

And by not re-examining and revising at least 10 of the 12 points in her “imaginary new justice system theory, she’s misleading people yet further. If 10 of her 12 point imaginary new justice system theory is flawed in its reasoning which affects all 7 cases not just 1!

She then went on to state here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383720.html#msg383720

”I wrote a book about wrongful convictions, and the things that make them possible. If you'd like me to write a book about psychopathy and personality disorders, then I can do that. But let's not conflate the two.

Does Sandra Leans new book avoid looking into Luke Mitchell’s personality? What about his mothers and his brother Shane? His father? His gran?

What does it say about his personality and for example about his interests in satanism?

Does the book minimise these crucial aspects in this case, and if so, why?

An example re personality:

When Corrine Mitchell refers to her mum (Luke Mitchell’s Gran) during the James English interview, when telling a story about 3 guys on motorbikes (who allegedly surrounded the car) and knocking someone off a bike; she says;
she knocked him clean off his bike, she didn’t give a shit.”
@ approx 109.26 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

Did Luke Mitchell take after his Gran?

Did the guy who his gran allegedly knocked off his bike get hurt or didn’t “she give a shit?. Facts like this are relevant to cases like this as they often give clues to the personality traits of the individual concerned.

According to Corrine Mitchell, Luke stayed at his dads house at weekends. So what does Luke Mitchell’s dad say about his youngest sons personality? And what does his dads witness statement say? Or was he never asked about his sons personality?

In cases like this, it’s a red flag if we are only hearing parts of the picture. Having no input from Luke Mitchell’s brother and father, especially when it comes to personality traits, and after 16 years, does not help the cause in the slightest.

Was Shane Mitchell on heroin? I recall him being referred to as a “smack head.” What drug or drugs was he taking previously in order to suffer from an alleged poor memory?

Quote
The court was told that he had given two conflicting statements to police about the events of that night, because he had a poor memory due to previous drug use and had been reminded of the evening’s events by his mother.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 02, 2019, 01:27:18 PM
Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her son’s movements that day. “Luke and I talk a lot,” Mrs Mitchell replied.

Mr Turnbull went on to say that if her account was correct then the accused could not have been sighted at the other end of Roan’s Dyke, close to Jodi’s home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, at around 4.55pm, as earlier witnesses had suggested.

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been “impossible”.

She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.

“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Yes, it did,” she replied.

Yet Corrine Mitchell appears to tell James English the opposite. Remember the comment “she’ll be yipping
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 02, 2019, 02:48:53 PM
Caught in the lie

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452006.html#msg452006
Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)

According to Luke Mitchell his mother helped him finish off making dinner and according to Corrine Mitchells evidence given during trial, and depending on what version you believe, Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli.

She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead

Shane Mitchell said his brother was standing at the cooker “mashing tatties.”

Yet “The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes (Note: no mention of the broccoli/bean story)

So dinner couldn’t have been ready as Sandra Lean claims.

She also stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997
Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.

There are several anomalies with this particular version of events, not only with timings but linked to the broccoli, tatties, bean and chicken and/or steak pie stories. Who’s version of events should be believed? Why did Luke need to ask his mother when she got home if he should cook broccoli or beans? Hadn’t he already telephoned her to ask what to cook for dinner? He was an intelligent lad remember; could hold his own when interrogated by the police

Quote
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. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=583.msg17873#msg17873

Yet Shane Mitchell said; “Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

Quote
Mrs Mitchell, of Newbattle, Dalkeith, told the High Court in Edinburgh that on the day Jodi was killed she arrived home from work at about 5.15pm. She said her eldest son, Shane, 23, was in his bedroom and Luke was in the kitchen. She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jodi-boyfriend-was-cooking-dinner-xpv2b0l6xn8

Corrine Mitchell:
“When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead..
.as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.
Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.
After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!
Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813

Quote
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.
His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502

as was the case of Lynne Hall

R v SIMON JOHN HALL http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/Hall/index.html
The appellant told the police in interview and the jury at trial that he arrived home at 6.28 am, the time he saw displayed on the microwave oven clock. He went straight home, a journey of some 5 minutes. His mother was up when he arrived and they spent 10 minutes over a cup of tea. Mrs Hall gave evidence that the microwave clock was faulty; her son arrived home, she said, at 6.10 – 6.15 am. There was, on the prosecution case, an unexplained interval of an hour. http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/Hall/index.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 02, 2019, 04:59:49 PM
Corrine Mitchell is given a pretty big platform in which to finally put across her version of the truth (as she sees it) and after 16 years the stakes are high but within only 2 minute and 53 seconds (Approx) of the James English interview she avoids answering his question about Luke’s mindset on the night leading up to the murder.

Huge red flag! Massive!

Instead of setting the record straight once and for all she chose to go off at a tangent and generalise instead.

James English gives her another chance to answer, this is within the first 5 minutes of the interview, and she again chooses avoidance and skips straight to Luke allegedly leaving the house at 5.40pm.  *&^^&



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 02, 2019, 07:24:12 PM
Thanks for your input Nicholas. I watched both podcasts, i had to come find information from other sources, it does seem both podcasts are extremely bias. I don't think the interviewer had a clue what to ask or maybe he was not allowed to ask the mother on the terms of the interview.

I was a member of a Hearts fc forum a while back, a thread regarding this case was inundated with what seemed like a multi account user that actually resembles that first ladies podcasts views.

I tried to sign up to another forum, but for some reason i can't get activated, then i found this one, which seems more civil and grammar is not unreadable.

A question i have you might know, is who seen the 2 guys on the moped, and who seen the moped parked against the wall, for all the reading iv'e done on this, i cant seem to find an answer to this.

Also, how far was the body from the break in the wall, and how thick was the wood/growth? i'm just curious, as when Luke seen the body as soon as he jumped over with his light, i'm very sceptical he could do this, without known what was there already.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 01:05:41 AM
Also, how far was the body from the break in the wall, and how thick was the wood/growth? i'm just curious, as when Luke seen the body as soon as he jumped over with his light, i'm very sceptical he could do this, without known what was there already.

13 metres

Which is about 1 and a half times the length of a London bus

or

2 thirds the length of a bowling alley lane

These 2 videos, recorded 3 days after the murder, give you some idea of the thickness of the vegetation etc

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/clothes-recovered-ext-i-c-int-det-insp-tom-martin-news-footage/682856286?adppopup=true

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/investigation-continues-geissler-towards-chatting-to-news-footage/682855532?adppopup=true

9th December 2004
“IT WAS the eeriest "short country walk" any of them is ever likely to take ... strolling down a path under police guard to see for themselves the area where a teenage girl’s naked and mutilated body had been found.
Rarely, if ever, can jury service have made such a demand on citizens plucked from their everyday lives, but the eight women and seven men hearing the Jodi Jones case had it thrust upon them yesterday.

With Luke Mitchell, the youth accused of the murder, following in their footsteps, the jurors walked Roan’s Dyke path, a countryside short-cut between the residential areas of Easthouses and Newbattle in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

In court, they had already seen video footage and photographs of Jodi’s body as it lay in the undergrowth behind an imposing stone wall which separates the dirt path from woods. They had also been shown a V-shaped break in the wall, created by missing stones, through which access could be gained to the woods. On their "locus inspection" to familiarise themselves with the area, the jurors took the opportunity to climb through the V and have a look in the woods.

Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi, 14, his girlfriend, on 30 June last year by striking her repeatedly on the head and body with a knife at Roan’s Dyke path. The path has featured prominently in evidence led so far at the trial in the High Court in Edinburgh - Jodi’s home in Easthouses was only a couple of minutes’ walk from the entrance at one end of the path, and Mitchell’s home was near the other end in Newbattle.

Jodi’s mother said that, on 30 June, the teenager left their house at about 4:50pm, saying she was going to meet Mitchell. Another witness told of seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses entrance to the path.

Last week, the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, announced to the jury that, in an unusual move, they would be taken to the area "to enable you the better to understand the evidence which we have heard and are going to hear about the path and the wall and the general lie of the land".

He advised them to wear "whatever you think suitable for a relatively short country walk" and said it would be undertaken as long as the weather was not too bad.

Lord Nimmo Smith emphasised that the court would be in session during the walk and, as representatives of the public, the media would be allowed to attend and report on the event. However, the judge said it would be subject to the normal rules which severely limited television filming and photography. A police operation would ensure that no members of the public encroached on to the path and that the visit took place without intervention or distraction.

"You will have to bear in mind that the vegetation is not the same as it was at 30 June, 2003," Lord Nimmo Smith reminded the jurors.

"You might want to decide among yourselves which places you are particularly interested in looking at. I am going to stay at a distance and everybody else will, too. I do not expect to need to communicate with you during this, unless something completely unexpected arises. Feel free to talk among yourselves. Take all the time you feel you need to take."

Yesterday, the court convened as usual at 10am, but the time was the only thing normal about the day’s proceedings.

For a start, the judge and the prosecution and defence lawyers had discarded their wigs and gowns for "civvies". Then, within minutes, the jurors were boarding a coach, while the judge, lawyers and media shared a second coach.

In convoy, the buses were led through city-centre traffic and red lights by police motorcycle outriders. Puzzled pedestrians strained to get a look through the windows, thinking perhaps that someone famous was on board.

On reaching Easthouses, where the road had been sealed off, the coaches slowed as they passed Jodi Jones’s home in Parkhead Place. Police stood guard at the entrance to the Roan’s Dyke path, where sunflowers, now becoming the worse for wear, and a small Winnie the Pooh and a teddy bear were tied to a lamppost, tributes to the dead schoolgirl.

As the jurors headed off down the path, Mitchell arrived in a car, and he and a couple of escorting security officers joined his team of lawyers, led by the QC, Donald Findlay.

Lord Nimmo Smith picked up the trail behind the jurors, followed by the advocate-depute, Alan Turnbull, QC, his assistant, the defence team and then Mitchell, with reporters at the rear. All were closely observed by police officers, including a dog-handler.

In beautiful sunshine, jurors stopped at a point where the path divides, one way leading to Newtongrange on what is known as the Lady Path, and the other continuing to Newbattle. A large gap in the wall gives access to woods at that spot, and the jury had heard that the initials LM and JJ had been carved on a tree.

The Roan’s Dyke path is a narrow track, people having to walk single file some of the way, and has open fields on one side and the wall with the woods behind it on the other. That it is a popular short-cut can be seen from the amount of litter strewn about the undergrowth.

Jurors spent time at the V in the wall, about halfway down the path, and the procession emerged at Newbattle Road, some 30 minutes after setting out at Easthouses.

Again, a sunflower tribute to Jodi could be seen tied to a tree. Here, however, a small toy rabbit had fallen to the ground and it lay in the mud, dirty and abandoned.

The coach trip back to Edinburgh passed near to Mitchell’s home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.

Evidence in the trial is to resume today at a specially-built courtroom in Parliament House, Edinburgh, where a replica of a stretch of the wall at Roan’s Dyke has been erected.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/solemn-journey-for-jodi-trial-jury-1-565082
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 01:27:58 AM

Also, how far was the body from the break in the wall, and how thick was the wood/growth? i'm just curious, as when Luke seen the body as soon as he jumped over with his light, i'm very sceptical he could do this, without known what was there already.

Imagine if the jury had been shown Sandra Leans footage only (Same lady from first podcast)

Here she is in a thick looking puffer style 3/4 length coat with fur hood - suggesting the video was shot in late autumn/winter?  *&^^&

@ approx 3.12 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 01:45:26 AM
A question i have you might know, is who seen the 2 guys on the moped, and who seen the moped parked against the wall, for all the reading iv'e done on this, i cant seem to find an answer to this.

I don’t know who saw them but the below news report sounds to me as though there may have been more than one witness? The detailing in the sighting seems in depth and police reports suggest they were traced and eliminated from their enquiry.
No mention of the moped being parked against the wall?

5 days after the murder

05 Jul 2003
“Police hunting the killer of Jodi Jones are hoping to trace two teenagers seen near the entrance to a pathway on the night the teenager was murdered.
Officers hope the two boys, who were riding a small moped, may have seen something vital to the case. They were spotted near the Roman Dyke path last Monday evening when Jodi, from the Easthouses area of Dalkeith, was stabbed to death as she went to meet her boyfriend.
Members of her family discovered her partially-clothed and mutilated body when they went out to look for her after she failed to return home.
Detective Inspector Tom Martin said: "We are very keen to speak to these two boys. We have to stress that we do not believe these two are directly linked to the inquiry but we need to trace them to establish what, if anything, they may have seen.
"They attracted attention because they seemed to be having some engine problems with their bike which was initially very noisy but eventually cut out altogether leaving the boys to push it."
He described the bike as a home-made style moped with a 16in frame and a fat back tyre, hand painted dark grey.
He added that the rider of the bike was 15-17 years old and was wearing a dark top and had short dark hair. His friend was a similar age, 5ft 7in to 5ft 8in, wearing a light coloured long-sleeved top and a light-coloured baseball cap.
The latest appeal for information comes as detectives plan to stage a reconstruction of Jodi's last known movements this Monday at 5pm.
A police officer is expected to assume the role of Jodi and walk from the teenager's home in Easthouses to Roman Dyke, the path near where she was found.
Meanwhile, forensic teams are examining items removed during a search of the house where Jodi's boyfriend lives, located close to her family home.
No-one was arrested as a result of the search in which several items, including a computer, were removed, Lothian and Borders Police said.
Police quizzed the 14-year-old boy several times yesterday but stressed that the interviews were simply a matter of procedure.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1434938/Teenagers-sought-in-Jodi-murder-hunt.html

Again 5 days after the murder
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/investigation-continuies-itn-scotland-dalkeith-ext-i-c-news-footage/682861932?adppopup=true
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 03, 2019, 01:17:06 PM
Recntly registerd after lurking for while

aftr watchin the 3 james englihs videos ive repeatedly tried to ask sandra same question in comments on james videos adn her own youtube channel:

"Sandra, hw come you never adress questions about shanes testimony - or about what he say nowadays as grown man with a clear consciense? Have you spoke to him recently? Are you suggestin he lied in court and is liein now?"

- every time i aks anythin about his bro the comment is immediately removed - im guessin sandra reports it

imo this is enormous red flag - anyoen who has the chance to speak to her in person or on forum should push for good answer to questions abuot shane - what he said at the time, and what he says nowdays. he's clearly a weak link in her version of events

And her runnin a mile from any questoin about him is extremely telling

Mr Turnbull said: “Have we now reached the truth, Mr Mitchell?” The witness replied: “Yes”

^ what he said after testimony
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 01:31:17 PM
Recntly registerd after lurking for while

aftr watchin the 3 james englihs videos ive repeatedly tried to ask sandra same question in comments on james videos adn her own youtube channel:

"Sandra, hw come you never adress questions about shanes testimony - or about what he say nowadays as grown man with a clear consciense? Have you spoke to him recently? Are you suggestin he lied in court and is liein now?"

- every time i aks anythin about his bro the comment is immediately removed - im guessin sandra reports it

imo this is enormous red flag - anyoen who has the chance to speak to her in person or on forum should push for good answer to questions abuot shane - what he said at the time, and what he says nowdays. he's clearly a weak link in her version of events

And her runnin a mile from any questoin about him is extremely telling

Mr Turnbull said: “Have we now reached the truth, Mr Mitchell?” The witness replied: “Yes”

^ what he said after testimony

Welcome to the forum WW  8((()*/

Might be worthwhile reading about emotional abusers and controllers and their double standards.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 01:41:49 PM
"Sandra, hw come you never adress questions about shanes testimony - or about what he say nowadays as grown man with a clear consciense? Have you spoke to him recently? Are you suggestin he lied in court and is liein now?"

imo this is enormous red flag - anyoen who has the chance to speak to her in person or on forum should push for good answer to questions abuot shane - what he said at the time, and what he says nowdays. he's clearly a weak link in her version of events

Won’t answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?

Stonewalling and withdrawing because you’ve hit a chord over Shane Mitchell yet has no problem bullying the Jones family and others into disclosing personal and intimate details regardless of the psychological damage it may cause them?

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173
It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 02:12:35 PM
Might be worthwhile reading about emotional abusers and controllers and their double standards.

Emotionally abusive individuals set their own rules in relationships.

While some are not aware of how their behaviour affects others, there are others who will be brazen about it, with no regard for the wellbeing of their intended target (Or targets)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 03, 2019, 02:13:49 PM
Thanks for your input Nicholas. I watched both podcasts, i had to come find information from other sources, it does seem both podcasts are extremely bias. I don't think the interviewer had a clue what to ask or maybe he was not allowed to ask the mother on the terms of the interview.

I was a member of a Hearts fc forum a while back, a thread regarding this case was inundated with what seemed like a multi account user that actually resembles that first ladies podcasts views.

I tried to sign up to another forum, but for some reason i can't get activated, then i found this one, which seems more civil and grammar is not unreadable.

A question i have you might know, is who seen the 2 guys on the moped, and who seen the moped parked against the wall, for all the reading iv'e done on this, i cant seem to find an answer to this.

Also, how far was the body from the break in the wall, and how thick was the wood/growth? i'm just curious, as when Luke seen the body as soon as he jumped over with his light, i'm very sceptical he could do this, without known what was there already.

Hi Rusty, I think it was people who worked at a tool place nearby or something like that, they saw the bike parked at the V with nobody around at about 1715 when they were locking up.

If it’s the bamber ‘blue forum’ you are waiting on an account activation you don’t get a confirm email, I tried my log in details a few days later and it worked ok.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 02:16:40 PM
Hi Rusty, I think it was people who worked at a tool place nearby or something like that, they saw the bike parked at the V with nobody around at about 1715 when they were locking up.

If it’s the bamber ‘blue forum’ you are waiting on an account activation you don’t get a confirm email, I tried my log in details a few days later and it worked ok.

But was the bike actually, factually parked at the V point or were these witnesses influenced by external factors on this part of their statements?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 02:25:52 PM
Won’t answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?

Stonewalling and withdrawing because you’ve hit a chord over Shane Mitchell yet has no problem bullying the Jones family and others into disclosing personal and intimate details regardless of the psychological damage it may cause them?

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173
It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.


Abusers can be highly skilled at projecting an attractive image that convinces others they have solid personal values and wouldn’t be capable of abuse. An abuser’s thoughtful and caring behavior toward others gives their victims more reason to take the blame
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/charm-harm/201501/spotting-and-describing-hidden-emotional-abuse
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 03, 2019, 02:29:20 PM
But was the bike actually, factually parked at the V point or were these witnesses influenced by external factors on this part of their statements?

I remember asking about the witnesses that were meant to have seen the bike on the blue forum a while back, just found it,  Sandra had came back with the following


I can't name the person who saw the bike, but her other confirmed movements and evidence make it an extremely credible and reliable account. JF and GD admitted the bike was there without them at 5.15pm

Also

The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist. That places the boys and the bike at the entrance to the path, with a bike that had cut out, at approximately 17.05. Walking normally to the V point from there would have taken 4 - 5 minutes, so it's reasonable to suggest they'd need more time because they were pushing the bike, but the timings strongly suggest they would have been at the V point, with the bike, at around 5.15pm. The best evidence of all is their own statements - the admitted that it was their bike, propped against the wall without them at that time (although they initially lied to the police to have themselves off the path an in GD's house prior to 4.30). The lie was exposed by the evidence of 7 other witnesses who saw them at 5pm on the bike, a call from GD's phone at 4.30 asking JF to pick him up in Dalkeith and GD's appointment at the Jobcentre - all of that proved they were not back in GD's house before 4.30pm nor, more importantly, before 5.15pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 02:45:13 PM
I remember asking about the witnesses that were meant to have seen the bike on the blue forum a while back, just found it,  Sandra had came back with the following


I can't name the person who saw the bike, but her other confirmed movements and evidence make it an extremely credible and reliable account. JF and GD admitted the bike was there without them at 5.15pm

Also

The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist. That places the boys and the bike at the entrance to the path, with a bike that had cut out, at approximately 17.05. Walking normally to the V point from there would have taken 4 - 5 minutes, so it's reasonable to suggest they'd need more time because they were pushing the bike, but the timings strongly suggest they would have been at the V point, with the bike, at around 5.15pm. The best evidence of all is their own statements - the admitted that it was their bike, propped against the wall without them at that time (although they initially lied to the police to have themselves off the path an in GD's house prior to 4.30). The lie was exposed by the evidence of 7 other witnesses who saw them at 5pm on the bike, a call from GD's phone at 4.30 asking JF to pick him up in Dalkeith and GD's appointment at the Jobcentre - all of that proved they were not back in GD's house before 4.30pm nor, more importantly, before 5.15pm.

Is she referring to the blond lady with a high pony tail pushing the pram?

The thing is all we have are Sandra Leans interpretation of the statements; they are her version of events.

IMO you should be mindful of how Sandra Lean chose to present Simon Halls guilt when it came to light.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, she gave away many clues to her personality by choosing the stance she did at the time she did.

Luke Mitchell has had 16 years to tell his side of the story.

We know he writes letters because he unknowingly wrote to a journalist who subsequently reported on the contents of his letter/s.

There are also many clues to Luke Mitchell’s personality, none more so than how he has chosen Sandra Lean as his representative.

Does anyone’s remember Luke Mitchell referring to someone way back when as a fantasist? At 14/15 years of age he knows what a fantasist is. He knows his own mind.

For me, Sandra Lean presented as clueless as Simon Halls guilt was being exposed. Whether or not she knowingly or unknowingly chose to behave the way she did, only she knows.

But the fact is, to date, she has refused to publicly accept she was conned and this remains her sticking point.

As always, my opinions my observations.


“Monday, 30th June, 2003 marked the beginning of the last week of school at St David’s High, Dalkeith, before the summer holidays. For Jones, that summer would have meant spending long days with Mitchell, the boyfriend she had been seeing for three months. They would make trips to Edinburgh’s Cockburn Street, a popular hang-out for Goths, or smoke cannabis at local hideouts in Dalkeith.

Jones, a 14-year-old from a troubled family, whose father had committed suicide when she was nine, was in love. Mitchell was her first boyfriend and she had lost her virginity to him. Like so many other teenage girls, she wrote in her private diary that she thought she would "die" if he finished with her. When she was upset he would hug her and stroke her face. In a troubled adolescence Mitchell met her basic emotional needs of affection and trust.

But for Luke Mitchell life was much darker. Clues were emerging about just how dangerous he might be at a very young age. Born in July 1988, his parents Corinne and Philip split up when he was 11. He grew up under the care of his mother and she allowed him to do exactly as he pleased. He lived in a state of near squalor; keeping his own urine in bottles in his bedroom, rarely washing and wearing the same clothes for days on end.

Left largely to his own devices he became defiant, violent and brooding with an unhealthy fascination with knives, the occult and drugs. He was first brought to the attention of the mental health profession aged just 11, following a fight at King’s Park Primary in Dalkeith. Although the incident was just a minor skirmish with another pupil, Mitchell’s attitude was sufficiently troublesome to warrant a referral to a school psychiatrist. However, there appears to have been little further action taken by the education authorities or his parents to curb his behaviour.

When he was 12 he threatened his then girlfriend with a knife because she refused to have sex with him. The incidents went on. When he moved to St David’s High, a music teacher found him trying to throttle another pupil and he was sent to an educational psychologist. He refused the expert’s help. Instead Mitchell became a rebellious, mysterious teenager who was heavily into cannabis and supplied his Goth friends with the drug.

He also appeared to have an unhealthy interest in the occult. The jotters at his Catholic school were daubed with Satanic slogans, and he wrote a school essay containing references to the devil. Yet teachers appeared to have little control over him and he would simply defy their instructions when it suited him.

Even more worryingly, he also acquired a fascination with knives. His older brother, Shane, had a knife collection and Mitchell gathered his own array. At a party six weeks before killing Jones, he repeatedly jabbed her in the leg with a knife he had been using to cut up cannabis.

Although she was clearly devoted to Mitchell, Jones was not his only girlfriend. He had also been seeing at least two other girls and may even have been grooming them to see which would make the most suitable victim.

One of them was Kara van Nuil, now 17, who met him at army cadets in 2003. He wooed her with romantic text messages but their relationship ended abruptly after he followed her into the cadet hut one night, crept up on her, put his arm around her neck and placed a knife to her throat. Later he tried to laugh it off but van Nuil had been terrified. One month later he killed Jodi Jones.

Another of Mitchell’s girlfriends was 15-year-old Kimberley Thomson, from Kenmore, Perthshire who he had been seeing for about a year before the murder. They had met while he was on holiday and kept in touch. Her resemblance to Jones was uncanny.

Mitchell had arranged to go and stay with Thomson for a fortnight shortly after school broke up. At some point, he was going to have to break this news to Jones.

Dobbie said: "There is a potential Jodi found out about Luke’s planned holiday with Kimberley that Monday. I think he told her at lunchtime."

That conversation may have taken place at one of their favourite hideaways, an alcove off King’s Park, Dalkeith, known locally as the China Gardens. It was a place for teenagers to gather and smoke. They lit up a joint and sat alone until a friend joined them.

Dobbie added: "I am making an informed hypothesis about how Jodi may have known that day. That in itself would certainly have been a cause for her to want to see him that night."

Jones had been grounded in recent weeks by her mother as a punishment for smoking cannabis and skipping school. But that night she was allowed out to see her boyfriend.

"When she got home from school she called him on her mother’s phone and they arranged to meet," said Dobbie. "That’s how they ended up in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, a pathway that links the communities in which they lived. And if she had found out about Kimberley, she would have challenged him."

Using the evidence from the crime scene, Mitchell’s brutal attack on his girlfriend can be pieced together.

"A domestic situation develops and she suffers a blow to her face," Dobbie said. "Her lip is cut. We later found some blood on a tree trunk and the lip bleeds quite a lot when it is cut. I think at this point she turned around and headed eastwards, towards home, towards safety. But then she was struck on the head by something like the limb of a tree. Then she was strangled, her head was pulled up and her throat was cut. At that point she was dead.

"After a ‘normal’ murder, the person who committed the crime is then going to leg it or hide the body. But in this case the body is stripped and cut. Someone has wherewithal and calm. Someone is living out a fantasy at this stage. This is something someone has wanted to do.

"We are now trying to understand the mind of the killer. We know the difference between right and wrong. But this person is outwith that so it is very difficult to understand why. It would be wrong for us to go there but the trial has heard potential influences such as Marilyn Manson’s depiction of the Black Dahlia.

"Jodi’s breast was cut, her abdomen was cut, the gash on the face was identical, there was a hole in the forehead. It’s there and we can’t avoid this simulation. This was not about sex, it was about escalating violence and the opportunity to perform injuries. We are not talking about some poor wee soul that some guy has raped. This is most horrific
."
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/natural-born-killer-1-1401861
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 03:35:41 PM
9th December 2004
“IT WAS the eeriest "short country walk" any of them is ever likely to take ... strolling down a path under police guard to see for themselves the area where a teenage girl’s naked and mutilated body had been found.
Rarely, if ever, can jury service have made such a demand on citizens plucked from their everyday lives, but the eight women and seven men hearing the Jodi Jones case had it thrust upon them yesterday.

With Luke Mitchell, the youth accused of the murder, following in their footsteps, the jurors walked Roan’s Dyke path, a countryside short-cut between the residential areas of Easthouses and Newbattle in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

In court, they had already seen video footage and photographs of Jodi’s body as it lay in the undergrowth behind an imposing stone wall which separates the dirt path from woods. They had also been shown a V-shaped break in the wall, created by missing stones, through which access could be gained to the woods. On their "locus inspection" to familiarise themselves with the area, the jurors took the opportunity to climb through the V and have a look in the woods.

Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi, 14, his girlfriend, on 30 June last year by striking her repeatedly on the head and body with a knife at Roan’s Dyke path. The path has featured prominently in evidence led so far at the trial in the High Court in Edinburgh - Jodi’s home in Easthouses was only a couple of minutes’ walk from the entrance at one end of the path, and Mitchell’s home was near the other end in Newbattle.

Jodi’s mother said that, on 30 June, the teenager left their house at about 4:50pm, saying she was going to meet Mitchell. Another witness told of seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses entrance to the path.

Last week, the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, announced to the jury that, in an unusual move, they would be taken to the area "to enable you the better to understand the evidence which we have heard and are going to hear about the path and the wall and the general lie of the land".

He advised them to wear "whatever you think suitable for a relatively short country walk" and said it would be undertaken as long as the weather was not too bad.

Lord Nimmo Smith emphasised that the court would be in session during the walk and, as representatives of the public, the media would be allowed to attend and report on the event. However, the judge said it would be subject to the normal rules which severely limited television filming and photography. A police operation would ensure that no members of the public encroached on to the path and that the visit took place without intervention or distraction.

"You will have to bear in mind that the vegetation is not the same as it was at 30 June, 2003," Lord Nimmo Smith reminded the jurors.

"You might want to decide among yourselves which places you are particularly interested in looking at. I am going to stay at a distance and everybody else will, too. I do not expect to need to communicate with you during this, unless something completely unexpected arises. Feel free to talk among yourselves. Take all the time you feel you need to take."

Yesterday, the court convened as usual at 10am, but the time was the only thing normal about the day’s proceedings.

For a start, the judge and the prosecution and defence lawyers had discarded their wigs and gowns for "civvies". Then, within minutes, the jurors were boarding a coach, while the judge, lawyers and media shared a second coach.

In convoy, the buses were led through city-centre traffic and red lights by police motorcycle outriders. Puzzled pedestrians strained to get a look through the windows, thinking perhaps that someone famous was on board.

On reaching Easthouses, where the road had been sealed off, the coaches slowed as they passed Jodi Jones’s home in Parkhead Place. Police stood guard at the entrance to the Roan’s Dyke path, where sunflowers, now becoming the worse for wear, and a small Winnie the Pooh and a teddy bear were tied to a lamppost, tributes to the dead schoolgirl.

As the jurors headed off down the path, Mitchell arrived in a car, and he and a couple of escorting security officers joined his team of lawyers, led by the QC, Donald Findlay.

Lord Nimmo Smith picked up the trail behind the jurors, followed by the advocate-depute, Alan Turnbull, QC, his assistant, the defence team and then Mitchell, with reporters at the rear. All were closely observed by police officers, including a dog-handler.

In beautiful sunshine, jurors stopped at a point where the path divides, one way leading to Newtongrange on what is known as the Lady Path, and the other continuing to Newbattle. A large gap in the wall gives access to woods at that spot, and the jury had heard that the initials LM and JJ had been carved on a tree.

The Roan’s Dyke path is a narrow track, people having to walk single file some of the way, and has open fields on one side and the wall with the woods behind it on the other. That it is a popular short-cut can be seen from the amount of litter strewn about the undergrowth.

Jurors spent time at the V in the wall, about halfway down the path, and the procession emerged at Newbattle Road, some 30 minutes after setting out at Easthouses.

Again, a sunflower tribute to Jodi could be seen tied to a tree. Here, however, a small toy rabbit had fallen to the ground and it lay in the mud, dirty and abandoned.

The coach trip back to Edinburgh passed near to Mitchell’s home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent.

Evidence in the trial is to resume today at a specially-built courtroom in Parliament House, Edinburgh, where a replica of a stretch of the wall at Roan’s Dyke has been erected.
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/solemn-journey-for-jodi-trial-jury-1-565082

Wasn’t Luke Mitchell’s excuse for showing not the slightest emotion during the visit to the crime scene because the judge had warned him/the court?

14/15/16 years old and he has full control of his emotions?!

Do give over!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 04:46:31 PM
I remember asking about the witnesses that were meant to have seen the bike on the blue forum a while back, just found it,  Sandra had came back with the following


I can't name the person who saw the bike, but her other confirmed movements and evidence make it an extremely credible and reliable account. JF and GD admitted the bike was there without them at 5.15pm

Also

The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist. That places the boys and the bike at the entrance to the path, with a bike that had cut out, at approximately 17.05. Walking normally to the V point from there would have taken 4 - 5 minutes, so it's reasonable to suggest they'd need more time because they were pushing the bike, but the timings strongly suggest they would have been at the V point, with the bike, at around 5.15pm. The best evidence of all is their own statements - the admitted that it was their bike, propped against the wall without them at that time (although they initially lied to the police to have themselves off the path an in GD's house prior to 4.30). The lie was exposed by the evidence of 7 other witnesses who saw them at 5pm on the bike, a call from GD's phone at 4.30 asking JF to pick him up in Dalkeith and GD's appointment at the Jobcentre - all of that proved they were not back in GD's house before 4.30pm nor, more importantly, before 5.15pm.

During her sons trial Corrine Mitchell’s said

 “Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead

16 years later Sandra Lean is claiming “dinner was ready  *&^^&

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg541439#msg541439

”Probably the only person in Scotland who has seen absolutely everything there is to see connected to the case, so far  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU yet she’s contradicting what Luke Mitchell’s mother and alibi said during his murder trial?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 03, 2019, 05:32:57 PM
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyone’s questions or provide any information and I’m just glad she does even after all the stuff that gets posted about her. I have found she always says if the info is accurate or if she can’t remember. It’s usually times and places I’m interested which she has always kindly provided answers to where she can. She may put her interpretation in the information she provides but is that not why we are all here, to share each other’s interpretation of all the info that’s out there, I think we are all guilty of that. I may not always agree with her views etc but that applies to a lot of folk on these forums for me. I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? I’m still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 05:49:08 PM
mislead
/mɪsˈliːd/
verb
cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.
"the government misled the public about the road's environmental impact"
synonyms:   deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, throw off the scent, send on a wild goose chase, put on the wrong track, pull the wool over someone's eyes, pull someone's leg, misguide, misdirect, misinform, give wrong information to;

the Cambridge dictionary
mislead
to cause someone to believe something that is not true:
He has admitted misleading the police about his movements on the night of the murder.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mislead
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 03, 2019, 05:52:52 PM


The 17:15 sighting of the bike at the V. Six independent witnesses saw the boys and the bike driving "erratically" through the yard of their workplace at closing time - i.e. 5pm. Two of them saw the boys pushing the bike up the Newbattle Road after it cut out and turning into the Newbattle entrance to the path, as did a passing motorist.


I find that extremely hard to believe, That road has a small twist to the right, just up from the tool hire place on it with huge tree's either side, iv'e just street viewed it, no way that you could see the entrance to the path from the tool hire place, it's impossible, i notice this Sandra is quite clever with words as well "sighting of the bike at the V" so basically what i gather, no witness has said anything of the sort of seeing the bike at the V. The only way you could see this V, is if you walked down the path and came across it, you cannot see it from any distance & especially from the tool hire place, its impossible, did these witness have superman vision?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 06:00:30 PM

The only way you could see this V, is if you walked down the path and came across it, you cannot see it from any distance & especially from the tool hire place, its impossible, did these witness have superman vision?

 8((()*/

But was the bike actually, factually parked at the V point or were these witnesses influenced by external factors on this part of their statements?

Or is this a misinterpretation? And if so are the public being mislead?

So it makes sense the police would rule out the two boys on the bike as having been involved in any way in the murder right? Traced and eliminated.

Quote
We have to stress that we do not believe these two are directly linked to the inquiry but we need to trace them to establish what, if anything, they may have seen.
"They attracted attention because they seemed to be having some engine problems with their bike which was initially very noisy but eventually cut out altogether leaving the boys to push it."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 06:22:11 PM
Sandra lean asks here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU

Why did the search parties statements change?

I can answer that for her

Cognitive dissonance most probably influenced their thought processes, which would include their recall.

Totally innocent and indeed normal after such a traumatic experience. Nothing suspect in why they changed their statements.

Denial would have also played a major factor in all this.

“Shock
Immediately after a traumatic event, it is common for people to feel shocked, or numb, or unable to accept what has happened. Shock - when in shock you feel: ... cut off from your feelings, or from what is going on around you.






Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 03, 2019, 06:38:46 PM
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyone’s questions or provide any information and I’m just glad she does even after all the stuff that gets posted about her. I have found she always says if the info is accurate or if she can’t remember. It’s usually times and places I’m interested which she has always kindly provided answers to where she can. She may put her interpretation in the information she provides but is that not why we are all here, to share each other’s interpretation of all the info that’s out there, I think we are all guilty of that. I may not always agree with her views etc but that applies to a lot of folk on these forums for me. I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? I’m still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.

The unfortunate problem with one persons take on events is a bias in the way they 'mind map'. As much as Ms Lean puts forward her stance on having 'all the facts' does not necessarily mean she plays fair with them. Ms Lean came to studying this case after it had been to trial. She wasn't present at the trial, privy to any  face to face interviews pre the trial, the main people she has listened to are Luke and his mother. These claims of gathering more evidence from individuals are but that, claims. I find it rather odd that whilst it is accepted by some, that any evidence given against this laddie is whitewashed away as " attention seekers" etc. The claims of new evidence, information since, by whatever means are acceptable and believed. Double edged sword tactics.

You seem to know areas of Ms Leans beliefs and studies. I am studying areas on word play through selectiveness of information. You will no doubt have read on several accounts Ms Lean putting emphasis on the search trio (as she calls them) directly making their way to Newbattle (the path) that evening. Stating that they neither called anywhere looking for this girl, walked right past family and friends houses and Scott's caravan park. YW being one of the houses. This to people of no knowledge, would get the impression Ms Lean is seeking. I questioned Ms Lean on this, asking her why she thought the search party walked past YW's house and not directly to the path as she implied. The search party would have had to walk in the opposite direction to do this, so not directly there. Ms Lean replied that JF said in a statement that he saw them waking past that night. I found this rather interesting that she would use him (someone whom she gives little merit to re truth) What this results in of course is. Ms lean knows that to walk directly to the path from AW's house, you would not walk past YW's. Why therefore repeatedly claim this. The answer there is obvious. Now if Ms lean is privy to all of the evidence, why does she not tell the truth about phone calls that evening? She doesn't just miss them out, she denies there were any. She either doesn't have all the information or?  This is only one small area, add that together with many more areas of misinformation results in?


Bullseye. I have asked many people this Q. It is where I started from when looking into this case. With all the cries of 'trial by media' targeting Luke etc. If there was no evidence against him, lots towards other (if that is to be believed of course) Why do you think the police chose to target Luke?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 06:59:36 PM
I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she?

I do.

My apologies, I didn't intend for anything in the book to suggest I was "hinting" at any individual or even group of individuals - my point was intended to be, repeatedly, why don't we have answers and explanations for this, this and this. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173

mislead
/mɪsˈliːd/
verb
cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.
"the government misled the public about the road's environmental impact"
synonyms:   deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, throw off the scent, send on a wild goose chase, put on the wrong track, pull the wool over someone's eyes, pull someone's leg, misguide, misdirect, misinform, give wrong information to;

the Cambridge dictionary
mislead
to cause someone to believe something that is not true:
He has admitted misleading the police about his movements on the night of the murder.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mislead
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 03, 2019, 07:04:33 PM
Sandra lean asks here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU

Why did the search parties statements change?

I can answer that for her

Cognitive dissonance most probably influenced their thought processes, which would include their recall.

Totally innocent and indeed normal after such a traumatic experience. Nothing suspect in why they changed their statements.

Denial would have also played a major factor in all this.

“Shock
Immediately after a traumatic event, it is common for people to feel shocked, or numb, or unable to accept what has happened. Shock - when in shock you feel: ... cut off from your feelings, or from what is going on around you.

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?


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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 08:03:15 PM
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.

Her podcast is riddled with many telling pieces of information which the police would have quite obviously picked up on from the moment of meeting with her following the murder.

Experienced police officers would have in-depth knowledge of the varying personalities. As you say, they themselves would have been in shock, anyone with a conscience would have been. Right minded people would allow room for errors following the witnessing of something so horrific.

Easy to see and understand how and why someone like Luke Mitchell would stand out.

Piers Morgan recently interviewed Paris Bennett who was 13 at the time of murdering his 4 year old sister.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ptbnHDrkKs

I’d be interested to learn if Corrine Mitchell was coached by anyone before the interview or whether she did it off the cuff.




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 03, 2019, 08:45:58 PM
Her podcast is riddled with many telling pieces of information which the police would have quite obviously picked up on from the moment of meeting with her following the murder.

Experienced police officers would have in-depth knowledge of the varying personalities. As you say, they themselves would have been in shock, anyone with a conscience would have been. Right minded people would allow room for errors following the witnessing of something so horrific.

Easy to see and understand how and why someone like Luke Mitchell would stand out.

Piers Morgan recently interviewed Paris Bennett who was 13 at the time of murdering his 4 year old sister.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ptbnHDrkKs

I’d be interested to learn if Corrine Mitchell was coached by anyone before the interview or whether she did it off the cuff.

It may be that IF Luke is innocent her slight and blame towards others may warrant some understanding. Does not excuse however the need to put emphasis on, yet again, misinformation. She puts great weight on how Luke speeded from the house in pursuit of a very fast dog, goes into much detail on both Luke and the dogs fitness. She then goes onto discredit that of Mrs Walker, aiming to cast doubt it seems on how she managed to get to this path so quickly. Claiming 'this is an auld (67) arthritic granny, no way could she move quickly'. Ms Lean uses these words too. On research, this 67yrs old arthritic granny was the former local postwoman. Seen out and about often, marching up and down to the shops etc.  Now if these two people have researched scrupulously as they claim, what purpose is there in trying to mislead?

I took the following comment that was left on the James English podcast with Ms Lean.

 
xy
2 months ago

What I find the most repugnant about this video, is the vindication and justification of people's
'right ' to judge others .
Whether the boy had been guilty or not of a terrible crime :  it IS an equally terrible  crime to seek to unnecessarily judge, let alone punish, others .
It is a matter of fact, that those who seek revenge on others are motivated by the need to elevate themselves.
Because only people who cannot face the evil WE, every single one of us whether directly or indirectly, do every single day and every moment of our lives : seek to blame 'someone ELSE ' for our own evil .
Witness : The fact of there in fact  BEING  NO 'rule of law ', this directly  because every single person is content to give their own God-given and God-accountable power, away to 'other PERSONS ' and thereby wash our hands of responsibility for the world around us .
Nothing will ever change, until we stop saying " look what THEY DID   " and start saying , " look what WE ARE DOING "]

Many people I have conversed with on this, voice much the same.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 03, 2019, 10:39:10 PM
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyone’s questions or provide any information

think i politeley disagree  -by makin publc claims about the timeline or how things panned out usin records that arnt public, and askin people to beleive her version of events without acces to the evidenc, she open herself up to bein challenged and question, naturaly.

I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? I’m still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.

her whole career adn source of income is presumbly book sales? why would she mis-represent truth? because alleged miscarrages of justice make better readin material. she needs ther to be public doubt to remian relevant and keep selling
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 03, 2019, 10:52:36 PM
Won’t answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?

Stonewalling and withdrawing because you’ve hit a chord over Shane Mitchell yet has no problem bullying the Jones family and others into disclosing personal and intimate details regardless of the psychological damage it may cause them?

Ive read loads but cnt find anything . Has Mitchells father ever publicy said anythin about his sons guilt or innoncence?

It says a lot two me that the ONLY two ppl makin noise on his behalf are
- projectin their own guilt / denial (mother)
- seekin to make a name for themself / profit (author)

No othr family or friends
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 03, 2019, 11:22:53 PM
I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments.

Indeed it did. More than several when you compare them with previous comments she has made

Quote
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? 

Totally

Impression management. I get a sense of this with the overuse of a 14 year old child, especially so in Sandra Leans video here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU

Not at this time of night you’re not laddie. Attempting to suggest she asserted her authority as the parent

Did you catch the comment about saving her legs when she claimed she told him to take Mia?

Hadn’t she said somewhere she’d already taken Mia for a walk?

Quote
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?

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception

Quote
Why from that very first instance would you feel the police were out to get you?


Guilt

Plus Luke Mitchell had claimed to not trust the police at 14 years old? Why? What was his reason for not trusting the police if he’d allegedly had no dealings with them?

Quote
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.

Paranoia


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 03, 2019, 11:48:04 PM
think i politeley disagree  -by makin publc claims about the timeline or how things panned out usin records that arnt public, and askin people to beleive her version of events without acces to the evidenc, she open herself up to bein challenged and question, naturaly.

her whole career adn source of income is presumbly book sales? why would she mis-represent truth? because alleged miscarrages of justice make better readin material. she needs ther to be public doubt to remian relevant and keep selling

Yes I agree by answering questions and making public claims etc she does open herself upto being challenged, but from what I have read it’s the same stuff she has answered many time that she keeps being asked about (including from me) yet she still replies and I just don’t think she needs to do that so respect that she does.

I respectfully have to disagree with all the above,  I do not think the past 16 years has been about misleading the public for financial or personal gain. She had put herself at risk for something she believes to be true, Whether she is right or wrong.

I was asked - With all the cries of 'trial by media' targeting Luke etc. If there was no evidence against him, lots towards other (if that is to be believed of course) Why do you think the police chose to target Luke?

Personally I think the police focused on Luke from the off because of miss information they might have had even before they met Luke and how Luke was presenting himself, a bit of an arrogant little shite. He was different and it’s usually someone close to the victim. He fitted the profile, I don’t think they were wrong in looking at Luke as a suspect, I only think they were wrong to focus their attention on him and assume he was their guy, missing any evidence that didn’t fit to Luke and maybe letting a vital piece of evidence slip by them. They reason I say this is not from anything said by Sandra or anything I read, this was from the horses mouth a matter of a few days after the murder. I worked with the police at the time and I asked them how the case was coming on and was told  “oh we know who it is, we just need to prove it” that’s why I think they focused on Luke, because that’s what the police said directly to me. Again I’m not saying he is innocent, I’m saying there is not enough actual hard evidence for me to say he is guilty. Or in other words too much reasonable doubt. I thought if the police were that sure, that soon in, then they must have something solid, but they didn’t, or I’ve not heard it yet if they did. But really I thought police worked mainly on hard facts and evidence, not judge on someone’s personal preferences, music taste, attitude or appearance, remember the Christopher Jefferies and Joanna Yeates murder, everyone “knew” it was him, they just had to prove it...

I’d love to see Luke speak, and tell his side, answer some questions directly himself, like it’s been said, it’s been all these years but you never hear from Luke, I’d love to see him being interviewed, wonder what is needed for that to happen.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 04, 2019, 12:08:08 AM
Indeed it did. More than several when you compare them with previous comments she has made

Totally - impression management

Not at this time of night you’re not laddie. Attempting to suggest she asserted her authority as the parent

Did you catch the comment about saving her legs when she claimed she told him to take Mia?

Hadn’t she said somewhere she’d already taken Mia for a walk?

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception
 

Guilt

Paranoia

Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

Revert back to my previous post and all that may or not ring true. My disbelief in what Ms Lean puts forward in blatant play on words and selectiveness backed up with the continuous attack on all evidence against this laddie. Far better and without bias to admit the reality of what was proven to be evident. The road to justice is NOT paved with blinkers or unwarranted halos.

Be real, be honest, be just.  "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 12:27:16 AM
don’t think Sandra had all the info and records, only some of what was given to the defence. I’m sure there is a whole lot of stuff they didn’t get so there will be big gaps. Take the phone records, I think there were more calls made but they just were not given all the logs. With all the mobiles, house phones etc being used at the time. So I tend not to take the info I’m given about stuff as final or full but only a part of the picture. But I do agree there is a lot of word play going on from both sides.

Thing is the police had the tools to use the mobile data to help them prove apx location, times etc even message content of Luke and others why was this not done, and if it was done why was it not given to the defence? This would have shown once and for all where the call to the speaking clock was made from, the content of the messages between Luke and Jodi, location of Luke when his calls to ao and his mum were made etc I know the technology is not as good as it is nowadays but they could still get basic info.

I asked about Luke’s dad and brother, if they believe he is innocent and why they don’t show public support. I was told they always supported Luke only want to keep their privacy which I can understand. But I was also told Shane has never supported Luke and freely says Luke is guilty, so until Shane or the dad speak out themselves it’s anyone’s guess. For my it all hangs on Shane, if he says Luke was home cooking tea and left at 5.40 and he think he is innocent or that he thinks Luke did it and categorically was not home that evening then that’s enough for me, his statements and what was said in court is too conflicting. What he has to say now I’d love to hear. But like I said either way if he thinks his bro is innocent or guilty he deserves his privacy.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 12:32:02 AM
Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

Revert back to my previous post and all that may or not ring true. My disbelief in what Ms Lean puts forward in blatant play on words and selectiveness backed up with the continuous attack on all evidence against this laddie. Far better and without bias to admit the reality of what was proven to be evident. The road to justice is NOT paved with blinkers or unwarranted halos.

Be real, be honest, be just.  "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

I agree with your opinions and observations parky!

The Jone’s and their extended relatives were and are a loving, close knit family, who have stood the test of time, in the most horrific, cruel and unfortunate of circumstances. Why would anyone choose to put them through further unnecessary bullying and provocation?

It sounds to me as if Sandra Lean has attempted to re-invent herself, or at least reinvent the way in which she is perceived.

She’s playing to a new audience through the James English platform and appears to be attempting to approach the Luke Mitchell case from an alternative angle as opposed to previous failed angles.

What she’s ultimately asking for, is a new trial for Luke Mitchell but this time on HER terms. What does this say about her personality? I know what it says to me.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 12:37:05 AM
It may be that IF Luke is innocent her slight and blame towards others may warrant some understanding. Does not excuse however the need to put emphasis on, yet again, misinformation. She puts great weight on how Luke speeded from the house in pursuit of a very fast dog, goes into much detail on both Luke and the dogs fitness. She then goes onto discredit that of Mrs Walker, aiming to cast doubt it seems on how she managed to get to this path so quickly. Claiming 'this is an auld (67) arthritic granny, no way could she move quickly'. Ms Lean uses these words too. On research, this 67yrs old arthritic granny was the former local postwoman. Seen out and about often, marching up and down to the shops etc.  Now if these two people have researched scrupulously as they claim, what purpose is there in trying to mislead?

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 12:54:09 AM
I asked about Luke’s dad and brother, if they believe he is innocent and why they don’t show public support. I was told they always supported Luke only want to keep their privacy which I can understand.

Yet the Jone’s and their extended family have no right to privacy?



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 01:16:04 AM
I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she?

Credibility

Ego

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 02:46:24 AM
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? 

Did you catch the comment about saving her legs when she claimed she told him to take Mia?

Hadn’t she said somewhere she’d already taken Mia for a walk?

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception
 

Found it. It was Luke, from Corrine Mitchell’s trial evidence

“THE mother of Luke Mitchell yesterday claimed that her son was at home cooking dinner at the time he is alleged to have murdered the schoolgirl Jodi Jones.

Corinne Mitchell, 45, was giving evidence at the trial of Luke Mitchell, 16, who denies strangling and repeatedly stabbing his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Dalkeith, Midlothian, on June 30 last year.

The court was also told that Mrs Mitchell had been arrested and charged last April at the same time as her son. But she was told yesterday that there were now no outstanding criminal proceedings against her.

Mrs Mitchell, of Newbattle, Dalkeith, told the High Court in Edinburgh that on the day Jodi was killed she arrived home from work at about 5.15pm. She said her eldest son, Shane, 23, was in his bedroom and Luke was in the kitchen. She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead.

She said he ate his meal in the living room before setting off to meet Jodi at around 5.40pm. They had made an arrangement to meet that evening by text message, she said. “They arranged to meet. He wasn’t sure what time. All he knew was she was coming down.”

Mrs Mitchell added that her son told her he planned to wait for Jodi at the end of the road.

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her son’s movements that day. “Luke and I talk a lot,” Mrs Mitchell replied.

Mr Turnbull went on to say that if her account was correct then the accused could not have been sighted at the other end of Roan’s Dyke, close to Jodi’s home in Easthouses, Dalkeith, at around 4.55pm, as earlier witnesses had suggested.

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been “impossible”.

She said her son returned home quite early that night, at around 9pm, and told her that Jodi had not turned up.

“Did that surprise you?” Mr Turnbull asked.

“Yes, it did,” she replied.

She said they thought perhaps Jodi had gone to a friend’s house or had been grounded.

“How would you describe the way he was reacting to the fact she hadn’t turned up?” Mr Turnbull asked.

Mrs Mitchell replied: “I think more miffed that she hadn’t turned up.”

Asked whether he had seemed anxious, she said: “Not at that point, no.” She said he then went up to his bedroom before taking the dog for a walk.

Later that evening the police told her that Jodi Jones was dead. She denied she then said to police: “Is Luke a suspect?”

Mrs Mitchell explained she would not have said that, because she thought at that stage Jodi had died an accidental death. “I worried that she might have left her inhaler and suffered a breathing attack.”

She told the court that Jodi’s mother banned her and Luke from attending Jodi’s funeral in September 2003. She said she had written a reply to Mrs Jones, informing her that they would respect her wishes, but had also felt the need to say goodbye. Mrs Mitchell said she had a “very good” close relationship with her son. She said she liked Jodi.

Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

Revert back to my previous post and all that may or not ring true. My disbelief in what Ms Lean puts forward in blatant play on words and selectiveness backed up with the continuous attack on all evidence against this laddie. Far better and without bias to admit the reality of what was proven to be evident. The road to justice is NOT paved with blinkers or unwarranted halos.

Be real, be honest, be just.  "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Was he disposing of incriminating evidence during his dog walk maybe?

He wasn’t taken for questioning until after the discovery of JJ’s body. What time did he get home? I’m presuming early hours of the morning? And his house wasn’t searched for another 3 days, so again plenty of time to cover his tracks further.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Angelo222 on July 04, 2019, 02:47:50 AM
don’t think Sandra had all the info and records, only some of what was given to the defence. I’m sure there is a whole lot of stuff they didn’t get so there will be big gaps. Take the phone records, I think there were more calls made but they just were not given all the logs. With all the mobiles, house phones etc being used at the time. So I tend not to take the info I’m given about stuff as final or full but only a part of the picture. But I do agree there is a lot of word play going on from both sides.

Thing is the police had the tools to use the mobile data to help them prove apx location, times etc even message content of Luke and others why was this not done, and if it was done why was it not given to the defence? This would have shown once and for all where the call to the speaking clock was made from, the content of the messages between Luke and Jodi, location of Luke when his calls to ao and his mum were made etc I know the technology is not as good as it is nowadays but they could still get basic info.

I asked about Luke’s dad and brother, if they believe he is innocent and why they don’t show public support. I was told they always supported Luke only want to keep their privacy which I can understand. But I was also told Shane has never supported Luke and freely says Luke is guilty, so until Shane or the dad speak out themselves it’s anyone’s guess. For my it all hangs on Shane, if he says Luke was home cooking tea and left at 5.40 and he think he is innocent or that he thinks Luke did it and categorically was not home that evening then that’s enough for me, his statements and what was said in court is too conflicting. What he has to say now I’d love to hear. But like I said either way if he thinks his bro is innocent or guilty he deserves his privacy.

The entire thing is bizarre. Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes imo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 07:56:02 AM
Yet the Jone’s and their extended family have no right to privacy?

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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 08:03:00 AM
Credibility

Ego

Sorry still don’t agree, that she is deliberately making up lies about stuff to make herself more credible etc, but that’s just my opinion. I just think she is using the information she receives to support her views as much as possible. So do you think if there was undisputed evidence found she would withhold this or try to deliberately discredit it? Ie Luke’s full profile found or knife somehow proved to be lukes etc? And try to cover up his guilt?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 11:41:22 AM
Sorry still don’t agree, that she is deliberately making up lies about stuff to make herself more credible etc, but that’s just my opinion. I just think she is using the information she receives to support her views as much as possible. So do you think if there was undisputed evidence found she would withhold this or try to deliberately discredit it? Ie Luke’s full profile found or knife somehow proved to be lukes etc? And try to cover up his guilt?

Myself and others have witnessed first hand Sandra Leans capability for denial, over Simon Halls guilt.

She claimed at the time she was being ”sensible” for choosing to behave the way she did, her attitude suggested otherwise.

Attitude: “A predisposition or a tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain idea, object, person, or situation. Attitude influences an individual's choice of action, and responses to challenges, incentives, and rewards (together called stimuli).
Four major components of attitude are (1) Affective: emotions or feelings. (2) Cognitive: belief or opinions held consciously. (3) Conative: inclination for action. (4) Evaluative: positive or negative response to stimuli.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/attitude.html


I find it difficult to see how she would be able to cover up Luke Mitchell’s guilt if his DNA were to be found on a knife. There would be numerous people involved in the testing process and many interested parties after all.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 12:07:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 12:10:58 PM
I don’t  understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodi’s family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, I’m not sure Luke had one.

I think everyone can agree the police mucked this up right from the start, the investigation was poor, the treatment of witnesses appalling, the media reports at the time, the trial being held in Edinburgh, all the information that was not used, I can go on and on. So for all those reasons I think a retrial would be the best way forward for everyone. If you believe Luke to be guilty  and there is any evidence to be found by retesting stuff etc. then surely it can only help and prove once and for all, without doubt, that Luke is the killer (which would be the outcome I’d like to see) It would then shut this down once and for all and everyone can get on with their lives, including Jodi’s family who have had to put up with all this crap over the past 16 years, all started because of LB police (IMO).

But if there is the slightest chance Luke did not do it, and its proved in the retrial then can you imagine the pain that would cause all involved, both Jodi and Lukes family and also everyone in danger from the real killer the past years. I’m just not sure and I’d like to be, as I’m sure lots of other would be, from both sides, a retrial is the only way I can see this being put to bed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 12:27:57 PM
Sorry I don’t know anything about the Simon Hall case but denial and outright lies are 2 completely different things.

What is your understanding and interpretation of the two then?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 04, 2019, 01:15:26 PM
Thing is the police had the tools to use the mobile data to help them prove apx location, times etc even message content of Luke and others why was this not done, and if it was done why was it not given to the defence? This would have shown once and for all where the call to the speaking clock was made from, the content of the messages between Luke and Jodi, location of Luke when his calls to ao and his mum were made etc I know the technology is not as good as it is nowadays but they could still get basic info.

As far I know location was not done, but message recovery this was done - some msgs not recoverble but some recovered. i remembr readng some frm sandra on bamber forum

I asked about Luke’s dad and brother, if they believe he is innocent and why they don’t show public support. I was told they always supported Luke only want to keep their privacy which I can understand. But I was also told Shane has never supported Luke and freely says Luke is guilty, so until Shane or the dad speak out themselves it’s anyone’s guess. For my it all hangs on Shane, if he says Luke was home cooking tea and left at 5.40 and he think he is innocent or that he thinks Luke did it and categorically was not home that evening then that’s enough for me, his statements and what was said in court is too conflicting. What he has to say now I’d love to hear. But like I said either way if he thinks his bro is innocent or guilty he deserves his privacy.

agree thy have right to privacy - have met shane in past and i thnk he can live his life with head held high and clear consciense but its frustrating knowng he could correct lots of internt myths just by speaking out
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 01:29:03 PM
What is your understanding and interpretation of the two then?

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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 02:05:19 PM
Why do these threads all turn into a discussion about Sandra, or a personal slagging match as it appears most of the time. As far as I’m concerned she has always tried to answer peoples questions when really she doesn’t have to. She has set me right a few times both stuff that goes for and agains Luke. All she is trying to do is help people she believes to be innocent and I take my hat off to her for putting up with all the crap she gets but still carries on. She would certainly be someone I’d contact if I’d been done for something I didn’t do.

I think the reason he used the mobile to call speaking clock was because he was cooking tea and was getting the time right, I use to call the speaking clock all the time, any excuse really, one reason was for timing the dinner, he used his mobile as the landline would have been engaged as Shane was using the internet. But Shane’s statements have always been confusing to me, did he say he was looking at porn or could he not remember?   There has always been a lot of debate over that and what he remembers from that evening. For me whatever he remembers is proof of Luke’s innocence or guilt, was Luke home, who cooked the dinner, did he see Luke at all, was he watching porn, all this has been mixed up over the years both online and in the papers that’s why I think it be great if he was to release an open letter or statements to clear up the confusion once and for all.

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?

My first post, please be gentle lol. It’s been years since I caught up on the case. I use to read the old site til the thread was all removed. I’m not for or against Luke, it’s just there has always been some things that didn’t sit right with me, maybe you guys can help me gets my facts right and clear up a few things for me?  It’s been a few years to ponder over so there’s a few questions, sorry for the post length.

Any help with all this would be great but please feel free to ignore also, it is a lot of questions lol I’ve only been able to find one other site that has an active chat on this case, just awaiting approval to join. Thanks for your sites quick registration!

This is what I remember or have found during my recent search, which is probably totally wrong.

Clothes
What clothing was Luke wearing that night, I think the police took the clothing the same night?
Witness top of lane- green hip length fishing style jacket
Witness at bottom of lane - green bomber style jacket with orange lining
Police looking for Parker jacket and combat shirt, which Luke said was only purchased after the murder?
What did the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him on the wall at 1745 say he was wearing?
Re missing clothes, were shoes missing also, he just seems the type of lad that wears the same footwear most days? Was he? did any go missing also?

Timeframe I have so far

1640 - last txt between Jodi and Luke,
Luke said he told Jodi he was making the tea and would see her later?
1650 Jodi left house
1650-1655 2 youths seen at top of lane, male in green hip length fishing type jacket
1654 Luke called speaking clock
1705 - 1720 LK heard “human noise” on path behind wall, did not see anyone or hear motor bike
JF and GD on path at same time, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?)
1715 Luke’s mum gets home (is there proof this is when she got home?)
1715-1730 Luke, his brother and mum eat pie and mash (not all together) did his brother at least confirm this, he did eat pie and mash between 1715 and 1730?
1730-1740 Luke said he left his house
1732 - Luke called Jodi home, no answer
1740 called again AO answered and said Jodi already left to meet him.
1740 to 1745 2 witnesses saw a person in a green bomber style jacket with orange lining at gate between Luke’s house and the Path
1745 to 1750 2 boys that knew Luke saw him sitting on a wall near the path, passed him twice (what did they say he was wearing)
1820?? Luke leaves wall and goes to meet other friends around 7 at the abbey (not sure if these times are correct?) Also how long it would take to walk from the path to the abbey, or wherever he met his friend?
930 Luke said he returned home and watched a film
10pm Luke seen returning from newbattle, or outside his home? who was the witness, what was Luke wearing?
1040 txt from Jodi mum.

Everything is centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was “Although the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that time” surely that’s not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?

Luke had not showered, clothes and hair and hands dirty?

Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?

Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe

Was Luke’s dog training to be a tracker dog?

How long does it take to walk from Jodie’s house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Luke’s house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.

Again sorry for the length of the post and number of questions!

What reason did he or his mother give for calling the speaking clock?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 02:12:37 PM
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 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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 02:47:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 04, 2019, 03:35:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 03:37:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 03:41:17 PM
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?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 03:48:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 07:16:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 07:37:14 PM
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 JoeJ, for example
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 07:43:19 PM
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.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 04, 2019, 10:24:25 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 04, 2019, 10:32:11 PM
Not quite worked out how to highlight/quote words  *%87 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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 11:37:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 04, 2019, 11:40:52 PM
Not quite worked out how to highlight/quote words  *%87 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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 11:46:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 05, 2019, 11:42:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 05, 2019, 02:18:10 PM
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.

Yes it could very well be somebody else copying word for word, however I find this unlikely due to the way the 2 users in question answered other posters directly. I have seen a post to her admitting  the alias that you mention, but I've seen nothing admitting to Jigsaw, but it is no secret she was not alone, Mr Middleton could also be behind several of these accounts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 05, 2019, 03:30:06 PM
I don’t  understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodi’s family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, I’m not sure Luke had one.

To date, it has been proven in a court of law Luke Mitchell had a far trial.

With hindsight, Simon Halls trial clearly wasn’t fair because his crime wasn’t related to a burglary gone wrong.

Doesn’t make him innocent. Nor does it mean his conviction should have been quashed or a retrial ordered.

A couple of years ago, in response to a poster re Sandra Lean, I stated:
There is nothing kind or sensible in Sandra Leans stance displayed here regarding Simon Hall's confession/guilt

Sandra Lean responded here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg388012.html#msg388012
Not from your perspective, no.
I consider it pretty sensible to ask questions when things don't add up properly. I'm sure lots of people perceive truth-seeking as "unkind," but that's the nature of the society we've become - we'd rather shoot the messenger than hear the message.
Just because you don't like the questions I ask, that doesn't make me unkind for asking them. Makes me sensible!


sensible
/ˈsɛnsɪb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.

Sandra Lean did not show wisdom by choosing to behave the way she did when she did. Though she may have thought it at the time and may still hold on to this belief?

perspective
(pəʳspektɪv  )
Word forms: plural perspectives
1. countable noun
A particular perspective is a particular way of thinking about something, especially one that is influenced by your beliefs or experiences


What perspective was Sandra Lean referring to?

More importantly, how would it have been possible for Sandra Lean, or anyone else for that matter, to comprehend the way I thought?

And how would if have been possible for Sandra Lean to know how my thoughts may have been influenced by my beliefs or experiences?

Truth seeking refers to intellectual honesty, desire for best knowledge, the inclination to ask challenging questions and to follow the reasons and evidence. I don’t see these qualities in Sandra Lean.

She has shown me she is lacking in ethical and moral integrity by how she chose to behave regarding Simon Halls guilt and her attitude at the time.

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.[1][2][3] In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,[4] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete.[1] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

I do not know if Sandra Leans mistake, error of judgement or whatever you want to call it over not recognising Simon Halls guilt, as it played out, was down to ignorance or a misguided belief? I’ve no idea if she’s still in denial, whether or not she’s quietly accepted the fact she was conned or whether she cares one way or another?

However;
In the psychological sense, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.
There are three forms of denial. Simple denial is when the painful fact is denied altogether. Minimisational denial is when the painful fact is admitted but its seriousness is downplayed. Transference denial is when the painful fact is admitted, the seriousness also admitted, but one's moral responsibility in the situation involving the painful fact is downplayed.
When a person is in denial, they engage in distractive or escapist strategies to reduce stress and help them cope. The effect upon psychological well-being in doing this is unclear.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/the_odd_body_denial/

Again no idea what category Sandra Lean would consider she falls under here but my question would be, how have her “defence mechanisms” impacted on her understanding of the Luke Mitchell case?

It’s of course up to others what they choose to think or believe and these are merely my opinions and observations.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 05, 2019, 05:35:17 PM
I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? I’m still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.

There’s a list here http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallinf.htm of the numerous “erroneous methods of inference” or approaches to the truth from stated arguments (mostly classical) by forms which often lead to error.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 05, 2019, 06:07:53 PM
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyone’s questions or provide any information and I’m just glad she does even after all the stuff that gets posted about her. I have found she always says if the info is accurate or if she can’t remember. It’s usually times and places I’m interested which she has always kindly provided answers to where she can. She may put her interpretation in the information she provides but is that not why we are all here, to share each other’s interpretation of all the info that’s out there, I think we are all guilty of that. I may not always agree with her views etc but that applies to a lot of folk on these forums for me. I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? I’m still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.

There’s a list here http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/fallinf.htm of the numerous “erroneous methods of inference” or approaches to the truth from stated arguments (mostly classical) by forms which often lead to error.

I still stand by my above statement. As I said before we just need to agree to disagree, I trust Sandra, you do not. Please can you stop posting stuff about Sandra and the Simon Hall case also, these are threads about Luke Mitchell, I think your point has been made. I suggest starting another thread focusing on the similarities in the 2 cases and Sandra’s “failures”  if you wish to keep making these kind of posts. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 05, 2019, 06:59:03 PM
Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

Revert back to my previous post and all that may or not ring true. My disbelief in what Ms Lean puts forward in blatant play on words and selectiveness backed up with the continuous attack on all evidence against this laddie. Far better and without bias to admit the reality of what was proven to be evident. The road to justice is NOT paved with blinkers or unwarranted halos.

Be real, be honest, be just.  "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

For me, it’s like history repeating itself  *&^^&

Corrine Mitchell most definitely went to mention it in her podcast with James English then obviously realised she’d slipped and got away with it.

She even tried to minimise Luke leaving the house between 9pm and 10pm by saying he was out”2 seconds”.

Why has no one pulled Corrine aside in an attempt to reason with her, that’s what I don’t understand? Doesn’t anyone care? 


“The court earlier heard of a six-hour police interview with Luke Mitchell where he was asked why he had not contacted Jodi when she failed to turn up to meet him as arranged.
Detective Sergeant George Thomson told the court Luke Mitchell had told them that he thought Jodi had met somebody else and had gone off with them.
But prosecutor Alan Turnbull QC put it to him that: "These two youngsters had met up every night, if they could, and she had only once before failed to keep an arrangement."
Sgt Thomson replied: "That is correct."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135539.stm


Can someone please explain why Corrine Mitchell thought JJ had died of natural causes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 05, 2019, 07:17:51 PM
Its the same poor tactics they've been using for years on the deleted wap forum, mostly the same small group of people doing same stuff minus billy, or is he still there...  and the ones who left when they realised luke was guilty and seen first hand how they operate.

Why doesnt sandra post here under her own name?

It appears that way to me too!

"Luke has been in jail for four years now. He went in as a 15-year-old, now he's 19 and a young man," she says.
"But he doesn't know how to be a typical 19-year-old. He hasn't been into a pub with his pals, he's not been out clubbing.
"It's going to be a long process for him when he comes out because he was just a laddie when he went inside

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/my-son-s-bed-is-ready-for-him-1-1240411

Could it be she had already recognised he also didn’t know how to be a typical 14 year old?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 05, 2019, 07:22:20 PM
Interesting article, would not take it all as fact. I don't trust the media, full of misinterprets to gain an audience. However IF parts of the article are to be, believed.  This Knife found in 2015, are we to believe that this has never been examined before?


Theory here. Let's put a big IF on this having anything to do with this case. IMO this would lead me to believe that the person/s responsible are either locked up or dead. IF again a big IF this were the weapon, then it would not have been left here to be found at a later date. Not exactly buried well under ground???!!!

Interesting to see yet another avenue closed down with MOJ . Pity for if anything could have been done to fight this laddies cause (IF Innocent) these IMO would have been that chance. A fair organisation not led by misleading information.

2 hours ago
Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
“A charity that fights wrongful convictions has had its National Lottery funding stopped and is being probed by the Scottish Government over concerns about how it is run.
The Miscarriage of Justice Organisation - known as MOJO - was awarded £120,000 by the lottery's community fund but the offer has been withdrawn.
A National Lottery Community Fund spokesperson said: "Due to ongoing governance issues, we are unable to provide MOJO with funding at this time. We welcome a further conversation with them once these issues have been addressed.
"The decision to offer the award of £120,000 was made in April 2019. Our formal withdrawal letter was issued this week."
Glasgow-based MOJO was formed by Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1975.
MOJO is due to receive £105,000 of taxpayers' money from the Scottish Government this year with at least as much agreed for each of the next two years.
The government's criminal justice division has begun an investigation, with a spokesman saying: "The Scottish Government provides funding to MOJO Scotland to provide support to people who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
"Concerns have been raised with us about their governance and management structures, which are currently subject to an investigation."
Hill launched the charity in 2001 and it is run by volunteers and two paid employees. One of them, Paul McLaughlin, is on sick leave. He declined to comment.
Management committee member Colin Grant said: "It's got to the stage now where I think MOJO has possibly gone too far, I think it's possibly imploded so much it may well be beyond salvation.
My understanding is that a charity which is receiving public funds needs to have an independent management committee to oversee how these funds are being used to make sure they are being used properly and at the moment there isn't a functioning management committee there."
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie MSP, a MOJO director since 2011, didn't respond to an STV News interview request.
Governance issues arose in April when volunteer and "head of legal" Euan McIlvride attempted to change the charity's constitution.
Management committee members, including company secretary and director Billy McAllister, blocked the move and called for independent legal advice.
McAllister also raised concerns about whether it would be appropriate to offer paid employment to McIlvride due to a previous conviction for embezzlement while working as a solicitor.
Three new directors were appointed - including Hill's partner Tara Babel - and McAllister was voted out while on holiday.
Grant said after the April meeting "all hell broke loose", adding: "Billy, who has been a director of the organisation and secretary, was summarily dismissed without any consultation [and] the co-project manager Paul McLaughlin was effectively demoted.
"The lottery funding which we'd been promised was stopped. The lottery fund decided to not give us any more money because of the problems we were having within the organisation structurally.
"The Scottish Government have now launched an investigation into how MOJO is being run and none of that was communicated to the management committee - we all learned this from outside sources."
McIlvride told STV News McAllister was removed "entirely in compliance with the relevant legislation" and because of "serious failures and misconduct in the exercise of his roles... and for separate misconduct in the form of bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers in the organisation".
He added: "It is entirely untrue to suggest, as you appear to do, that Mr McAllister was removed as a result of his raising concerns about myself. My entire history was disclosed to MOJO... in advance of my volunteering with the organisation."
McAllister, who denies the allegations, said: "I think they saw me as the main instigator to getting the concerns raised and they went after me. I have been forced out without any due process and I feel bitter about that because I've given seven or eight years of my time for nothing.
"As a famous football manager once said, there's no man bigger than the club and I think I said that to them - the organisation was bigger than any one person.
"I would like MOJO to return to how it was... an open, democratic and accountable structure."
Grant added: "One of the most ironic things about MOJO is that it was set up to try and provide victims of miscarriage of justice with a voice and yet the way it's been behaving with regard to Billy McAllister and Paul McLaughlin shows that it doesn't actually practise what it preaches because it's denied them justice."
Hill also declined to be interviewed but in a statement said McIlvride "made no secret" of his conviction and called him "honest and reliable".
He added: "As far as our clients are concerned, many have expressed their gratitude for all of Mr McIlvride's efforts in helping them and have confidence in the work he is undertaking on their behalf."
McIlvride was convicted of fraud and embezzlement but some charges were later overturned on appeal.
He said: "Given that I spent a period of time in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice, I personally think that my experience is one which enhances my suitability for the role that I exercise with this organisation."
'Giving false hope to people'
A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.
Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.
Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.
Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."
However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.
Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.
"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."
The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.
Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."
In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.
"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/


Will be interesting to see what Michelle Diskin Bates makes of all this.

Plus, she had recently pledged all monies from her book interviews as a thank you to them for putting together the submissions to the CCRC that got the ball rolling to help overturn her brother Barry George’s murder conviction.

”We are indebted, as always, to our friend and supporter Michelle Diskin Bates, who is currently in the course of a speaking tour to promote her book “Stand Against Injustice”.

Michelle has generously offered to pass to MOJO all donations received at her readings. Michelle and her husband Peter are greatly valued by this organisation for their contribution to the work that we do.

From all of us at MOJO, a sincere “thank you”
.
https://mojoscotland.org/stand-against-injustice/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 12:38:27 PM
Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Apart from STVnews (https://mobile.twitter.com/STVNews/status/1147175928654630912) it appears only Russell Findlay from the Sun has picked up on the and tweeted, with the bylines:

Meltdown at MOJO (Miscarriage of Justice Organisation charity) >> Lottery money stopped >> Scottish Government probe >> Legal chief's previous conviction >> Campaigners accuse MOJO of betrayal

Russell Findlay
@RussellFindlay1
EXCL
@STVNews
 >> Meltdown at MOJO (Miscarriage of Justice Organisation charity) >> Lottery money stopped >> Scottish Government probe >> Legal chief's previous conviction >> Campaigners accuse MOJO of betrayal
MOJO meltdown: Lottery money stopped for injustice charity
stv.tv
5:38 pm · 5 Jul 2019 · Twitter Ads Composer
8
 Retweets
11
 Likes
https://mobile.twitter.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1147183013043888128
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 01:46:51 PM
Quote
To date, it has been proven in a court of law Luke Mitchell had a far trial.

With hindsight, Simon Halls trial clearly wasn’t fair because his crime wasn’t related to a burglary gone wrong.

Doesn’t make him innocent. Nor does it mean his conviction should have been quashed or a retrial ordered.
I still stand by my above statement. As I said before we just need to agree to disagree, I trust Sandra, you do not. Please can you stop posting stuff about Sandra and the Simon Hall case also, these are threads about Luke Mitchell, I think your point has been made. I suggest starting another thread focusing on the similarities in the 2 cases and Sandra’s “failures”  if you wish to keep making these kind of posts. Just my opinion.

Intellectual dishonesty was what gained Simon Halls conviction imo. The police knew he was guilty, couldn’t prove a sexual motive, so chose to pursue it as a burglary gone wrong.

Surely attempting to fight Luke Mitchell’s case by being intellectually dishonest, as I see it, is like fighting fire with fire?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 03:53:38 PM
The Marilyn Manson calendar

I’m guessing the calendar was brought by Luke Mitchell’s “fathers new wife” for his birthday? 24th July

How long had Luke & Shane’s dad been remarried? Was he newly married or is this how Corrine Mitchell refers to her?

Could he have been given it early? Was he still visiting his dad and stepmother every weekend leading up to the murder or was Corrine Mitchell embellishing again in her podcast?

Could the reason it ended up in the bin have anything to do with the possibility he didn’t like her or get on with her? Or may have been influenced by his mum Corrine?

Surely Luke’s stepmother would have knowledge of Luke’s tastes etc?

Wouldn’t she have asked Luke’s dad for ideas of what to buy him, if she didn’t know?

What did their witness statements say about Luke’s personality?

Luke Mitchell turned 15 24 days after the murder.

Surely someone knows the answer to these questions?

In her podcast with James English Sandra Lean mentions how Luke threw the calendar in the bin.

So why did he throw it in the bin? Was that his way of showing contempt for his dads partner?

It makes no difference it was received after the murder, it’s relevant - and you don’t need to be a police officer to understand why.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 05:06:27 PM
(https://mobile.twitter.com/STVNews/status/1147175928654630912)

William Beck
@WullieBeck
·
3h
Replying to
@STVNews
Their remit does not include actively fighting miscarriages of justice.
They do not have the ability to do so.
Can anyone tell me a case they have successfully helped to win an appeal ?

That’s why I found it interesting when it was publicised a year or so ago they’d taken on the Luke Mitchell case.

MOJO told me this in 2013

It was MOJO who put together the initial submissions to the CCRC in the Barry George case.
 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 07, 2019, 02:20:26 AM
I notice the 2 famous interviews from James English has been deleted, i presume they were anyway, did James come to realize he backed the wrong horse?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 12:53:08 PM
William Beck
@WullieBeck
·
3h
Replying to
@STVNews
Their remit does not include actively fighting miscarriages of justice.
They do not have the ability to do so.
Can anyone tell me a case they have successfully helped to win an appeal ?

That’s why I found it interesting when it was publicised a year or so ago they’d taken on the Luke Mitchell case.

MOJO told me this in 2013

It was MOJO who put together the initial submissions to the CCRC in the Barry George case.

Their remit does not include actively fighting miscarriages of justice. They do not have the ability to do so.

So what changed between 2013 to date?

Did anything change or are we being given the impression it had changed; and if so by whom?

Or is it just a rue?

Surely Luke Mitchell/Corrine Mitchell were aware of MOJO’s remit? Why choose MOJO?

It appears Luke Mitchell/Corrine Mitchell went to them for help after something happened between them and Sandra Lean/WAP? Or were they always in communications with them?

But what happened in between?

Was it
a)
Quote
When the commission refused to refer the case back - I had no idea what else could be done. With a case as strong as we put forward..... ” and I didn’t know what else I could do emotions were running high obviously it was a major blow that they refused to refer it back but I didn’t know where we could go after that..

b)
Quote
”Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg543301#msg543301

c) a combination of the above?

or

d) something else?

Re: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg542976#msg542976 - Sandra Lean tweeted:

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
If Mr McAllister was removed in the manner suggested here, there will be documented evidence  of that - are these going to be made public? How odd that Mr McAllister is accused of the very complaints levelled at others within the organisation?
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1147191309939224578

I find the above interesting for varying reasons.

What first stands out is the transparency issue.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 01:54:15 PM

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/


Will be interesting to see what Michelle Diskin Bates makes of all this.

Plus, she had recently pledged all monies from her book interviews as a thank you to them for putting together the submissions to the CCRC that got the ball rolling to help overturn her brother Barry George’s murder conviction.

”We are indebted, as always, to our friend and supporter Michelle Diskin Bates, who is currently in the course of a speaking tour to promote her book “Stand Against Injustice”.

Michelle has generously offered to pass to MOJO all donations received at her readings. Michelle and her husband Peter are greatly valued by this organisation for their contribution to the work that we do.

From all of us at MOJO, a sincere “thank you”
.
https://mojoscotland.org/stand-against-injustice/

Slightly off topic but relevant to the cause imo.

Why didn’t Michelle Diskin Bates split her earnings between MOJO and her brother Barry George?

I can see why she and her brother would feel indebted to MOJO but it seems to me, from the content of her book, her brother doesn’t have a pot to pi*s in so to speak. Plus he never received a penny in compensation for his “wrongful conviction.” (Maybe she does send Barry George funds and chooses to not publicise it - who knows?)

Without her brother Barry George she wouldn’t have had monies from her book sales to pass to MOJO or anyone else for that matter? So why choose MOJO - over and above her brother?

Michelle Diskin Bates made numerous public comments about her brothers lack of funds/or poverty, whilst fighting for compensation him; did he suddenly receive a windfall from somewhere we the public are not aware of?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 01:57:01 PM
Their remit does not include actively fighting miscarriages of justice. They do not have the ability to do so.

So what changed between 2013 to date?

Did anything change or are we being given the impression it had changed; and if so by whom?

Or is it just a rue?

Surely Luke Mitchell/Corrine Mitchell we’re aware of MOJO’s remit? Why choose MOJO?

It appears Luke Mitchell/Corrine Mitchell went to them for help after something happened between them and Sandra Lean/WAP? Or were they always in communications with them?

But what happened in between?

Was it
a)
b)http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg543301#msg543301

c) a combination of the above?

or

d) something else?

Re: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg542976#msg542976 - Sandra Lean tweeted:

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
If Mr McAllister was removed in the manner suggested here, there will be documented evidence  of that - are these going to be made public? How odd that Mr McAllister is accused of the very complaints levelled at others within the organisation?
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1147191309939224578

I find the above interesting for varying reasons.

What first stands out is the transparency issue.

Sandra Lean mentions Scott Forbes here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

I’m not sure if Scott Forbes is still affiliated with MOJO but know he once was.

As a trainee lawyer, back in 2010/11 he worked for MOJO 3 days a week and was apparently instrumental in investigating two case https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf

MOJO secured a 2 year supervised traineeship for Scott Forbes with Graham Mann solicitors.

Around the same time securing a paid placement for Paul McLaughlin (who was mentioned in the news article here https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/)

In their annual report MOJO stated:

Paul and Scott have been a huge asset to the Organisation and in taking the
Projects aims and objectives forward.”


From the same MOJO annual report:

Restructuring of the Governance of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation
This year 2010-11 we will begin the process of restructuring the governance of our company. This was to ensure the long running stability of our work, and the security and continuity for our clients.

One of our main aims in the restructuring of our board of directors is to ensure long-term cohesion, which it was lacking with only 2 directors Paddy Hill, Tara Babel and John McManus as Company Secretary. It was felt for the long-term continuity that the increase in the number of directors would benefit the stability of our organisation. Therefore we are hoping to have 7 directors by the end of 2011. They will be

Patrick Hill
Gerard Conlon
Paul Blackburn
Michael O’Brien
John McManus
Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat MSP)
Iain Stephen (Consultant Clinical Psychologist)
Dr Paul Miller (Clinical Psychologist)


Is this the same Iain/Ian Stephen’s Corrine Mitchell referred to in her recent podcast with James English? Or is this another Iain/Ian Stephen?

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.
He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

Ian Stephen, another forensic psychologist, who was a consultant to the TV programme Cracker, says: "Children who kill like this are few and far between but they tend to be reasonably intelligent children. Mitchell, by all accounts, was considered an intelligent boy. People like that are usually loners who are isolated or different from their peer groups. Often there are unusual circumstances in their family life. There is very clear evidence for all of this in this case."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 03:22:54 PM
I notice the 2 famous interviews from James English has been deleted, i presume they were anyway, did James come to realize he backed the wrong horse?

Hi Rusty  8((()*/

No idea what’s going on

According to Gordo30 here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452098.html#msg452098
There are better times ahead with a lot of effort and a big push to prove this case a MOJ and the support will be with Luke as it has the past 16 years.

Was he right when he stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452189.html#msg452189
“It’s just games!!

?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 06:43:57 PM
Slightly off topic but relevant to the cause imo.

Why didn’t Michelle Diskin Bates split her earnings between MOJO and her brother Barry George?

I can see why she and her brother would feel indebted to MOJO but it seems to me, from the content of her book, her brother doesn’t have a pot to pi*s in so to speak. Plus he never received a penny in compensation for his “wrongful conviction.” (Maybe she does send Barry George funds and chooses to not publicise it - who knows?)

Without her brother Barry George she wouldn’t have had monies from her book sales to pass to MOJO or anyone else for that matter? So why choose MOJO - over and above her brother?

Michelle Diskin Bates made numerous public comments about her brothers lack of funds/or poverty, whilst fighting for compensation him; did he suddenly receive a windfall from somewhere we the public are not aware of?

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Acquitted? Ready to rebuild your life after a horrendous wrongful accusation? Think again.
Quote Tweet

Steve Hamlen
@shoulderofmutto
 · 25 Jun
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1143769765883854848
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
Is this the same Iain/Ian Stephen’s Corrine Mitchell referred to in her recent podcast with James English? Or is this another Iain/Ian Stephen?

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.
He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

Ian Stephen, another forensic psychologist, who was a consultant to the TV programme Cracker, says: "Children who kill like this are few and far between but they tend to be reasonably intelligent children. Mitchell, by all accounts, was considered an intelligent boy. People like that are usually loners who are isolated or different from their peer groups. Often there are unusual circumstances in their family life. There is very clear evidence for all of this in this case."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed/

He gets a mention here also

Jan 2005
The mother who was ‘more like a girlfriend’ to her murderer son

But Corinne Mitchell’s “well-adjusted” son was a cold-hearted killer who stabbed his girlfriend to death, lied to cover his tracks and has never shown a hint of remorse.
As Luke Mitchell, 16, faces life behind bars, the spotlight has now fallen on his mother and their “over-close” relationship.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-mother-who-was-more-like-a-girlfriend-to-her-murderer-son-7z0xcgqmtbz
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 07:30:32 PM
He gets a mention here also

Jan 2005
The mother who was ‘more like a girlfriend’ to her murderer son

But Corinne Mitchell’s “well-adjusted” son was a cold-hearted killer who stabbed his girlfriend to death, lied to cover his tracks and has never shown a hint of remorse.
As Luke Mitchell, 16, faces life behind bars, the spotlight has now fallen on his mother and their “over-close” relationship.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-mother-who-was-more-like-a-girlfriend-to-her-murderer-son-7z0xcgqmtbz

I recognised this between Simon Hall and his (adoptive) mother. However it wasn’t until around the same time he was being exposed and after his guilt became clear that it started to make sense.

I disclosed some of the facts surrounding the above to someone linked to Luke Mitchells campaign and we had a lengthy discussion on the subject. I won’t repeat what was said on the board but I remember the conversation well.

During the podcast, James English asked Corrine Mitchell whether she’d ever contemplated suicide. It’s good to hear she hadn’t but I found her reply revealing, especially as it appeared to me Shane seemed to get mentioned as an after thought? That’s the way I perceived it anyway.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 09:19:51 PM
Sandra Lean mentions Scott Forbes here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

I’m not sure if Scott Forbes is still affiliated with MOJO but know he once was.

As a trainee lawyer, back in 2010/11 he worked for MOJO 3 days a week and was apparently instrumental in investigating two case https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf

MOJO secured a 2 year supervised traineeship for Scott Forbes with Graham Mann solicitors.

Around the same time securing a paid placement for Paul McLaughlin (who was mentioned in the news article here https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/)

In their annual report MOJO stated:

Paul and Scott have been a huge asset to the Organisation and in taking the
Projects aims and objectives forward.”


From the same MOJO annual report:

Restructuring of the Governance of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation
This year 2010-11 we will begin the process of restructuring the governance of our company. This was to ensure the long running stability of our work, and the security and continuity for our clients.

One of our main aims in the restructuring of our board of directors is to ensure long-term cohesion, which it was lacking with only 2 directors Paddy Hill, Tara Babel and John McManus as Company Secretary. It was felt for the long-term continuity that the increase in the number of directors would benefit the stability of our organisation. Therefore we are hoping to have 7 directors by the end of 2011. They will be

Patrick Hill
Gerard Conlon
Paul Blackburn
Michael O’Brien
John McManus
Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat MSP)
Iain Stephen (Consultant Clinical Psychologist)
Dr Paul Miller (Clinical Psychologist)


Is this the same Iain/Ian Stephen’s Corrine Mitchell referred to in her recent podcast with James English? Or is this another Iain/Ian Stephen?

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.
He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

Ian Stephen, another forensic psychologist, who was a consultant to the TV programme Cracker, says: "Children who kill like this are few and far between but they tend to be reasonably intelligent children. Mitchell, by all accounts, was considered an intelligent boy. People like that are usually loners who are isolated or different from their peer groups. Often there are unusual circumstances in their family life. There is very clear evidence for all of this in this case."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed/

It is the same Ian Stephen btw

https://mojoscotland.org/say-im-innocent-3/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 08, 2019, 10:44:57 AM
He gets a mention here also

Jan 2005
The mother who was ‘more like a girlfriend’ to her murderer son

But Corinne Mitchell’s “well-adjusted” son was a cold-hearted killer who stabbed his girlfriend to death, lied to cover his tracks and has never shown a hint of remorse.
As Luke Mitchell, 16, faces life behind bars, the spotlight has now fallen on his mother and their “over-close” relationship.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-mother-who-was-more-like-a-girlfriend-to-her-murderer-son-7z0xcgqmtbz

“It was Corinne Mitchell who corroborated her son’s supposed alibi for the night he stabbed Jodi Jones.
She was also questioned in court about the destruction of evidence by fire in the family’s back garden, something she strongly denied.
Moreover, how could such an unhealthy relationship ever develop between a mother and her son? The special bond between them — described by some as more like girlfriend and boyfriend than mother and son — first became apparent when Luke Mitchell was interviewed on television on the day of Jodi’s funeral and protested his innocence.
Again and again his mother stroked his ear and neck to comfort him. When he appeared agitated she soothed him by putting her hand on his arm.
The display of affection was highly unusual, according to Dr Ian Stephen, a lecturer in forensic psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University and a criminal psychologist.
“The whole relationship comes across as something quite different from normal. It is almost over-close,” he said. “You are left with the impression that the son has almost taken on a partner’s role. She is almost more like a girlfriend than a mother.”
According to friends, Luke swiftly assumed the role of man of the house after his parents split up.
Even though he was the younger of two sons it was he who replaced his father, Phil, who moved out of the family home in 2000, leaving Corinne to raise him and Shane, his elder brother.
“Luke and his mother grew closer and he could do no wrong in her eyes,” said a friend.
“The way she treated him went beyond adoration. He had literally become the man of the family.”
Police are in no doubt that Corinne Mitchell would have protected her son, even if she had known he was guilty.
Her behaviour after the murder was also highly unusual. She seemed unable to say “no” to her son and is believed to have given him large amounts of money.
Even though police regarded Luke as their prime suspect she bought him a demonic skull tattoo as a present, lying about his age in the process, and replaced a knife he claimed to have lost.
Alan Turnbull QC, the advocate depute in the court case, accused her of being an accomplice rather than a responsible parent.
However, Cynthia McVey, a psychologist at Glasgow Caledonian University, believes Corinne Mitchell may have been displaying natural maternal instincts.
“Moral thought and moral action are very different,” she said. “Knowing the right thing to do and doing it when you’re faced with a pleading child that you have reared is very difficult.”

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 08, 2019, 11:02:00 AM
It is the same Ian Stephen btw

https://mojoscotland.org/say-im-innocent-3/

 *%87 I wonder?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 08, 2019, 11:19:00 AM
*%87 I wonder?

Yep, same Ian Stephen - Practitioner psychologist, who on 10th May 2019 appears to have been suspended
https://www.hcpts-uk.org/hearings/hearings/2019/may/mr-ian-stephen/

“The  Registrar  is  directed  to  suspend  the  name  of  Ian  Stephen from the Register on an interim basis for a period of 18 months.”

His page on the Kiel Centre website appears to have been taken down http://www.keilcentre.co.uk/staff-profiles/ian-stephen/

MOJO misspelled his name in their 2010/11 annual report. They obviously recognised this as their following annual report gets the spelling of his name correct.

There’s mention of him here

“The collapse of one of Scotland’s most high-profile legal firms is being investigated by police after four partners were struck off and two others suspended.
Ross Harper and Co had offices across Scotland but closed in 2012 after more than 50 years in business.
Public cash claimed in legal aid fees was not paid to suppliers and experts hired by the Glasgow firm to give evidence, an inquiry by the Law Society of Scotland found.
A dossier of evidence has now been passed to police, who have launched a criminal investigation.
One expert witness hired by the firm, Ian Stephen, a forensic psychologist, said he is owed £5000 in fees. He told the Sunday Mail: “I think it’s appropriate that police investigate.
If this happened in any other profession, the appropriate professional body would make inquiries and, if there was a criminal element to it, you would expect police to become involved.”
Professor Hugh Pennington, the Aberdeen-based bacteriologist, said he is owed £4,000. “I was shocked to discover Ross Harper were withholding payments from me and others” he said. “There has been a betrayal of trust.” One property company said it was due £50,000 in unpaid rent on Ross Harper’s offices in Glasgow city centre.
Cameron Fyfe and Alan Susskind, partners at Ross Harper, were struck off in May. Their fellow partners Alan Miller and Jim Price were struck off last month by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) for professional misconduct.
The tribunal found that Mr Miller and Mr Price were no longer fit to be solicitors. Its report said: “There was evidence that they had controlled the cashroom and finances together. They did not show any remorse or insight into their conduct. Their behaviour constituted an ongoing course of conduct over a significant period of time.”
Two other partners, Paul McHolland and Joseph Mullen, were censured by the SSDT but are still able to practise. The SSDT ruled the men used public funds to keep their business afloat rather than promptly paying suppliers.
The tribunal found that legal aid cash was left the firm’s bank account for up to two years. The cash was used to help the law practice balance its books after the 2008 financial crash.
A police spokeswoman said: “Inquiries are at an early stage.”
Ross Harper had 12 offices and was Scotland’s biggest-earning legal aid firm, accepting £1.7 million in 2006.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/criminal-investigation-into-ross-harper-and-co-law-practice-that-went-bust-b7pcckk5j

Further reading:

Lawyer who spoke at Holyrood on behalf of Law Society – struck off for dishonesty, meanwhile concerns Police probe at bust law firm Ross Harper may hit Crown Office block on prosecuting colleagues in legal profession

One expert witness hired by the firm welcomed the probe. Forensic psychologist Ian ­Stephen, who’s owed £5000 in fees, said: “I think it’s appropriate that police investigate.
“If anyone commits a crime, be it fraud or anything else, then you would expect police would make inquiries into it.
“If this happened in any other profession, the appropriate ­professional body would make inquiries and, if there was a criminal element to it, you would expect police to become involved.
“I don’t not see how the ­situation should be any different for solicitors.”
Stephen, a former senior medic at the State Hospital at Carstairs, said: “I felt badly let down by Ross Harper. You should be able to put your faith in a lawyer.
“I was always writing to them to ask why I was not being paid. I was shocked they were so ­blatant about it.”

https://petercherbi.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/rogues-gallery-lawyer-who-spoke-at-holyrood-on-behalf-of-law-society-struck-off-for-dishonesty-meanwhile-concerns-police-probe-at-bust-law-firm-ross-harper-may-hit-crown-office-block-on-prosecutin/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 08, 2019, 06:08:23 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.


Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

Excerpt from “No Smoke”

“Alan Ovens, Judy Jones’ partner, took a call on the phone from Luke at 5.40pm, apparently asking where Jodi was. He said he told Luke Jodi had already left to meet him. A great deal of emphasis was put on the fact that Luke did not call back later, when Jodi failed to show up. But by 5.40pm, Jodi had been gone from her home for 50 minutes. She was expected to have met Luke at the Easthouses end of the path within “a couple of minutes” of leaving her house, yet Lukes call did not raise the alarm with either Mr Ovens or Mrs Jones? It was portrayed in court that 14 year old Luke had somehow failed in his responsibility to his girlfriend, by not calling back when Jodi failed to show, the implication being that he was covering up what he had done by trying to appear normal. Yet basic logic suggests that the last thing he would do at that time, had he been the killer, would be to alert her parents to the fact that she was not where she should be. What if they had launched an immediate search following his 5.40pm call? Jodi’s body would have been found much more quickly - surely the murderer would want to buy as much time as possible?


The fact is he didn’t alert her parents! And his failure to do so raises suspicion and rightly so.

The other fact being basic logic would suggest this is exactly what a murderer would do.

Still interested to learn what basic logic Corrine Mitchell applied to come to the conclusion JJ had died of natural causes? Why would she suggest this during the trial?

Another thing I’ve wondered is whether Corrine Mitchell has ever felt any guilt for apparently telling Luke that JJ was probably in a friends house “yipping?” Has she ever felt partly responsible for not encouraging Luke to make more of an effort to find out where she was and why she never turned up, as arranged?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 08, 2019, 07:43:33 PM
sandras youtube channel says

- ** DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, THE LAUNCH OF www.longroadtojustice HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MONDAY 8TH JULY.

and yet nothin has happend today - this was alredy delayed?

i wonder what theyr playin at, or if theyv run into some legal challnge or trouble

Edit: actully forum is accessible but look like its got 3600+ members which loook spammy maybe thsi was the technical difficulty lol

http://longroadtojustice.com/community/members/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
This is important -

Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.

Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.

Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.


Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made. 

His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.

Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.

Excerpt from “No Smoke”

“Alan Ovens, Judy Jones’ partner, took a call on the phone from Luke at 5.40pm, apparently asking where Jodi was. He said he told Luke Jodi had already left to meet him. A great deal of emphasis was put on the fact that Luke did not call back later, when Jodi failed to show up. But by 5.40pm, Jodi had been gone from her home for 50 minutes. She was expected to have met Luke at the Easthouses end of the path within “a couple of minutes” of leaving her house, yet Lukes call did not raise the alarm with either Mr Ovens or Mrs Jones? It was portrayed in court that 14 year old Luke had somehow failed in his responsibility to his girlfriend, by not calling back when Jodi failed to show, the implication being that he was covering up what he had done by trying to appear normal. Yet basic logic suggests that the last thing he would do at that time, had he been the killer, would be to alert her parents to the fact that she was not where she should be. What if they had launched an immediate search following his 5.40pm call? Jodi’s body would have been found much more quickly - surely the murderer would want to buy as much time as possible?


The fact is he didn’t alert her parents! And his failure to do so raises suspicion and rightly so.

The other fact being basic logic would suggest this is exactly what a murderer would do.

Still interested to learn what basic logic Corrine Mitchell applied to come to the conclusion JJ had died of natural causes? Why would she suggest this during the trial?

Another thing I’ve wondered is whether Corrine Mitchell has ever felt any guilt for apparently telling Luke that JJ was probably in a friends house “yipping?” Has she ever felt partly responsible for not encouraging Luke to make more of an effort to find out where she was and why she never turned up, as arranged?

Why did Luke Mitchell and Corrine Mitchell LIE to the police and not tell them about Luke taking Mia out between 2105 to 2241? Did Shane Mitchell also LIE about this?

29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody. He had spoken to the witness Ovens around 25 minutes after he had been waiting outside, and was told that the deceased had left. David High had appeared around 25 minutes after the appellant had phoned him. After spending some time at the Abbey, the appellant went home, arriving between 2105 to 2110. He watched a video until he received the text from the deceased's mother at 2241.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The LIE about taking Mia out reminds me of the Halls (And others) lies about the zenith burglary.

How could Luke Mitchell have watched a video until he received the text from the deceased mother if he’d taken Mia out for a walk to save his mums legs, as she claimed to James English?

WHY did Luke and Corrine Mitchell choose to not tell the police about this crucial piece of evidence?

What was their reasoning behind excluding this fact?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:03:14 AM
William Beck
@WullieBeck
·
3h
Replying to
@STVNews
Their remit does not include actively fighting miscarriages of justice.
They do not have the ability to do so.
Can anyone tell me a case they have successfully helped to win an appeal ?

That’s why I found it interesting when it was publicised a year or so ago they’d taken on the Luke Mitchell case.

MOJO told me this in 2013

It was MOJO who put together the initial submissions to the CCRC in the Barry George case.

William Beck
@WullieBeck
·
Jul 6
Replying to
@RussellFindlay1
 and
@STVNews
The problem is it is not run by Paddy Hill it is being run by people who haven't a clue what they are doing.
I have lots of sympathy for Paddy Hill but he is just being used.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1147183013043888128

I’ve long been of the opinion Michelle Diskin Bates (And Barry George) have used Paddy Hill/MOJO Scotland in an attempt to make her brother appear innocent.

MICHELLE DISKIN January 9, 2018 at 18:49 // Reply
“There never was any evidence to link Luke to this terrible killing, just supposition and wild fantasy.

https://innocent.org.uk/2018/01/09/luke-mitchell-launches-fresh-innocence-appeal/

For me, whenever she comes out in support of a case and adds her take on things it’s an automatic red flag!

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
·
Jul 3, 2018
Replying to
@J4BenGeen
I’m not finding anything on Luke Mitchell, can you direct me?
https://mobile.twitter.com/J4BenGeen/status/1014241064457265154

https://m.facebook.com/pg/standgainstInjustice/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0

A powerful exposure of the wrongs in UK justice!
22 December 2018
I received this book as a gift because of my interest in all things legal. It is is a well researched, well written book that should be read by anyone interested in the UK’s justice system...and how it can get things so wrong. Read about why miscarriage of justice starts with the initial police investigation, and culminates with the lack of truth and justice required at trial, and by our appeals courts.
This book focuses mostly on one case, that of Luke Mitchell in Scotland, but what happened to Mitchell is happening all of the time.
It is so important to understand what can happen when someone becomes embroiled in the system.
Buy this book for families and friends.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Innocents-Betrayed-story-justice-abandoned/dp/199961710X/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=69751965004&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI17v1v82s4wIVKBbTCh0VoQ88EAAYASAAEgJhRvD_BwE&hvadid=338468726393&hvdev=t&hvlocphy=9045045&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=b&hvrand=3102397490138792804&hvtargid=kwd-748646246329&hydadcr=10833_1789926&keywords=innocence+betrayed+sandra+lean&qid=1562839146&s=gateway&sr=8-1

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg528185#msg528185
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 03:21:56 PM
Another red flag for me is when Corrine Mitchell laughs (Or chuckles) during her podcast when telling James English the police were allegedly going to do her for talking on her mobile whilst driving (After getting a brick through her car window)

What is funny about driving whilst being on a mobile phone?

Why didn’t she pull over a bit further up the road THEN phone the police?

It’s information and knowledge like this that also give clues to Luke Mitchell’s personality and behaviour and where it may of come from.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 03:47:20 PM
Another red flag for me is when Corrine Mitchell laughs (Or chuckles) during her podcast when telling James English the police were allegedly going to do her for talking on her mobile whilst driving (After getting a brick through her car window)

What is funny about driving whilst being on a mobile phone?

Why didn’t she pull over a bit further up the road THEN phone the police?

It’s information and knowledge like this that also give clues to Luke Mitchell’s personality and behaviour and where it may of come from.

If I got a brick through my car window I’d be shocked and would most probably need to pull over for a bit until I’d regained my composure.

How then did Corrine Mitchell feel safe to drive after this AND speak on her mobile to the police at the same time? And she claims to get palpitations?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 05:17:54 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4725.html

[quoteIt’s a confusing case and from the feedback I have seen it doesn’t seem to have had that effect, most new comers do so with an open mind though and are not connected to either party.][/quote]

Just been sifting through Ms Leans Podcast with JE. 60k + views ( Aware that this figure is boosted by repetitive viewing, myself in the scale of around 100) What interests me is that there are approx. 212 comments (507 inclusive of replies to posters comments. Some repeat posters. All mixed responses. I'm curious to the newcomers and open minds? There is this forum with a handle of contributors since the podcasts, the JB forum with the same ( 3 being Ms Lean and long term support via Gordo30 and nugnug) The new forum/organisation appears not to be up and running yet. Ms Leans solo podcast, viewing rising, but a handful  of comments only. Spells interest more so in JE. I'm working my around using the above quote, relation to work, being the implication of new comers not being confused by information given. I'm struggling to find these newcomers, querying information and so forth.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:29:53 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4725.html

Just been sifting through Ms Leans Podcast with JE. 60k + views ( Aware that this figure is boosted by repetitive viewing, myself in the scale of around 100) What interests me is that there are approx. 212 comments (507 inclusive of replies to posters comments. Some repeat posters. All mixed responses. I'm curious to the newcomers and open minds?

And many if not most newcomers will have instant access to the internet.

James English appeared to rush into the interviews. One week he’s put a shout out for Corrine Mitchell to appear on his podcast, the next, as he says “and we’re on.” https://m.facebook.com/jamesenglish11/posts/i-am-trying-to-get-a-hold-of-corrine-mitchell-to-have-her-on-my-show-for-a-chatc/799297990435669/

He’d obviously never heard of Sandra Lean.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 11, 2019, 07:23:02 PM
 Ms Leans solo podcast, viewing rising, but a handful  of comments only.


Just like to point out, that i have had 2 comments deleted on her solo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 07:25:04 PM
Ms Leans solo podcast, viewing rising, but a handful  of comments only.


Just like to point out, that i have had 2 comments deleted on her solo.

Transparency she says

Why am I not surprised.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 11, 2019, 07:29:26 PM
Ms Leans solo podcast, viewing rising, but a handful  of comments only.


Just like to point out, that i have had 2 comments deleted on her solo.

likewise , non ofensive comment askin about shanes testimony was remove.

also same question on james english video was removed

transparent as mud!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 07:32:02 PM
likewise , non ofensive comment askin about shanes testimony was remove.

also same question on james english video was removed

transparent as mud!

Thanks for sharing  8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 08:01:51 PM
likewise , non ofensive comment askin about shanes testimony was remove.

also same question on james english video was removed

transparent as mud!

Why would it be removed on James English video?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 11, 2019, 08:06:08 PM
Why would it be removed on James English video?

Gd question, but asked it again and diindt get rmoved, so could be a genuine mistake
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:07:55 PM
Gd question, but asked it again and diindt get rmoved, so could be a genuine mistake

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:41:03 PM
Did anyone notice Corrine Mitchell’s nose touch?

She does it practically at the start of the interview @ 4.22



JE: so we’ll go right back to the start Corrine, how was Luke’s upbringing

CM: Good, I mean we were a good family umm I was divorced but Luke was 11 when I got divorced but totally normal happy childhood family holidays at home he discovered he loved cooking so he used to cook um he had the dinner ready
for me coming in from from and um I he used to from me when he got in from school and he’d say right what’s for dinner I would tell him what’s for dinner and he would cook

JE: How long was Luke and Jodi seeing each other for?

CM: I think it was about 5 months

JE: 5 months

CM: yeah 5 months

JE: so leading up to that obviously when Jodi got found murdered what was the events, the lead up to the events obviously when Jodi went missing

CM: Right, well Luke left the house at about twenty to six to sit at the end of our street uh to wait for her coming um they weren’t they didn’t have (rubs nose) umm exact arrangements but he took it that she was coming down to our place and at that time a whole lot of them were meeting over in the abbey which was across from our house and he’d obviously do for a wee smoke.....
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:47:21 PM
Anyone know what happened to the long road to justice?

http://longroadtojustice.com/blurb/


Sandra lean
Today, my book about the case, Innocents Betrayed, was launched. Profits from the book are being donated to help fund a new organisation, Long Road to Justice, which will be taking a radically new approach to helping the fight against injustice.

Details of the book can be found here:

www.longroadtojustice.com
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448049.html#msg448049

https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=98677679249&story_fbid=10156842953109250

Our colleague” interesting

Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
“A charity that fights wrongful convictions has had its National Lottery funding stopped and is being probed by the Scottish Government over concerns about how it is run.
The Miscarriage of Justice Organisation - known as MOJO - was awarded £120,000 by the lottery's community fund but the offer has been withdrawn.
A National Lottery Community Fund spokesperson said: "Due to ongoing governance issues, we are unable to provide MOJO with funding at this time. We welcome a further conversation with them once these issues have been addressed.
"The decision to offer the award of £120,000 was made in April 2019. Our formal withdrawal letter was issued this week."
Glasgow-based MOJO was formed by Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1975.
MOJO is due to receive £105,000 of taxpayers' money from the Scottish Government this year with at least as much agreed for each of the next two years.
The government's criminal justice division has begun an investigation, with a spokesman saying: "The Scottish Government provides funding to MOJO Scotland to provide support to people who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
"Concerns have been raised with us about their governance and management structures, which are currently subject to an investigation."
Hill launched the charity in 2001 and it is run by volunteers and two paid employees. One of them, Paul McLaughlin, is on sick leave. He declined to comment.
Management committee member Colin Grant said: "It's got to the stage now where I think MOJO has possibly gone too far, I think it's possibly imploded so much it may well be beyond salvation.
My understanding is that a charity which is receiving public funds needs to have an independent management committee to oversee how these funds are being used to make sure they are being used properly and at the moment there isn't a functioning management committee there."
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie MSP, a MOJO director since 2011, didn't respond to an STV News interview request.
Governance issues arose in April when volunteer and "head of legal" Euan McIlvride attempted to change the charity's constitution.
Management committee members, including company secretary and director Billy McAllister, blocked the move and called for independent legal advice.
McAllister also raised concerns about whether it would be appropriate to offer paid employment to McIlvride due to a previous conviction for embezzlement while working as a solicitor.
Three new directors were appointed - including Hill's partner Tara Babel - and McAllister was voted out while on holiday.
Grant said after the April meeting "all hell broke loose", adding: "Billy, who has been a director of the organisation and secretary, was summarily dismissed without any consultation [and] the co-project manager Paul McLaughlin was effectively demoted.
"The lottery funding which we'd been promised was stopped. The lottery fund decided to not give us any more money because of the problems we were having within the organisation structurally.
"The Scottish Government have now launched an investigation into how MOJO is being run and none of that was communicated to the management committee - we all learned this from outside sources."
McIlvride told STV News McAllister was removed "entirely in compliance with the relevant legislation" and because of "serious failures and misconduct in the exercise of his roles... and for separate misconduct in the form of bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers in the organisation".
He added: "It is entirely untrue to suggest, as you appear to do, that Mr McAllister was removed as a result of his raising concerns about myself. My entire history was disclosed to MOJO... in advance of my volunteering with the organisation."
McAllister, who denies the allegations, said: "I think they saw me as the main instigator to getting the concerns raised and they went after me. I have been forced out without any due process and I feel bitter about that because I've given seven or eight years of my time for nothing.
"As a famous football manager once said, there's no man bigger than the club and I think I said that to them - the organisation was bigger than any one person.
"I would like MOJO to return to how it was... an open, democratic and accountable structure."
Grant added: "One of the most ironic things about MOJO is that it was set up to try and provide victims of miscarriage of justice with a voice and yet the way it's been behaving with regard to Billy McAllister and Paul McLaughlin shows that it doesn't actually practise what it preaches because it's denied them justice."
Hill also declined to be interviewed but in a statement said McIlvride "made no secret" of his conviction and called him "honest and reliable".
He added: "As far as our clients are concerned, many have expressed their gratitude for all of Mr McIlvride's efforts in helping them and have confidence in the work he is undertaking on their behalf."
McIlvride was convicted of fraud and embezzlement but some charges were later overturned on appeal.
He said: "Given that I spent a period of time in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice, I personally think that my experience is one which enhances my suitability for the role that I exercise with this organisation."
‘Giving false hope to people'
A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.
Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.
Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.
Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."
However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.
Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.
"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."
The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.
Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."
In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.
"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

MOJO
October 26th 2018
“Our colleague Dr Sandra Lean’s book about Luke Mitchell’s case is launched today, you can get your copy by following the link.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156842953109250&id=98677679249
 
At the end of October 2018 Sandra Lean was referred to by MOJO as “our colleague” and they were promoting her new book and approx 9 months later she is criticising them?

What has been going on?

Could it have been anything to do with this?

“Surjit Singh Clair, spokesman for the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO), described the plans as "awful" and predicted a flood of appeals to Europe by victims of miscarriages of justice.
He said victims of miscarriages of justice were already having large parts of their compensation deducted to pay for the "privilege" of board and living expenses in prison.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/apr/19/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy


“Barry George, the man acquitted last week of killing presenter Jill Dando, is being represented by freelance publicist Surjit Singh Clair. Singh Clair has also represented the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation.
https://www.prweek.com/article/837937/the-week

Or was it a genuine belief, only realised this year that “they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 06:20:47 PM
likewise , non ofensive comment askin about shanes testimony was remove.

also same question on james english video was removed

transparent as mud!

Interesting James English is now asking Michelle Diskin Bates to appear on his show

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐
9:22 AM · Jul 14, 2019 · Twitter for iPad

Maybe someone should stick this under his nose https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/

She’s “up the walls” apparently?

up the wall. Fig. in a very bad situation; very upset or anxious. He's really up the wall about Mary's illness. We were all up the wall until the matter was resolved.

Wonder what “links” she’s referring to?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 06:42:19 PM
Interesting James English is now asking Michelle Diskin Bates to appear on his show

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐
9:22 AM · Jul 14, 2019 · Twitter for iPad

Maybe someone should stick this under his nose https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/

She’s “up the walls” apparently?

up the wall. Fig. in a very bad situation; very upset or anxious. He's really up the wall about Mary's illness. We were all up the wall until the matter was resolved.

Wonder what “links” she’s referring to?

James English
@jamesenglish0
Replying to
@Michelle_Diskin
I sent you an email Michelle 👍🏼
11:23 AM · Jul 13, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
·
9h
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐


James English
@jamesenglish0
·
9h
No problem Michelle, i will get you on my show for a chat and also talk about your new book.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 07:56:50 PM
James English
@jamesenglish0
Replying to
@Michelle_Diskin
I sent you an email Michelle 👍🏼
11:23 AM · Jul 13, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
·
9h
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐


James English
@jamesenglish0
·
9h
No problem Michelle, i will get you on my show for a chat and also talk about your new book.

And without MOJO where would they be now? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jul/15/jilldando.television
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 03:24:32 PM
Interesting James English is now asking Michelle Diskin Bates to appear on his show

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐
9:22 AM · Jul 14, 2019 · Twitter for iPad

Maybe someone should stick this under his nose https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/

She’s “up the walls” apparently?

up the wall. Fig. in a very bad situation; very upset or anxious. He's really up the wall about Mary's illness. We were all up the wall until the matter was resolved.

Wonder what “links” she’s referring to?
“In a recent series of email correspondence to Jon Robins who runs The Justice Gap, Stephanie Hall asked:
“What Lessons, if any, have been Learned following Simon Hall’s Confession in 2013.
Jon Robins was given the opportunity to reply and make comment but no response was forthcoming. An email sent on the 10th May 2019 has been reproduced below:


 Kim Evans Stainsby FRSA
@SistahInLaw
 · 7h
Please join me in congratulating @JusticeGap Dr. Jon Robins who has been awarded a PhD in Miscarriages of Justice (since 1997). An important voice in an oftentimes lonely discussion.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 04:09:07 PM
“In a recent series of email correspondence to Jon Robins who runs The Justice Gap, Stephanie Hall asked:
“What Lessons, if any, have been Learned following Simon Hall’s Confession in 2013.
Jon Robins was given the opportunity to reply and make comment but no response was forthcoming. An email sent on the 10th May 2019 has been reproduced below:


 Kim Evans Stainsby FRSA
@SistahInLaw
 · 7h
Please join me in congratulating @JusticeGap Dr. Jon Robins who has been awarded a PhD in Miscarriages of Justice (since 1997). An important voice in an oftentimes lonely discussion.

leading lights in the miscarriages world” (ie: David Jessel, Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield)

DAVID JESSEL says: September 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
My CCRC friends tell me that this just shows how ‘unsafety’ rather than innocence should be the criterion. I’ve never bought that. Such a view simply entrenches that bloodless tendency which reduces injustice to the formulaic, tick box exercise so comfortable for lawyers (one extremely grand lawyer believed the CCRC should be ‘the anteroom to the Court of Appeal’) I wanted to refer Simon Hall because I believed (wrongly) that he didn’t do it. I know it’s not very lawyerly, but I’m rather less interested in giving the guilty a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Ralph was the first investigations adviser at the CCRC”

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ly-7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=jon+robins+miscarriages+of+justice+thesis&source=bl&ots=0KerOM9Qkj&sig=ACfU3U3i7tBDel_iI8cHq-TNOkq7EVdVlQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH2qTombfjAhWHLsAKHbenBgo4ChDoATALegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=jon%20robins%20miscarriages%20of%20justice%20thesis&f=false
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 15, 2019, 04:19:49 PM
Quote
[/ gordo30
Senior Member

Posts: 562

 
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #4871 on: Today at 03:27 PM »

There is time if the acknowledged time isn’t the 5:15 pm. She had been grounded before once her mum found out she smoked it so I doubt she should have had it at home, saying that it not impossible as you say to knock a few puffs. Then again how can you disabling a child to not do something when you allow that very thing to happen in the house.[/b][/u]quote]

An odd remark? If adults drink alcohol in their house, smoke fags, have sex - then the child should be allowed to do so? Perhaps Gordo allows this in his house, Ms Mitchell did?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 04:40:11 PM
Quote
[/ gordo30
Senior Member

Posts: 562

 
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #4871 on: Today at 03:27 PM »

There is time if the acknowledged time isn’t the 5:15 pm. She had been grounded before once her mum found out she smoked it so I doubt she should have had it at home, saying that it not impossible as you say to knock a few puffs. Then again how can you disabling a child to not do something when you allow that very thing to happen in the house.[/b][/u]quote]

An odd remark? If adults drink alcohol in their house, smoke fags, have sex - then the child should be allowed to do so? Perhaps Gordo allows this in his house, Ms Mitchell did?


Gordo30 appears to have been brainwashed (All sense of reason and objectivity gone) and it seems he’s in so deep he does not know what he is saying? What are your thoughts Parky?

Sandra Lean
Jul 20, 2012 #231
Chelsea Marie and Kircaldy, I am currently working on two further books - I hope to have the first published before the end of this year, the other will be sometime next year.

These are difficult books to write - it is not just the facts of the individual cases, and the flaws in the system which need to be highlighted - the agony of those involved is an ever present consideration, whether it's the pain of the wrongly accused and convicted and their families, or the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to terrible crimes.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the books should not be written, but the depth of involvement required to write them in ways which take into consideration the emotional trauma of all involved takes its own toll. Thank you both for your comments.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-appeal-and-media-links-t662-s220.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 06:27:14 PM
“In a recent series of email correspondence to Jon Robins who runs The Justice Gap, Stephanie Hall asked:
“What Lessons, if any, have been Learned following Simon Hall’s Confession in 2013.
Jon Robins was given the opportunity to reply and make comment but no response was forthcoming. An email sent on the 10th May 2019 has been reproduced below:


 Kim Evans Stainsby FRSA
@SistahInLaw
 · 7h
Please join me in congratulating @JusticeGap Dr. Jon Robins who has been awarded a PhD in Miscarriages of Justice (since 1997). An important voice in an oftentimes lonely discussion.

Was Jon Robins awarded a doctorate for this?
https://www.iclr.co.uk/blog/reviews/book-review-guilty-until-proven-innocent-by-jon-robins/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 11:23:54 PM


Gordo30 appears to have been brainwashed (All sense of reason and objectivity gone) and it seems he’s in so deep he does not know what he is saying? What are your thoughts Parky?

Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452687.html#msg452687
”In saying that I have been discussing this case for nearly 16 years and although I know the injuries inflicted I’m not of the same opinion. I certainly wouldn’t put out as fact that she had been incapacitated due to a blow on the back of the head while trying to run away. If you do indeed believe you have a better understanding of the case than nugnug I don’t remember him ever having said that either

Yep, 16 years of brainwashing and Simon Halls guilt still wasn’t enough for him to “take stock.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452687.html#msg452687
”In saying that I have been discussing this case for nearly 16 years and although I know the injuries inflicted I’m not of the same opinion. I certainly wouldn’t put out as fact that she had been incapacitated due to a blow on the back of the head while trying to run away. If you do indeed believe you have a better understanding of the case than nugnug I don’t remember him ever having said that either

Yep, 16 years of brainwashing and Simon Halls guilt still wasn’t enough for him to “take stock.”

So brainwashed is Gordo30 that whilst discussing the mutilation and murder of an innocent 14 year old child, his first thought is for himself?

“I can get that also as we all have our own theories and thought about the possibilities of that night. We might come to things from a different angle and belief but in the end it’s not fair to ourselves to put that into prose. You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake.

He cannot recognise how disconnected he’s become from reality and that his subject (the murder of an innocent 14 year old girl) has become a mere object
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 16, 2019, 12:09:08 AM
Gordo30
Quote
[You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake./quote]


Game tactics? Selectively implying, no memory of finger nails analysis but instantly states of having no knowledge of Lithium account entering conversation before. He has followed and studied the case for 16yrs. What is apparent is the separate roles of Ms Lean, Gordo and nungug! over this period. All of whom, in their own 'unique' way, play the game of 'cat and mouse'

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 16, 2019, 12:17:32 AM
Gordo30
Quote
[You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake./quote]


Game tactics? Selectively implying, no memory of finger nails analysis but instantly states of having no knowledge of Lithium account entering conversation before. He has followed and studied the case for 16yrs. What is apparent is the separate roles of Ms Lean, Gordo and nungug! over this period. All of whom, in their own 'unique' way, play the game of 'cat and mouse'

Of course, deliberate or not, it would appear Lithium may be correct, nugnug and Gordo know this, having been the elite who have been privy to all information, and in their game. A move on their part, rushed?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2019, 12:28:46 AM
Gordo30
Quote
[You are an intelligent person and when things that have never came up before suddenly enter the discussion it’s hard to simple dismiss them as merely a mistake./quote]


Game tactics? Selectively implying, no memory of finger nails analysis but instantly states of having no knowledge of Lithium account entering conversation before. He has followed and studied the case for 16yrs. What is apparent is the separate roles of Ms Lean, Gordo and nungug! over this period. All of whom, in their own 'unique' way, play the game of 'cat and mouse'

Totally Parky!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2019, 12:34:56 AM
Of course, deliberate or not, it would appear Lithium may be correct, nugnug and Gordo know this, having been the elite who have been privy to all information, and in their game. A move on their part, rushed?

Agreed!

Sandra Lean - Jan 2017
What causes people to become "criminals?" We stopped looking at that a long time ago, and are happy now just to blame.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383384.html#msg383384

Billy Middleton - July 2014
“Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man.

A man child. Emotionally stunted. Psychopathic.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2019, 10:25:24 AM
Re here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452708.html#msg452708 & here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452711.html#msg452711

What did the SCCRC say in their SOR re the above “points?”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 16, 2019, 01:53:27 PM
Re here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452708.html#msg452708 & here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452711.html#msg452711

What did the SCCRC say in their SOR re the above “points?”

Firstly, before I sift through the above, what is noted from it, are Ms Leans theories on the evidence. Which in itself is 'fair' to do. The case was circumstantial, sequence of events built around it. Exactly what the prosecution did. I will come back to this re relevance of misinformation/selectiveness and conjecture. Mainly on Ms Leans self expertise?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2019, 02:21:40 PM
Firstly, before I sift through the above, what is noted from it, are Ms Leans theories on the evidence. Which in itself is 'fair' to do. The case was circumstantial, sequence of events built around it. Exactly what the prosecution did. I will come back to this re relevance of misinformation/selectiveness and conjecture. Mainly on Ms Leans self expertise?

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2019, 04:24:33 PM
Interesting James English is now asking Michelle Diskin Bates to appear on his show

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐
9:22 AM · Jul 14, 2019 · Twitter for iPad

Maybe someone should stick this under his nose https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/

She’s “up the walls” apparently?

up the wall. Fig. in a very bad situation; very upset or anxious. He's really up the wall about Mary's illness. We were all up the wall until the matter was resolved.

Wonder what “links” she’s referring to?

Tried to upload a photo on the Barry George thread, then a link - neither seem to be working for me?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Michelle_Diskin
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 17, 2019, 01:27:02 PM
"The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came"


The comment above made by Sandra on the Bamber forum, since i cannot get my account activated on there. How does she know this? I was curious if anybody here, knows if the information she states is out there in the public domain?

Bin Lorries often have to empty several times during a shift.
What time were the bins around Newbattle emptied?
Did the lorries get emptied at this skip? Or go straight to landfill?
Who was this worker? Just a normal labourer? A supervisor? Higher up?
It is proto-call that all lorries have to be empted, before end of shift, health & safety says so.
A worker? A labourer, would not of had the authority to decide whether the lorries were emptied or not.
I presume it would have been L&B council waste department and not a private firm, why would a random worker have the authority, to hold of in anticipation, waiting on a call from the police? This is bizarre, why would they not contact the police and ask?
How long did they wait in anticipation?
Was services delayed in the area, i.e bins not emptied, due to a worker and his anticipation?

Where on the internet, can i find a news article, a statement, anything, that confirms what she has said?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 17, 2019, 01:48:51 PM
According to this site https://www.aftermath.com/blog/clorox-cant-clean-a-crime-scene/ i

“CLOROX CAN’T CLEAN A CRIME SCENE

What were the regulations in Scotland at the time re crime scene cleanup?

We adhere to OSHA regulations concerning bloodborne pathogens and practice universal precautions to protect our employees and customers. Our science-based process ensures that we contain the affected areas to prevent cross-contamination, remove all traces of blood and biological materials, disinfect and deodorize, and test to confirm that the affected areas are free of pathogens. We are diligent and thorough because we understand that the health and safety of you and your family are on the line. https://www.aftermath.com/services/homicide-and-suicide/

Did Dobbie follow best practice at the time or are opinions being given with hindsight?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Bullseye on July 17, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
"The bins being emptied seems to have been a complete oversight - one of the workers at the skip (as it was then - recycling centre now) - took a decision to hold off emptying the bin lorries in anticipation of a call from the police, but that call simply never came"


The comment above made by Sandra on the Bamber forum, since i cannot get my account activated on there. How does she know this? I was curious if anybody here, knows if the information she states is out there in the public domain?

Bin Lorries often have to empty several times during a shift.
What time were the bins around Newbattle emptied?
Did the lorries get emptied at this skip? Or go straight to landfill?
Who was this worker? Just a normal labourer? A supervisor? Higher up?
It is proto-call that all lorries have to be empted, before end of shift, health & safety says so.
A worker? A labourer, would not of had the authority to decide whether the lorries were emptied or not.
I presume it would have been L&B council waste department and not a private firm, why would a random worker have the authority, to hold of in anticipation, waiting on a call from the police? This is bizarre, why would they not contact the police and ask?
How long did they wait in anticipation?
Was services delayed in the area, i.e bins not emptied, due to a worker and his anticipation?

Where on the internet, can i find a news article, a statement, anything, that confirms what she has said?

I don’t think you get a mail saying the account is active on that site, I tried logging in a few days after I signed up and got in ok. If you get in I’m sure Sandra will give you the details
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on July 17, 2019, 11:00:02 PM
I don’t think you get a mail saying the account is active on that site, I tried logging in a few days after I signed up and got in ok. If you get in I’m sure Sandra will give you the details


Iv'e tried, still nothing. But honestly I'm not that bothered, just seems like the same 3/4 people that have been on for years going round in circles, you would think with the JE interviews, there would be a influx of new people coming on & asking questions, but that does not seem to be the case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 18, 2019, 11:05:01 AM
Throughout the whole process, over many years (mainly when new media attention comes around)people still strive to find the answer, WHY did the system target Luke? The search for answers via court proceedings, media reports, the trio of long term Luke campaigners, yet still find nothing that suggests a 'fit up'. Attempting to gather insight and reasons/reasoning behind why the trio of long term campaigners would wish to push out selective, bias misinformation. Getting near the end of my work now, some conclusive areas appear to be, the aim to draw support via attention on certain key areas, 'tripping' people up along with the hope of some legal action being taken against them-to gain answers to uncertain areas within their hunt for the truth. The consistence of the 'spanner in the works'  Lets not simplify this as a game but their 'truth' game.

Sandra L
Quote
If I took a gamble, it was the risk of getting arrested for putting certain information about the Luke Mitchell case in the public domain. I thought it was worth the risk[/color]
!

Nugnug 
Quote
im sure sombody will trip themselves up sooner or later if they havent allready
[/color]

Gordo30
Quote
I have to agree with you lithium not the most professional guy, saying that is didn’t really matter as it was about getting the message out
[/color]


I don't in the main, get involved in debate whilst trying to gain clarification. I have pointed out that the exercise would be futile amongst the long term trio. We are all entitled to our views. There is no win or lose area here. There is no point in seeking answers from those who have a firm belief in their own long term theories. Especially with the ever saving 'get out clause'

There are no pointing of fingers per say in their search of the truth, neither disrespectful of the victims family, they are simply objects-pawns, figurines perhaps akin to Cluedo and whodunnit? The only real people that matter are the convicted and their families?

The game continuously resulting in stale mate with:

The sisters boyfriend;
The bike duo;
Mk;
Condom man;
The follower;
Brother;
Unknown's

The striving to entice to gain answers/explanations. They could of course give the answers themselves. Sandra L and Ms Mitchell have all the documentation. In her own admission, she has already released information that she perhaps should not have?  The horse has bolted. A grey area appears to be the constence of the search trio changing their stories. I wonder? how did the advocate depute and QC Findlay cross examine the evidence in the Lake Hall. By the very means of statements that the above have in their possession. Why therefore strive to get answers to their questions for 'all' to see, Ms Lean and Ms Mitchell could copy and post all of the statements online? Is it not the whole point of cross examination in court? Statements and clarification changing over time. Shane's, changing from what his mother informing him to say to telling the truth in court? The search group telling the truth in court? Are the trio in searching for truth, blinded by the convicted, believing that everyone should have acted in the same manner as those convicted. Evident in Ms Leans thoughts on why the Jones family did not get their stories straight within hours of this horrendous shock.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 18, 2019, 12:05:08 PM
“Writing in The Scotsman, Dr Marshall said that some children have behaviours from as young as four which suggest they are on a “trajectory” to psychopathy. This includes sadistic treatment of animals and other children, a lack of emotional attachment and disregard for parents and boundaries.

Screening children who come into contact with social services or child and adolescent mental health (Camh) providers, and then giving them support, could “divert budding psychopaths”, he said.

Dr Marshall said he had been “vilified” by others in his field for calling for screening.

However he added that intervening early would not only help prevent other tragedies but also help individuals with psychopathic traits who have much higher risk of substance abuse and suicide.

“You don’t become a psychopath on your 16th birthday,” Dr Marshall said. “Psychopathic traits start in very early childhood, have predictable pathways and yet we do not assess children for this neurodevelopmental problem.

“At the age of 16, such traits are already entrenched and chronic so it is time for policy to catch up with research, given the enormous social costs of psychopathy.

“We have to deal with psychopathy trajectories in childhood head-on now to divert budding psychopaths and make sure what happened to poor Alesha never happens again.”

He added early identification can be the focal point and made a number of suggestions on how to solve what he called a “major public health issue”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/children-psychopath-alesha-macphail-aaron-campbell-murder-a8850861.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 18, 2019, 12:27:18 PM
“Writing in The Scotsman, Dr Marshall said that some children have behaviours from as young as four which suggest they are on a “trajectory” to psychopathy. This includes sadistic treatment of animals and other children, a lack of emotional attachment and disregard for parents and boundaries.

Screening children who come into contact with social services or child and adolescent mental health (Camh) providers, and then giving them support, could “divert budding psychopaths”, he said.

Dr Marshall said he had been “vilified” by others in his field for calling for screening.

However he added that intervening early would not only help prevent other tragedies but also help individuals with psychopathic traits who have much higher risk of substance abuse and suicide.

“You don’t become a psychopath on your 16th birthday,” Dr Marshall said. “Psychopathic traits start in very early childhood, have predictable pathways and yet we do not assess children for this neurodevelopmental problem.

“At the age of 16, such traits are already entrenched and chronic so it is time for policy to catch up with research, given the enormous social costs of psychopathy.

“We have to deal with psychopathy trajectories in childhood head-on now to divert budding psychopaths and make sure what happened to poor Alesha never happens again.”

He added early identification can be the focal point and made a number of suggestions on how to solve what he called a “major public health issue”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/children-psychopath-alesha-macphail-aaron-campbell-murder-a8850861.html

One area that keeps getting 'thumped' around is questioning on how Luke was from an early age. Hearsay not evident in court or indeed by the trio of campaigners-where Luke is concerned, do not apply the same to hearsay regarding the many suspects, whilst searching for the truth. Often pumping their hearsay out. Provocation in its enticement perhaps? Addressed by both Ms Mitchell and Ms Lean in their podcasts- "no dead horse heads on the front door, staying up all night to nurse a baby hedgehog" "Throwing half a mars bar" Hearsay and mud slinging is one thing, what draws my attention is that of Luke being heavily sedated thus no emotion. Sleeping downstairs in-case he fell down them, yet climbing them often and frequently to store bottles of urine,(was he urinating in the bottles in living room?, then disposing of them upstairs, collectively) going out and about, up town within two week partying-whilst heavily sedated? Main point for me is, what kind of drugs does a doctor give a 14-16yr old which would heavily sedate them?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 18, 2019, 01:15:27 PM
One area that keeps getting 'thumped' around is questioning on how Luke was from an early age. Hearsay not evident in court or indeed by the trio of campaigners-where Luke is concerned, do not apply the same to hearsay regarding the many suspects, whilst searching for the truth. Often pumping their hearsay out. Provocation in its enticement perhaps? Addressed by both Ms Mitchell and Ms Lean in their podcasts- "no dead horse heads on the front door, staying up all night to nurse a baby hedgehog" "Throwing half a mars bar" Hearsay and mud slinging is one thing, what draws my attention is that of Luke being heavily sedated thus no emotion. Sleeping downstairs in-case he fell down them, yet climbing them often and frequently to store bottles of urine,(was he urinating in the bottles in living room?, then disposing of them upstairs, collectively) going out and about, up town within two week partying-whilst heavily sedated? Main point for me is, what kind of drugs does a doctor give a 14-16yr old which would heavily sedate them?

Did the doctor take into consideration his heavy cannabis use?

What about the allegations made by Mitchell supporters about JoeJ and his alleged medication and alleged cannabis use?

Did the police take blood samples from him (Mitchell) on the night of the murder, if so, what were the results?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 18, 2019, 01:40:47 PM
Quote
Did the doctor take into consideration his heavy cannabis use?

What about the allegations made by Mitchell supporters about JoeJ and his alleged medication and alleged cannabis use?

Did the police take blood samples from him on the night of the murder, if so, what were the results?
[/color]


Simple areas within provocation perhaps? Rather confusing area-police/prosecution, by the trios information, has never been questioned, totally left out of the equation. Where does any of the information they push out on him come from? Hearsay? If he has never been questioned then simply can't be from statements and reports.


Spanner in the works to distract from Luke. Still continuously drawing a blank. prodding and pushing harder for response from anyone.

Doctors would take everything into consideration I would presume when prescribing Luke with/if anything?


One thing that struck me whilst studying the response in respect of Mathew Hamlen-the open support from his family and friends. The dignity of response from Mrs Hamlen to a poster who believes in his guilt. Do not witness this as of yet with this case.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-new-thread-t600-s180.html

Sandra Lean.
Quote
I often say to people, "but what if this was your son, or brother? Wouldn't you want everyone to be shouting from the rooftops?" And still, even with all of this information, they just don't and can't believe that it could happen to them.
[/color]


An area of great contention appears in the 'guilty' camp of this very matter. Even in Ms Leans own words above. The pro camp it seems, are in confusion as to why, only Ms Mitchell is publicly fighting for Lukes innocence. This laddie (as he was) needs the fight of both parents and sibling on his side publicly, friends also. It is one thing fighting the system on the wrongs within law-moral and ethical support from within needs to be there also.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 18, 2019, 04:46:46 PM
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s130.html

Angeline.
Quote
Again, I totally agree. The timings I was referring to, however,  are those verified by phone records, etc, which show that events not only can't have progressed in the manner claimed by the statements, but highlight the fairly important point that the search party had already left to look for Jodi before the confirmation from Luke that she had not been with him.

Judy texted Luke's phone telling Jodi to get herself home (as she was by the 40 minutes late) at 10.39pm. Luke called back at 10.40, and was on the phone for just under two minutes, telling Judy he had not seen Jodi that night. Judy said she would call round Jodi's friends, and called Luke back at 10.50pm to say she had not been able to trace Jodi, and was calling the police.

The search party were at the top of the path at a couple of minutes before 11pm, which means, even at a very, very fast pace, they had to have left at 10.42 - while Luke is finishing the conversation with Judy.
[/color]


Firstly, hardly surprising re timings if the search party took a detour past YW's house? Can skip  other phone calls between various parties? Forgot, there were no other phone calls? Who called the police? What I would be curious of here though, the omission of the statements stating who said the search party were at the top of the path a couple of minutes before 11? Luke? he had finished his phone call with Ms Jones at approx: 10.43, had conversation/debate with his mother about searching, went upstairs, borrowed torch from Shane, got the dog ready, searched the path on the way up, all in the space of 14-15 mins. Ms Mitchell in podcast highlighting how fit both he and the dog were, Ms Leans emphasis on searching. Perhaps Luke was already on the path, around the woods when the text came through. Seems much more feasible re timings.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 09:02:57 PM
Did the doctor take into consideration his heavy cannabis use?

What about the allegations made by Mitchell supporters about JoeJ and his alleged medication and alleged cannabis use?

Did the police take blood samples from him (Mitchell) on the night of the murder, if so, what were the results?

[159] At the conclusion of the interview with the accused, which was not under caution and in respect of which evidence had been led without objection, he agreed to the taking of his clothes by the police and the examination of his person and the taking of a blood sample by a police surgeon.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 09:08:50 PM
[162] As the trial judge informs us, the appellant told the police at interview on 4 July 2003 that he and Jodi would sit on the other side of the wall from the Roan's Dyke Path near to the gap in the wall at the junction of the two paths and "have a cigarette or whatever". In the same interview he said that there was "a tiny wee path ... that folk walk along in the inside of that wall", i.e. on the other side from the Roan's Dyke Path. There was evidence, indeed, that just inside a gap in the wall at the junction of the paths stood a small tree with the initials JJ and LM carved in its bark. A witness David Stirling described an occasion in early June 2003 when he was with friends and they met the appellant at the junction of the paths. They went down the inside of the wall (towards the "V") for some distance, then sat and smoked cannabis. Another witness, John Ferris, said that on two occasions when the appellant telephoned asking for quantities of cannabis, they arranged to meet at the opening in the wall at the junction of the paths. On one of these occasions when they met the appellant said that he was waiting for Jodi. For all these reasons there is no merit in this ground of appeal.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 06:01:41 PM
James English
@jamesenglish0
Replying to
@Michelle_Diskin
I sent you an email Michelle 👍🏼
11:23 AM · Jul 13, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

Michelle Diskin Bates 🎀
@Michelle_Diskin
·
9h
Replying to
@jamesenglish0
Yep, seen it but haven’t had time to look at your links. I’m really up the walls. I’ll get back soon, James. Sorry 😐


James English
@jamesenglish0
·
9h
No problem Michelle, i will get you on my show for a chat and also talk about your new book.

Has James English ever interviewed Paul Brannigan?

Will be very interesting to see him interview Michelle Diskin Bates.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 07:04:03 PM
Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
“A charity that fights wrongful convictions has had its National Lottery funding stopped and is being probed by the Scottish Government over concerns about how it is run.
The Miscarriage of Justice Organisation - known as MOJO - was awarded £120,000 by the lottery's community fund but the offer has been withdrawn.
A National Lottery Community Fund spokesperson said: "Due to ongoing governance issues, we are unable to provide MOJO with funding at this time. We welcome a further conversation with them once these issues have been addressed.
"The decision to offer the award of £120,000 was made in April 2019. Our formal withdrawal letter was issued this week."
Glasgow-based MOJO was formed by Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1975.
MOJO is due to receive £105,000 of taxpayers' money from the Scottish Government this year with at least as much agreed for each of the next two years.
The government's criminal justice division has begun an investigation, with a spokesman saying: "The Scottish Government provides funding to MOJO Scotland to provide support to people who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
"Concerns have been raised with us about their governance and management structures, which are currently subject to an investigation."
Hill launched the charity in 2001 and it is run by volunteers and two paid employees. One of them, Paul McLaughlin, is on sick leave. He declined to comment.
Management committee member Colin Grant said: "It's got to the stage now where I think MOJO has possibly gone too far, I think it's possibly imploded so much it may well be beyond salvation.
My understanding is that a charity which is receiving public funds needs to have an independent management committee to oversee how these funds are being used to make sure they are being used properly and at the moment there isn't a functioning management committee there."
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie MSP, a MOJO director since 2011, didn't respond to an STV News interview request.
Governance issues arose in April when volunteer and "head of legal" Euan McIlvride attempted to change the charity's constitution.
Management committee members, including company secretary and director Billy McAllister, blocked the move and called for independent legal advice.
McAllister also raised concerns about whether it would be appropriate to offer paid employment to McIlvride due to a previous conviction for embezzlement while working as a solicitor.
Three new directors were appointed - including Hill's partner Tara Babel - and McAllister was voted out while on holiday.
Grant said after the April meeting "all hell broke loose", adding: "Billy, who has been a director of the organisation and secretary, was summarily dismissed without any consultation [and] the co-project manager Paul McLaughlin was effectively demoted.
"The lottery funding which we'd been promised was stopped. The lottery fund decided to not give us any more money because of the problems we were having within the organisation structurally.
"The Scottish Government have now launched an investigation into how MOJO is being run and none of that was communicated to the management committee - we all learned this from outside sources."
McIlvride told STV News McAllister was removed "entirely in compliance with the relevant legislation" and because of "serious failures and misconduct in the exercise of his roles... and for separate misconduct in the form of bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers in the organisation".
He added: "It is entirely untrue to suggest, as you appear to do, that Mr McAllister was removed as a result of his raising concerns about myself. My entire history was disclosed to MOJO... in advance of my volunteering with the organisation."
McAllister, who denies the allegations, said: "I think they saw me as the main instigator to getting the concerns raised and they went after me. I have been forced out without any due process and I feel bitter about that because I've given seven or eight years of my time for nothing.
"As a famous football manager once said, there's no man bigger than the club and I think I said that to them - the organisation was bigger than any one person.
"I would like MOJO to return to how it was... an open, democratic and accountable structure."
Grant added: "One of the most ironic things about MOJO is that it was set up to try and provide victims of miscarriage of justice with a voice and yet the way it's been behaving with regard to Billy McAllister and Paul McLaughlin shows that it doesn't actually practise what it preaches because it's denied them justice."
Hill also declined to be interviewed but in a statement said McIlvride "made no secret" of his conviction and called him "honest and reliable".
He added: "As far as our clients are concerned, many have expressed their gratitude for all of Mr McIlvride's efforts in helping them and have confidence in the work he is undertaking on their behalf."
McIlvride was convicted of fraud and embezzlement but some charges were later overturned on appeal.
He said: "Given that I spent a period of time in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice, I personally think that my experience is one which enhances my suitability for the role that I exercise with this organisation."
'Giving false hope to people'
A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.
Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.
Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.
Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."
However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.
Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.
"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."
The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.
Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."
In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.
"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Who’s lying?

The organisation approached Jamieson after accessing forensic files, which stated that among 122 items gathered from the crime scene, not one could be linked to him.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/


https://www.rozlynlittle.com/blog/4myxgqr0hhcnhpqm41zyu0n5uj1a9o
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 07:16:54 PM
Jodi's throat 'may have been cut'
“The Jodi Jones murder trial has heard that the teenager may have died when her throat was slashed from behind.
Forensic scientist Derek Scrimger told the High Court in Edinburgh Jodi, 14, may have crawled or been dragged to the spot where she was found.

But he added that there was no evidence the attacker would have been bloodstained after the assault.

Luke Mitchell, 16, has denied murdering girlfriend Jodi and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.

Mr Scrimger showed the jury photographs of bloodstains low down on a wall near where Jodi was found by a search party.

Severed artery

The court has heard how Jodi's grandmother and her sister were among those who discovered her body near the Roan's Dyke path in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

Mr Scrimger said the pattern of bloodstains was consistent with an artery being severed.
   
Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example 

Derek Scrimger, forensic scientist

Blood was also found on sticks and the branches of trees in the area.

Mr Scrimger said: "Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."

"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."

Under questioning from defence advocate Donald Findlay QC, Mr Scrimger admitted the police's handling of the crime scene was "not ideal".

He accepted that Jodi's body had been rolled onto a plastic sheet before forensic scientists had the chance to examine her and that Jodi had been exposed to overnight rain.

Hands tied

Earlier the court was told Jodi had her hands tied behind her back when her body was found.

Mark Heron, an identification officer with Lothian and Borders Police, said the 14-year-old was naked except for a pair of socks.

Items of clothing and a broken pair of spectacles were strewn around her.
   
Basically her hands were tied behind her back 

Crime scene officer Mark Heron

The court was also shown a T-shirt in two pieces, trainers and the broken glasses, a lens from which was found separately.

Police also found a broken bra strap and a pair of trousers, with the legs tied in knots around Jodi's wrists.

Mr Heron told the court: "Basically her hands were behind her back."

He added that Jodi's socks had been pulled down on her feet so that they only covered her toes.

Charges denied

The murder charge alleges Luke Mitchell attacked Jodi, of Easthouses, Dalkeith, in woods near Roan's Dyke.

The youngster denies that and claims that at the time he was in, or near, his home, and that Jodi, 14, was murdered by person or persons unknown.

He also denies charges of possessing knives in public places and being concerned in the supply of cannabis resin to other school pupils, including Jodi.

The teenager has lodged the special defences of alibi and incrimination.

The trial continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4096295.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 07:28:33 PM
Who’s lying?

The organisation approached Jamieson after accessing forensic files, which stated that among 122 items gathered from the crime scene, not one could be linked to him.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881797.luke-mitchell-interview-forensic-scientist-professor-alan-jamieson/


https://www.rozlynlittle.com/blog/4myxgqr0hhcnhpqm41zyu0n5uj1a9o

“Paul McLaughlin, of MOJO, said they were in the process of developing an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

He said they were in the early stages and it was unlikely an application would be submitted this year, more likely in 2019.

MOJO campaigns for those who have been wrongfully convicted. The charity was founded by Paddy Hill – one of the six men wrongfully convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings in 1975.

The Birmingham Six had their convictions quashed in 1991, and Hill set up the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation in 2001, to fight for and support those who found themselves in similar circumstances. The charity is now spearheaded by directors Paul McLaughlin and Cathy Molloy.

The organisation only became involved in launching another appeal for Luke Mitchell, after the rejection of his previous appeal.

“We didn’t play an active part in the case because he had very good people working for him. When the last application to the SCCRC didn’t result in the case being referred to the appeal court, that’s when we became actively involved,” said Paddy.

Any individual hoping to receive assistance from the charity, must first undergo an extensive review.

Paddy explained: “Our organisation will only deal with a case where we believe that a case can be made for factual innocence. That’s done through an examination of available materials and a discussion with the person that approaches us making the claim of innocence. We go through that thoroughly and find enough in the initial stages of the examination, to suggest that there could well have been a miscarriage of justice.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881796.luke-mitchell-interview-miscarriages-of-justice-organisation-the-organisation-helping-with-luke-mitchells-latest-appeal/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 11:33:20 PM
Donald Findlay’s interview here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00072vp/david-wilsons-crime-files-series-1-1-serial-killers
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on July 27, 2019, 11:55:51 AM
..Re-do
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 03, 2019, 07:00:24 PM
2 hours ago
Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
“A charity that fights wrongful convictions has had its National Lottery funding stopped and is being probed by the Scottish Government over concerns about how it is run.
The Miscarriage of Justice Organisation - known as MOJO - was awarded £120,000 by the lottery's community fund but the offer has been withdrawn.
A National Lottery Community Fund spokesperson said: "Due to ongoing governance issues, we are unable to provide MOJO with funding at this time. We welcome a further conversation with them once these issues have been addressed.
"The decision to offer the award of £120,000 was made in April 2019. Our formal withdrawal letter was issued this week."
Glasgow-based MOJO was formed by Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1975.
MOJO is due to receive £105,000 of taxpayers' money from the Scottish Government this year with at least as much agreed for each of the next two years.
The government's criminal justice division has begun an investigation, with a spokesman saying: "The Scottish Government provides funding to MOJO Scotland to provide support to people who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
"Concerns have been raised with us about their governance and management structures, which are currently subject to an investigation."
Hill launched the charity in 2001 and it is run by volunteers and two paid employees. One of them, Paul McLaughlin, is on sick leave. He declined to comment.
Management committee member Colin Grant said: "It's got to the stage now where I think MOJO has possibly gone too far, I think it's possibly imploded so much it may well be beyond salvation.
My understanding is that a charity which is receiving public funds needs to have an independent management committee to oversee how these funds are being used to make sure they are being used properly and at the moment there isn't a functioning management committee there."
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie MSP, a MOJO director since 2011, didn't respond to an STV News interview request.
Governance issues arose in April when volunteer and "head of legal" Euan McIlvride attempted to change the charity's constitution.
Management committee members, including company secretary and director Billy McAllister, blocked the move and called for independent legal advice.
McAllister also raised concerns about whether it would be appropriate to offer paid employment to McIlvride due to a previous conviction for embezzlement while working as a solicitor.
Three new directors were appointed - including Hill's partner Tara Babel - and McAllister was voted out while on holiday.
Grant said after the April meeting "all hell broke loose", adding: "Billy, who has been a director of the organisation and secretary, was summarily dismissed without any consultation [and] the co-project manager Paul McLaughlin was effectively demoted.
"The lottery funding which we'd been promised was stopped. The lottery fund decided to not give us any more money because of the problems we were having within the organisation structurally.
"The Scottish Government have now launched an investigation into how MOJO is being run and none of that was communicated to the management committee - we all learned this from outside sources."
McIlvride told STV News McAllister was removed "entirely in compliance with the relevant legislation" and because of "serious failures and misconduct in the exercise of his roles... and for separate misconduct in the form of bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers in the organisation".
He added: "It is entirely untrue to suggest, as you appear to do, that Mr McAllister was removed as a result of his raising concerns about myself. My entire history was disclosed to MOJO... in advance of my volunteering with the organisation."
McAllister, who denies the allegations, said: "I think they saw me as the main instigator to getting the concerns raised and they went after me. I have been forced out without any due process and I feel bitter about that because I've given seven or eight years of my time for nothing.
"As a famous football manager once said, there's no man bigger than the club and I think I said that to them - the organisation was bigger than any one person.
"I would like MOJO to return to how it was... an open, democratic and accountable structure."
Grant added: "One of the most ironic things about MOJO is that it was set up to try and provide victims of miscarriage of justice with a voice and yet the way it's been behaving with regard to Billy McAllister and Paul McLaughlin shows that it doesn't actually practise what it preaches because it's denied them justice."
Hill also declined to be interviewed but in a statement said McIlvride "made no secret" of his conviction and called him "honest and reliable".
He added: "As far as our clients are concerned, many have expressed their gratitude for all of Mr McIlvride's efforts in helping them and have confidence in the work he is undertaking on their behalf."
McIlvride was convicted of fraud and embezzlement but some charges were later overturned on appeal.
He said: "Given that I spent a period of time in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice, I personally think that my experience is one which enhances my suitability for the role that I exercise with this organisation."
'Giving false hope to people'
A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.
Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.
Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.
Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."
However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.
Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.
"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."
The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.
Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."
In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.
"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/


The above ^^^^^^. was written by Russell Findlay



Russell Findlay
@RussellFindlay1
·
Jul 30
>UPDATE: Just over a year ago, a lawyer was stabbed outside Glasgow court but no arrests
>Organised crime gangs - making fortunes from record drugs deaths - are out of control, blithely ordering hits on lawyers, journalists & prison officers
>Who next, police officers & judges?
https://mobile.twitter.com/RussellFindlay1/status/1156245061363019781


Alex Hutchinson
@tadpolelanding1
·
Aug 1
Replying to
@RussellFindlay1
The report doesn't say the victim is a lawyer. Where's your evidence that gangs are blithely ordering hits on lawyers etc?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 12, 2019, 05:50:45 PM
One thing that struck me whilst studying the response in respect of Mathew Hamlen-the open support from his family and friends.

Seems there’s been a sudden about turn re the Hamlen case Parky.

Would be interested to hear what Peter Martin has to say now.

Did you hear Matthew Hamlen and his mothers recorded telephone conversation discussing a possible alibi whilst he was on remand?

And the argument his defence team put forward re the length of his sentence?


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:17:58 AM
Jodi's throat 'may have been cut'
“The Jodi Jones murder trial has heard that the teenager may have died when her throat was slashed from behind.
Forensic scientist Derek Scrimger told the High Court in Edinburgh Jodi, 14, may have crawled or been dragged to the spot where she was found.

But he added that there was no evidence the attacker would have been bloodstained after the assault.

Luke Mitchell, 16, has denied murdering girlfriend Jodi and has lodged special defences of alibi and incrimination.

Mr Scrimger showed the jury photographs of bloodstains low down on a wall near where Jodi was found by a search party.

Severed artery

The court has heard how Jodi's grandmother and her sister were among those who discovered her body near the Roan's Dyke path in Dalkeith, Midlothian.

Mr Scrimger said the pattern of bloodstains was consistent with an artery being severed.
   
Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example 

Derek Scrimger, forensic scientist

Blood was also found on sticks and the branches of trees in the area.

Mr Scrimger said: "Possibly the assailant would have been behind, standing for example."

"What many people fail to realise is that at the time of the assault there may not have been much blood there. There wouldn't necessarily be any blood on the assailant."

Under questioning from defence advocate Donald Findlay QC, Mr Scrimger admitted the police's handling of the crime scene was "not ideal".

He accepted that Jodi's body had been rolled onto a plastic sheet before forensic scientists had the chance to examine her and that Jodi had been exposed to overnight rain.

Hands tied

Earlier the court was told Jodi had her hands tied behind her back when her body was found.

Mark Heron, an identification officer with Lothian and Borders Police, said the 14-year-old was naked except for a pair of socks.

Items of clothing and a broken pair of spectacles were strewn around her.
   
Basically her hands were tied behind her back 

Crime scene officer Mark Heron

The court was also shown a T-shirt in two pieces, trainers and the broken glasses, a lens from which was found separately.

Police also found a broken bra strap and a pair of trousers, with the legs tied in knots around Jodi's wrists.

Mr Heron told the court: "Basically her hands were behind her back."

He added that Jodi's socks had been pulled down on her feet so that they only covered her toes.

Charges denied

The murder charge alleges Luke Mitchell attacked Jodi, of Easthouses, Dalkeith, in woods near Roan's Dyke.

The youngster denies that and claims that at the time he was in, or near, his home, and that Jodi, 14, was murdered by person or persons unknown.

He also denies charges of possessing knives in public places and being concerned in the supply of cannabis resin to other school pupils, including Jodi.

The teenager has lodged the special defences of alibi and incrimination.

The trial continues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4096295.stm

'Lies' to protect a son
The murder trial heard Mrs Mitchell had completely lost control of her son and could see no wrong in anything he did.
She was by Luke's side when he spent almost five-and-a-half hours giving a 22-page statement at Dalkeith police station in Midlothian.
Mrs Mitchell also coached his brother Shane on what to tell Lothian and Borders Police during an interview, the jury was told.


Would like to see this “22 page statement” as opposed to biased, cherry picked snippets.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:26:10 AM
“Writing in The Scotsman, Dr Marshall said that some children have behaviours from as young as four which suggest they are on a “trajectory” to psychopathy. This includes sadistic treatment of animals and other children, a lack of emotional attachment and disregard for parents and boundaries.

Screening children who come into contact with social services or child and adolescent mental health (Camh) providers, and then giving them support, could “divert budding psychopaths”, he said.

Dr Marshall said he had been “vilified” by others in his field for calling for screening.

However he added that intervening early would not only help prevent other tragedies but also help individuals with psychopathic traits who have much higher risk of substance abuse and suicide.

“You don’t become a psychopath on your 16th birthday,” Dr Marshall said. “Psychopathic traits start in very early childhood, have predictable pathways and yet we do not assess children for this neurodevelopmental problem.

“At the age of 16, such traits are already entrenched and chronic so it is time for policy to catch up with research, given the enormous social costs of psychopathy.

“We have to deal with psychopathy trajectories in childhood head-on now to divert budding psychopaths and make sure what happened to poor Alesha never happens again.”

He added early identification can be the focal point and made a number of suggestions on how to solve what he called a “major public health issue”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/children-psychopath-alesha-macphail-aaron-campbell-murder-a8850861.html

Alesha killer used Luke Mitchell case in appeal against sentence
Excerpts:
“Aaron Campbell’s lawyers have gone to court to argue that his minimum 27-year term is a “miscarriage of justice”. And to give backing to this claim they have highlighted the case of Luke Mitchell who murdered his girlfriend when he was just 15. He was subsequently jailed for life, too, but his minimum recommended term was 20 years which, according to Campbell’s legal team, means the sentence on their client is unfair.

“Campbell, who denied the crime, lodged a special defence incriminating Toni-Louise McLachlan, the girlfriend of Alesha’s father, Robert MacPhail, which the trial judge Lord Matthews described as “a cruel travesty of the truth”. But following his conviction the killer made admissions of his guilt to professionals preparing reports.

Sentencing him, Lord Matthews said: “This is a terrible thing to say of one so young, but they paint a clear picture of a cold, callous, remorseless and dangerous individual.”

Campbell told a psychologist that when he saw Alesha he regarded it as “a moment of opportunity” adding: “All I thought about was killing her once I saw her.” The teenager added that in the wake of the killing he was “mildly amused” that the police had not arrested him. He also revealed that at times during his trial it took everything to stop him laughing and that he was “quite satisfied with the murder”.

Scotland’s second most senior judge, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, reserved their decision in the appeal and will give a ruling at a later date yet to be fixed.

Lady Dorrian said: “This is a matter that requires proper consideration and reflection over time and, accordingly, we propose to take time to consider our decision, which will be issued in due course.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1162992/aaron-campbell-appeal-sentence-lawyers-alesha-macphail-murder
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:30:56 AM
Alesha killer used Luke Mitchell case in appeal against sentence
Excerpts:
“Aaron Campbell’s lawyers have gone to court to argue that his minimum 27-year term is a “miscarriage of justice”. And to give backing to this claim they have highlighted the case of Luke Mitchell who murdered his girlfriend when he was just 15. He was subsequently jailed for life, too, but his minimum recommended term was 20 years which, according to Campbell’s legal team, means the sentence on their client is unfair.

“Campbell, who denied the crime, lodged a special defence incriminating Toni-Louise McLachlan, the girlfriend of Alesha’s father, Robert MacPhail, which the trial judge Lord Matthews described as “a cruel travesty of the truth”. But following his conviction the killer made admissions of his guilt to professionals preparing reports.

Sentencing him, Lord Matthews said: “This is a terrible thing to say of one so young, but they paint a clear picture of a cold, callous, remorseless and dangerous individual.”

Campbell told a psychologist that when he saw Alesha he regarded it as “a moment of opportunity” adding: “All I thought about was killing her once I saw her.” The teenager added that in the wake of the killing he was “mildly amused” that the police had not arrested him. He also revealed that at times during his trial it took everything to stop him laughing and that he was “quite satisfied with the murder”.

Scotland’s second most senior judge, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, reserved their decision in the appeal and will give a ruling at a later date yet to be fixed.

Lady Dorrian said: “This is a matter that requires proper consideration and reflection over time and, accordingly, we propose to take time to consider our decision, which will be issued in due course.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1162992/aaron-campbell-appeal-sentence-lawyers-alesha-macphail-murder

Alesha MacPhail killer Aaron Campbell appeals against sentence: I'm only a child
“The teenager who abducted, raped and murdered six-year-old Alesha MacPhail will appeal this week against his 27-year sentence  - claiming he was only a child himself.
Aaron Campbell, who was 16 when he was sentenced in March for the brutal attack on Bute will claim he is too young for such a long term
The trial judge said during sentencing that Campbell had shown "a staggering lack of remorse” and his account of the killing had been "cold blooded and horrific"

Campbell later announced he would appeal the minimum jail term handed down by trial judge Lord Matthews, causing more anguish for his victim's family.

Campbell, who is locked up in Polmont Young Offenders' Institution, Falkirk, will not be in court for the appeal on Wednesday (7 Aug) but will appear instead via video link for the hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh.

An informed source close to the case said: "It's an appeal against sentence and an appeal against the punishment part of 27 years.

"The appeal is on the basis that it is too long and this is because of his age

"It's understood the argument will be that, given he was a child at the time of the offence, a punishment part of 27 years is excessive."

They added: "There has been an application to the court that he will not attend and will appear by video link."

At his trial, Campbell, who turned 17 in May, denied even meeting Alesha but, after being convicted, confessed to a forensic psychologist compiling a pre-sentencing report.

Alesha's mum Georgina Lochrane has spoken of her disgust at the killer's bids to reduce his sentence and said she hopes it is increased and not decreased.

Georgina, 24, said of the appeal bid: "We were fully prepared for him to appeal his conviction and sentence before he admitted it, but now he can only appeal the sentence.

"It can end up with him having even more added on to his sentence. I don't think he will get less."

The Scottish Courts Service said three judges would preside over the appeal. It is thought their decision could take some weeks.

Alesha, from Airdrie, Lanarkshire, was at her grandparents' home on the island, where her father lives, when Campbell took her from her bed in the middle of the night in July last year.

Her body was found in the grounds of a former hotel the next morning. A post-mortem examination revealed she had suffered 117 injuries.

Campbell stuck to his not guilty plea throughout his nine-day trial in February, causing further distress to Alesha's family.

On the stand he told the jury his DNA must have been planted at the scene.

But the prosecution case, built on forensic evidence and CCTV provided by Campbell's mother, was overwhelming.

The jury at the High Court in Glasgow took three hours to unanimously convict Campbell.

It was only afterwards that Campbell told a court-appointed clinician how he had abducted drowsy Alesha from her bed at dad Robert's home on Bute before raping and murdering her.

The teenage murderer has told how he had to stop himself from laughing during parts of the disturbing trial and had been "mildly amused" that it took police two days to arrest him. He said he was "quite satisfied with the murder".

One observer, who was at the trial, said: "If you read what he told the psychologist after he was found guilty, 27 years might not seem too long a sentence.

"I'm sure it is not nearly long enough for Alesha's family."

Forensic psychologist Dr Gary MacPherson said Campbell's behaviour displayed psychopathic tendencies.

MSPs voted in May to increase the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12. The age at which a child can actually be prosecuted was, and remains, 12.

An appeal in 2011 by Luke Mitchell over his 20-year minimum term for the murder of Jodi Jones was rejected by three judges.

Lord Gill said the sentence should be cut to 15 years to reflect that Mitchell was 14 at the time.

However, Lord Hardie and Lady Cosgrove said that, given the nature and circumstances of the crime, the term should remain at the original 20 years.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/alesha-macphail-killer-aaron-campbell-appeals-against-sentence-i-m-only-a-child-1-4976500
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:36:49 AM
Alesha MacPhail: Murder leads to calls to get tough on cannabis
“THE abduction, rape and murder of Alesha MacPhail has prompted calls for ministers at Westminster and Holyrood to change their soft-touch stance on cannabis.

Her killer, the "evil and wicked" Isle of Bute schoolboy Aaron Campbell, was an extensive user of the drug and had even bought it from his six-year-old victim’s father. Detectives are at a loss to explain the teenager’s motives, although it was just the latest heinous and seemingly inexplicable crime committed by a perpetrator who frequently smoked cannabis. Despite the tolerant public view of the Class B substance, as well as its apparent medicinal benefits, there is a growing body of evidence linking the drug to violent crime and teenage psychosis.

Campaigner Ross Grainger has compiled a “catalogue of suicide and psychopathic violence committed by cannabis smokers in the UK and Ireland” over the past two decades including 200 murders, rapes and savage assaults.

He said: “In this case, as in all such cases, I do not say that cannabis 'caused' the perpetrator to do what he did, but rather that it would not have happened if he had not smoked cannabis.

“There is copious evidence, going back decades, of the immense harm cannabis can do to an adolescent mind, and it is, in my view, the only possible explanation for this young man's depravity and savagery.”

The court heard that one possible explanation was Campbell's dispute with Alesha’s father, Robert MacPhail, over an unpaid drug debt of just £10.

Mr Grainger said: “This may have given him a grudge. But many people have grudges and are full of bitterness. To act on this in the way he did, inflicting 117 injuries on the girl, requires a warped mind, and in my view only cannabis could have damaged it so.

“Abusing and raping children is not unique to cannabis smokers, but when I read of the 117 injuries he inflicted, I knew there must be cannabis behind it; a sustained, frenzied, brutal and psychopathic murder of this kind nearly always does.

“Cases involving more than 100 stab wounds are far from uncommon. In one of the cases I've compiled, a man stabbed another man 143 times because he thought he was the devil.”

Mr Grainger, a writer from Bristol, has submitted a petition to the UK Government calling for a review into the links between cannabis and violence which has been signed by more than 12,000 people.

He launched his campaign after Becky Watts was murdered by her step-brother Nathan Watts, a regular cannabis user, in his home city almost four years ago.

“Scotland is no stranger to this type of murder," added Mr Grainger. "There was the Jodi Jones murder, and the Anne Nicoll murder, which happened within about a year of each other, in which young men deranged by heavy cannabis smoking committed heinous acts of murder.

"As with Alesha MacPhail, both cases are notorious for the savagery involved, and for their seemingly inexplicable nature.”

Drugs expert Professor Neil McKeganey, director of the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow, said Alesha's murder was "shocking in every respect except one - the killer had a history of extensive cannabis use".

He explained: "Nobody would suggest murderous actions are an inevitable consequence of such drug use but there is now a long list of murders where the perpetrators have been using cannabis - both on a long-term basis and just prior to their murderous actions.

"Cannabis served to distance these individuals from the horror of their actions and almost certainly contributes to their murderous mindset."

According to a report published last week, Scottish teenage boys are now among the heaviest users of cannabis in Europe. Meanwhile, police are increasingly using warnings to deal with cannabis possession rather than referring cases to prosecutors.

Liam Kerr, Scottish Conservative shadow justice secretary said the SNP Government had "catastrophically failed to tackle Scotland's drug culture".

He added: “Given cannabis has featured before a number of recent, awful crimes, surely it’s time to examine very carefully assumptions about this drug and the most appropriate and effective ways to tackle it.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1091611/alesha-macphail-murder-cannabis-mps-westminster
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:44:02 AM
Those ten shocking cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women by Ross Grainger 2nd August 2019

“Here are the ten cases (from a catalogue of hundreds) that I list in my recent article for Conservative Woman:

Youth guilty of Dundee murder:  ‘The court heard that McIntosh [the defendant], who had been smoking cannabis, alarmed three strollers on Law Hill with his odd behaviour shortly before the killing.’ (17 Apr 2002)

Killer’s chilling promise to victim: ‘She [Stephanie Hancock] was strangled, battered and stabbed at her Hampshire home. Winchester Crown Court heard how Caswell, 31, was unable to accept their relationship had ended. Days before the murder he told a friend that he would “probably kill her”. He fulfilled his promise on July 22 by murdering Stephanie as she slept at their home on Pegasus Close, Gosport. The court also heard how Caswell suffered from a personality disorder because of a long-term dependence on cannabis.’ (19 Dec 2002)

Jodi’s killer to serve at least 20 years in jail: ‘The boyfriend of Jodi Jones was told yesterday that he would spend at least 20 years behind bars for the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl. Sentencing Luke Mitchell, 16, at Edinburgh high court, Lord Nimmo Smith linked the attack to the killer’s heavy cannabis use and fascination with the occult and the goth rocker Marilyn Manson… The judge also linked Mitchell’s use of cannabis to the killing. “I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug,” he said. “In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments [sic]”.’ (12 Feb 2005)
https://attackersmokedcannabis.com/2019/08/02/those-ten-shocking-cases-of-psychopathic-violence-committed-by-men-against-women/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on August 13, 2019, 11:50:48 AM
Those ten shocking cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women by Ross Grainger 2nd August 2019

“Here are the ten cases (from a catalogue of hundreds) that I list in my recent article for Conservative Woman:

Youth guilty of Dundee murder:  ‘The court heard that McIntosh [the defendant], who had been smoking cannabis, alarmed three strollers on Law Hill with his odd behaviour shortly before the killing.’ (17 Apr 2002)

Killer’s chilling promise to victim: ‘She [Stephanie Hancock] was strangled, battered and stabbed at her Hampshire home. Winchester Crown Court heard how Caswell, 31, was unable to accept their relationship had ended. Days before the murder he told a friend that he would “probably kill her”. He fulfilled his promise on July 22 by murdering Stephanie as she slept at their home on Pegasus Close, Gosport. The court also heard how Caswell suffered from a personality disorder because of a long-term dependence on cannabis.’ (19 Dec 2002)

Jodi’s killer to serve at least 20 years in jail: ‘The boyfriend of Jodi Jones was told yesterday that he would spend at least 20 years behind bars for the murder of the 14-year-old schoolgirl. Sentencing Luke Mitchell, 16, at Edinburgh high court, Lord Nimmo Smith linked the attack to the killer’s heavy cannabis use and fascination with the occult and the goth rocker Marilyn Manson… The judge also linked Mitchell’s use of cannabis to the killing. “I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug,” he said. “In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments [sic]”.’ (12 Feb 2005)
https://attackersmokedcannabis.com/2019/08/02/those-ten-shocking-cases-of-psychopathic-violence-committed-by-men-against-women/

Cannabis and this horrific tidal wave of violence against women
By Ross Grainger -  August 1, 2019

“THERE are many angles from which one can argue that cannabis is a dangerous drug, but, writing for The Conservative Woman for the first time, I shall take one I have emphasised only little since founding the website Attacker Smoked Cannabis last year, and that is the astonishing number of cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women.

THERE are many angles from which one can argue that cannabis is a dangerous drug, but, writing for The Conservative Woman for the first time, I shall take one I have emphasised only little since founding the website Attacker Smoked Cannabis last year, and that is the astonishing number of cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women.

In the week that Darren Pencille was found guilty of murdering Lee Pomeroy by stabbing him 18 times on a train, a severely mentally ill man was convicted of stabbing his mother to death, in part, he claimed, because he felt she had never forgiven him for stabbing her in the neck and drinking her blood some years earlier. The previous week, a man and two female accomplices were found guilty of beating and torturing a young woman in a failed attempt to induce a miscarriage of the baby she was carrying as a result of intercourse with the male defendant, who had taken issue with the girl’s refusal to have an abortion. The following week, a man with the grimly apt name of Adrian Sword was convicted of slashing his wife across the face with an eight-inch Samurai-style blade. The day after this, a 26-year-old man was found guilty of raping and murdering 13-year-old Lucy McHugh, in whose house he had been lodging, after she told him she was pregnant with his child.

The powerful psychoactive pleasure drug common to all these crimes is, of course, cannabis, in every case copious amounts of it smoked over many years. Either this is a relevant factor or it is not. At the very least, I think, we ought to find out before we yield to the demands of billionaire corporations and their political patsies to legalise this drug.

One difficulty such an investigation would have is defining the relationship between cannabis and psychotic aggression. Cannabis, like alcohol, does not cause violence. Violence is a voluntary action that ultimately depends on somebody’s decision to commit it. It would, though, be as ludicrous to suggest that violence and cannabis are not connected as it would be to claim there is no link between violence and alcohol. Both drugs can blur the frontiers between civilisation and savagery, one of which is the inability of a sane man or boy to countenance, much less commit, violence against a woman or girl.

Call it playing to the gallery if you wish, but I think I speak for most civilised men when I say that a savage fight between males moves me less than a single slap by a man on a woman. With cannabis, though, the violence rarely involves a single strike. As one judge put it, in his sentencing remarks to a man convicted of punching his girlfriend and burning down her house (which she and her children managed to flee), ‘Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality.’

Extraordinary, yes, but rarely swift. Macbeth (urged on, ironically for us, by his deranged and evil wife) says of his planned assassination of the king that ‘If it were done when tis done then t’were well / It were done quickly.’ Cannabis smokers, in inflicting many minutes, sometimes hours, of pain and terror on their innocent victims, betray their dulled and unresponsive brains.

No woman or girl is safe from this. Babies, children, adolescents, adults, pensioners; a man’s daughter, his girlfriend, his wife, his mother, his grandmother, his aunt, or a total stranger: neither age, nor common bloodline, nor common humanity moves a mind ‘steeped’ in cannabis. Here are reports of ten telling cases (from a catalogue of hundreds) that, if they caught your attention at the time, may have slipped from it since:

1) Robbie McIntosh, 15, stabbed civil servant Anne Nicoll 29 times in what was described as a frenzied attack. The court heard that McIntosh, who had been smoking cannabis, alarmed three strollers with his odd behaviour shortly before the killing. (17 April 2002)

2) Philip Caswell, 31, was unable to accept his relationship with Stephanie Hancock had ended. Winchester Crown Court heard how she was strangled, battered and stabbed at her Hampshire home.  The court also heard how Caswell suffered from a personality disorder because of a long-term dependence on cannabis. (19 Dec 2002)

3) Luke Mitchell, 15, stripped, tied up and repeatedly stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones on a wooded path near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian. Sentencing Mitchell, by then 16, to 20 years in jail, Edinburgh high court judge Lord Nimmo Smith linked the attack to the killer’s heavy cannabis use and fascination with the occult and the goth rocker Marilyn Manson. ‘I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug,’ he said. ‘In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments.’ (12 Feb 2005)

4) A skunk-addicted schizophrenic set out to kill a black woman and stabbed a grandmother picked at random. Ezekiel Maxwell was 17 when he launched a frenzied attack on Carmelita Tulloch, 51, as she walked to work in Kennington, south London. (3 Apr 2007)

5) Adrian Jones, 17, beat Kelly Hyde, 24, from Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, around the head with a barbell. Jones did not know his victim and police said they still did not know his motive. He told jury he came across a dog lead used by Ms Hyde as he walked along the bridle path smoking cannabis on the day she disappeared. (17 July 2008)

6) Marc Middlebrook, 27, had ignored repeated warnings to quit using cannabis when he stabbed Stephanie Barton 15 times with three knives as she lay naked in his bed. Middlebrook had become convinced she was part of a plot to kill him and he ‘wanted to put her out of her misery’. (7 Oct 2008)

7) Schizophrenic labourer Maxwell Twyman, who had smoked super-strength skunk for ten years, knifed his 62-year-old grandmother Valerie on Christmas Day as she lay in bed in the Kent home they shared. Afterwards the 25-year-old calmly walked round to his aunt and uncle’s house to wish them season’s greetings and deliver presents before confessing: ‘I’ve killed my grandmother.’ (21 Nov 2008)

8) Martin Bell, 45, bludgeoned and stabbed Gemma Simpson to death after they smoked cannabis together. He told her: ‘God wants me to kill you.’ He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was jailed for a minimum of 12 years. (19 Dec 2014)

9) Christopher Whelan, 21, drowned his aunt Julie Hill, 51, and strangled his 75-year-old grandmother Rose Hill after cannabis use exacerbated his violent thoughts linked to an obsessional disorder. (21 Nov 2016)

10) Jordan Matthews murdered his girlfriend after getting paranoid that she was unfaithful. Xixi Bi suffered 41 injuries, including a broken jaw and ribs. Matthews accepted he was smoking ‘quite a lot’ of cannabis at the time. (21 Feb 2017)

Paranoid, brutal, frenzied, sudden, sustained, psychotic: when you read of one or more of these characteristics, you can almost guarantee the attacker smoked cannabis.

I wrote earlier that no woman is safe from the deranged violence of cannabis smokers. It is almost the case that no political party is safe from the deep pockets and slick PR of the cannabis lobby. The Liberal Democrats, with Sir Norman Lamb MP to the fore, are the most vocal dupes, but they have allies in the Conservatives and Labour. In fact, no sooner had I finished this article, than a cross-party trio comprising David Lammy, Jonathan Djanogly and Sir Norman returned from Canada after a ‘fact-finding’ mission paid for by a cannabis company called MPX
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cannabis-and-this-horrific-tidal-wave-of-violence-against-women/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Wonderfulspam on August 13, 2019, 12:26:09 PM

I smoked high strength cannibis almost every day for about 23 years. It never made me violent or psychotic.
Mostly it just made me sleepy & gave me the munchies.
I don't smoke it anymore.
I think people with underlying mental illness & social problems may be adversely affected by it's misuse though.
Coke & Crack heads were the most violent & dis inhibited people I witnessed during my years as a stoner, along with alcoholics.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on August 13, 2019, 03:15:44 PM
Crimes of such heinous nature, set our minds into,  trying to fathom how a human being could stoop to such depravity. Is it the influence of drugs and alcohol that transforms a perfectly balanced human being into producing such horror? The effect of alcohol and drugs into ones system alters them from their 'normal' self for the most part. We all, in some way become altered. For the majority it is but a harmless change. Yapping ones  chops off when normally so timid, lowering our inhibitions, munching through amazing amounts of goodies when normally in control and so forth. For those, that it may cause detriment, are by far less than those not so. For some, even that first usage/consumption can cause devastating effects - whether alcohol or drugs, they are after all, both the same when it comes to changing our norm! It is therefore hard to determine what role these substances play? if they are the cause, an additive to the cause or is a person simply like that through nurture or nature? This in itself playing its own role - pre the inclusiveness of substances.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on August 14, 2019, 04:48:45 PM
Maybe it was because Jodi's phone was broken at the time (I think?!) and so to chase her would have been more difficult and involved phoning her house again, potentially getting her into more trouble.

It appears that from the first instance of these two being an item, there had been one previous occasion in which Jodi failed to turn up?
Did this result in Jodi contacting Luke at some point, in that evening with an explanation?
Or, Luke contacting Jodi?
We can try to take into account, Luke making no attempt to contact Jodi again directly - her phone was broken, yet,
added to this we have Luke receiving no communication from Jodi over that evening.
This also appears not to have worried him - Just, absolutely nothing?
Would it be fair to assume that this was completely out of character for his GF?
One 'no-show' highlights more, in all of that time, how unusual this was.
He knew (by his version) that Jodi had left to meet him, it was not in character for her to not show up without further contact? Not the 'norm'?
'Why should he have been worried if her parents weren't?' he was but a young laddie.
Would it be fair to assume, that after phoning and speaking to the stepfather - they would perhaps, naturally have thought, they were together, thinking no more of it?
No further contact was made to Luke from Jodi or any attempt to contact her.
It was out of character.
What we have instead are;
Very precise accounts of his actions for that evening - out with the time with his friends.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 17, 2019, 04:47:38 PM
Has James English ever interviewed Paul Brannigan?

Will be very interesting to see him interview Michelle Diskin Bates.

According to James English he’s recently interviewed “New Edward Heath Accuser.”

Private Eye Explores New Edward Heath Accuser - April 2019
“In his new video interview, Tarraga also laments the way that so much focus has been placed on his supposed encounter with Heath, and the prospect that he may be remembered simply as “Meat Rack Boy”, but these are the inevitable and obvious outcomes of Brees’s media strategy. It is unrealistic to accuse a former prime minister of sex abuse and not expect some critical scrutiny, and yet Brees appears not to have warned Tarraga that this would happen. Given Tarraga’s health and vulnerability, this is a failure of a duty of care.
There is a sense of manipulation in the video interview which becomes especially clear towards the end, as Brees invites Tarraga to denounce the BBC on an unrelated matter (4) and to praise Mark Watts, a journalist who promoted VIP abuse conspiracy theories on the Exaro website (5). It looks to me that Brees’s and Wedger’s interests being are served, rather than those of Tarraga.

https://barthsnotes.com/2019/04/04/private-eye-explores-new-edward-heath-accuser/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 17, 2019, 05:31:45 PM
According to James English he’s recently interviewed “New Edward Heath Accuser.”

Private Eye Explores New Edward Heath Accuser - April 2019
“In his new video interview, Tarraga also laments the way that so much focus has been placed on his supposed encounter with Heath, and the prospect that he may be remembered simply as “Meat Rack Boy”, but these are the inevitable and obvious outcomes of Brees’s media strategy. It is unrealistic to accuse a former prime minister of sex abuse and not expect some critical scrutiny, and yet Brees appears not to have warned Tarraga that this would happen. Given Tarraga’s health and vulnerability, this is a failure of a duty of care.
There is a sense of manipulation in the video interview which becomes especially clear towards the end, as Brees invites Tarraga to denounce the BBC on an unrelated matter (4) and to praise Mark Watts, a journalist who promoted VIP abuse conspiracy theories on the Exaro website (5). It looks to me that Brees’s and Wedger’s interests being are served, rather than those of Tarraga.

https://barthsnotes.com/2019/04/04/private-eye-explores-new-edward-heath-accuser/

https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/?s=Michael+Tarraga+
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 18, 2019, 05:30:01 PM
It appears that from the first instance of these two being an item, there had been one previous occasion in which Jodi failed to turn up?
Did this result in Jodi contacting Luke at some point, in that evening with an explanation?
Or, Luke contacting Jodi?
We can try to take into account, Luke making no attempt to contact Jodi again directly - her phone was broken, yet,
added to this we have Luke receiving no communication from Jodi over that evening.
This also appears not to have worried him - Just, absolutely nothing?
Would it be fair to assume that this was completely out of character for his GF?
One 'no-show' highlights more, in all of that time, how unusual this was.
He knew (by his version) that Jodi had left to meet him, it was not in character for her to not show up without further contact? Not the 'norm'?
'Why should he have been worried if her parents weren't?' he was but a young laddie.
Would it be fair to assume, that after phoning and speaking to the stepfather - they would perhaps, naturally have thought, they were together, thinking no more of it?
No further contact was made to Luke from Jodi or any attempt to contact her.
It was out of character.
What we have instead are;
Very precise accounts of his actions for that evening - out with the time with his friends.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455686.html#msg455686

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 19, 2019, 01:27:50 PM
Caught in the lie

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452006.html#msg452006
Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)

According to Luke Mitchell his mother helped him finish off making dinner and according to Corrine Mitchells evidence given during trial, and depending on what version you believe, Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli.

She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead


Shane Mitchell said his brother was standing at the cooker “mashing tatties.”

Yet “The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes (Note: no mention of the broccoli/bean story)

So dinner couldn’t have been ready as Sandra Lean claims.

She also stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997
Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.

There are several anomalies with this particular version of events, not only with timings but linked to the broccoli, tatties, bean and chicken and/or steak pie stories. Who’s version of events should be believed? Why did Luke need to ask his mother when she got home if he should cook broccoli or beans? Hadn’t he already telephoned her to ask what to cook for dinner? He was an intelligent lad remember; could hold his own when interrogated by the police

Yet Shane Mitchell said; “Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

According to Luke Mitchell his mother helped him finish off making dinner and according to Corrine Mitchells evidence given during trial, and depending on what version you believe, Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli.[/i]

“She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455728.html#msg455728

The “brandishing broccoli” story wasn’t what Corrine Mitchell told her sons murder trial this story was told later on an internet forum

Corrine Mitchell
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.

Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.

After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!

Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 19, 2019, 01:38:26 PM
Corrine Mitchell
When I got home I went directly to the kitchen where I was confronted by Luke brandishing the broccoli! He asked if it should be that colour (it was turning yellowy) and I said no......bin the broccoli! He decided on beans instead...as it was a Monday and I do my weekly shop on a Tuesday there wasn't any other fresh vegetables left.

Both Luke and I served up. I told Luke to shout Shane down as he was upstairs. Shane came down, complained to Luke he had burnt the pie, I told him it could be scraped off, it wasn't that bad. Shane returned upstairs armed with his dinner. Luke ate his in front of the TV and I decided to have mine on the patio as I had been cooped up in my office all day and not seen any sun.

After eating dinner I was preparing to do the dishes when Luke came into the kitchen and said that that was him off. I joked with him and said.....don't tell me ...your seeing Jodi....as by this time Jodi had become more favourable than the cadets. I also suggested to him that he introduced his clothes to the washing machine as he had worn them for a couple of days. I got the usual teenage response......Och mum!.....and "this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt" I replied it wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed and with that I got another "Och".....I'm off, see you later!

Shane came and went most of the evening, which I found quite irritating! I had stopped smoking, due to pressure from Shane, and had discovered that tracking and smoking don't go as it involves a lot of running, but by this time I was having the odd sneaky one due to pressure at work. This is our busiest time. Every time I went to "light up" Shane appeared and nearly caught me. Then just as I was safe in the knowledge that Shane was engrossed in his computer......Lit up fag.......Luke comes in.......I never got a sneaky cig that night. The rest is on the time~line. Hope this helps.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg22813.html#msg22813

Sounds to me Corrine Mitchell attempted to rewrite history by claiming Luke said “this is Jodi’s favourite t-shirt” before heading off out to meet her..

Same applies to “wouldn't be much longer if it didn't get washed

She wants the reader to believe her version of events which reminds me of how Michelle Diskin Bates and Mike Bourke have written about the Barry George case:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg556245#msg556245
I did notice over time a tendency in him to be a bit of a hypochondriac. Unfortunately he had a side to him which I had not been very aware of. I always thought of him as a more or less harmless character who was a bit of a fantasist but that was not quite the case.

In early ’83 his mother told me that he was in prison on remand. At his trial in the Old Bailey he pleaded guilty to a serious offence in February 1982 and got thirty months in prison.

As Barry is once again trying to get on with his life I have decided not to go into the details which have received much press coverage but I do recall reading in a newspaper at the time that he initially denied it but that the detective tripped him up by asking him if he spoke any German. Barry replied ‘Ich Verstain’, (I understand). It appears that he used the same expression to the unfortunate victim who was a student studying German.

So it would seem that a clever detective had no trouble in tripping him up and getting to the truth. He served his time in Wormwood Scrubbs, Brixton and Grendon Underwood prisons.

I visited him a couple of times along with his mother and Eddie. He was free again by Christmas 1984 and he seemed to settle down after that.

He never spoke to me about the crime and I never asked but I read her own account in 2001 following his conviction for Jill Dando’s murder, and again in 2008 when she wrote that she doubted if Barry was a killer.

Barry had a 125cc motorbike in the summer of 1986 which I thought was surprising given his epilepsy.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 19, 2019, 03:18:27 PM
I am annoyingly unable to comment on the Blue Forum as I forgot my password and the password reminder button does nothing. I have tried to make a new account but that doesn't work either.

But I just wanted to point out to anyone who reads both (and if you do maybe you can make this point for me there) that there have been numerous people saying that the moped being at the break in the wall never happened and has been disproved. However, I would like to point out that John Ferris himself admitted to it being at the v break in the wall where Jodi's body was found in his evidence given in court. I'm not saying he is the murderer, for the record. But that and his behaviour around the time makes him a suspect as much as Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on September 20, 2019, 04:38:17 PM
I am annoyingly unable to comment on the Blue Forum as I forgot my password and the password reminder button does nothing. I have tried to make a new account but that doesn't work either.

But I just wanted to point out to anyone who reads both (and if you do maybe you can make this point for me there) that there have been numerous people saying that the moped being at the break in the wall never happened and has been disproved. However, I would like to point out that John Ferris himself admitted to it being at the v break in the wall where Jodi's body was found in his evidence given in court. I'm not saying he is the murderer, for the record. But that and his behaviour around the time makes him a suspect as much as Luke.

That he did, but i don't think that is the argument that is being put across. To me it seems, they want to know, as has been claimed, that someone saw the moped at the V with the pair nowhere to be seen. A unnamed witness was the answer, from a car driving along the road. I don't know if you have been there, but it is impossible to see this V from a distance. It is simply not good enough, with no proof being provided to back this claim up.
I will also say, they seem to pick & choose what this pair has said as being true or false, whichever that suits an agenda, it is called double standards.
And i have absolutely no doubt, that this pair were suspects, but were eliminated, but again we are led to believe, there was no other suspects, or other were eliminated within days, its utter BS.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 20, 2019, 04:48:52 PM
That he did, but i don't think that is the argument that is being put across. To me it seems, they want to know, as has been claimed, that someone saw the moped at the V with the pair nowhere to be seen. A unnamed witness was the answer, from a car driving along the road. I don't know if you have been there, but it is impossible to see this V from a distance. It is simply not good enough, with no proof being provided to back this claim up.
I will also say, they seem to pick & choose what this pair has said as being true or false, whichever that suits an agenda, it is called double standards.
And i have absolutely no doubt, that this pair were suspects, but were eliminated, but again we are led to believe, there was no other suspects, or other were eliminated within days, its utter BS.

I honestly can not remember exactly the evidence Ferris gave in court. Did he claim that the moped wasn't there alone?
Also, how exactly were they eliminated? I've never seen any clear explanation as to how or when they were ruled out as suspects?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Rusty on September 20, 2019, 06:54:41 PM
I honestly can not remember exactly the evidence Ferris gave in court. Did he claim that the moped wasn't there alone?
Also, how exactly were they eliminated? I've never seen any clear explanation as to how or when they were ruled out as suspects?

I can't remember exactly what he said, something along the lines, that him & his mate were on the path with his moped & he cannot remember what he was doing there. This claim has been made by SL that an witness(unnamed) who said the moped was there propped against the V alone, she has to sensationalize it by adding the words "nowhere to be seen" saying that adds some spice for the reader/viewer. Those on the blue forum, i suspect want evidence of the witness & how credible it is. Seems like she cannot provide that evidence, i don't see a problem with this, you simply cannot take one persons word for it.  I also personally suspect, SL has took Ferris evidence & twisted it into this unnamed witness story. Look on google maps, street view it. Start half-way on the Beeches Road, pan towards the path look over the field and the trees towards the path, which it what 300/400 yards? & tell me, without a doubt you can see any V let alone a wall, and then make out a moped propped against it alone. Then you can continue down Newbattle Road, and well not a hope in hell you can see any V from there. These are the only routes by car, that you could see the treeline that goes with this path.  It is madness. You also have to remember the cyclist never seen any moped or the duo.

I don't know exactly. But to suggest that these guys were not investigated properly & eliminated quickly, sorry, not buying that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 21, 2019, 01:10:44 PM
Sandra Lean states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455777.html#msg455777
“He was 14 years old. His mother could have said, "You're not going out on your own at this time of night -

According to her interview with James English this is indeed what she said to Luke
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 “not at this time you’re not laddie” something along those lines)

leave it to the adults",
We still don’t know why Corrine Mitchell allowed her 14 year old son Luke Mitchell to go out on his own searching that night and why she didn’t go with him as the question appears to have yet been answered.

But more importantly WHY, to date, does it appear Sandra Lean has not posed this question to Corrine Mitchell?

in which case, he'd have the perfect excuse (if he'd been the murderer) not to be anywhere near when Jodi was found.

Many murderers go back to or hang around the crime scene/deposition site - this is well documented.

What reason (something plausible and believable, please) would he have, in all of the circumstances that night, to "lead" the others to Jodi's body?
What reason would he have to murder JJ in the first place?

People who murder in the way Luke Mitchell did aren’t wired like many of the rest of us. You’ll be hard pressed to find plausible or logically reasons to understand the workings of his mind.

Without a confession and full disclosure regarding how and why he chose to do what he did,  it’s unlikely we’ll ever know all the answers.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 21, 2019, 01:25:58 PM
Sandra Lean states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455777.html#msg455777

LM: I told her mum I'd walk up the path. If I didn't find her there, I'd go to the house.
LM = Luke Mitchell

Sandra Lean might want to speak with Corrine and Luke Mitchell about the above as she (Corrine) stated during the James English interview Luke had arranged to go straight to Judith’s house to go through Jodi’s friends phone numbers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

Sandra Lean states:
The relevant points: Jodi was believed to be planning to hang out in Easthouses/Mayfield.
 
Jodi was planning to meet Luke Mitchell. Again refer to Corrine Mitchell’s interview with James English. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

According to Corrine Mitchell Luke left their house to sit and wait for Jodi at the end of their street. Then according to Corrine Luke phoned his Mum to see if Jodi had turned up. According to Corrine Luke even asked his Mum if she was in the garden would she hear Jodi at the door. Corrine goes on to explain Mia would bark if someone came to the door..

Corrine claims Luke and Jodi didn’t have “exact arrangements but he took it she was coming down to our place.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 21, 2019, 02:45:24 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455777.html#msg455777

Janine Jones; "I knew it was something bad from the tone of his voice"
Janine Jones; "He [Luke] looked as if he was in shock. His eyes were wider than normal
Janine Jones; "Everyone was in hysterics"
Operator: "The laddie's in a bit of a panic ... "

Why did they claim at trial that there was no reaction from Luke - that he was completely emotionless?
Why did Janine Jones ask Kelly, on the way to the school car park, after the finding of Jodi's body, "Was she naked?"

Everyone was in hysterics” could well be a generalisation given the then circumstances at the time.

On reflection Janine Jones appears to have realised Luke Mitchell actually wasn’t in hysterics like the rest of them at the time.

The fact she didn’t amend her first statement for a month doesn’t mean she didn’t recognise “there was no reaction from Luke” say for example the day after she’d made her first statement.

There could be several reasons why there was a delay of a month before making the next witness statement, not least of all the fact her sister had been murdered.

Operator: "The laddie's in a bit of a panic ... " Luke Mitchell could have quite easily feigned “panic” After all he claimed to have urinated in bottles because he slept on the top bunk and it was more convenient than getting up to use the bathroom.

“John Beckett QC, representing the Crown, told Lords Hamilton, Osborne and Kingarth: "His explanation was that because he slept on top of a bunk bed it was more convenient to do that than to do anything else.
"It was to show that explanation was untrue. The new ones (bottles) came at a time when his position was that he was sleeping in the living room next to his mother, or something like that.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 22, 2019, 06:03:01 PM
A break in the wall or THE break in the wall?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455808.html#msg455808

Reminds me of Jeremy Bamber referring to the gun

Sandra Lean states:
“So not just anywhere - at the break behind which Jodi's body was found. This isn't difficult.

Jodi’s body was not found immediately behind the V break in the wall

Did Ferris lie to the police or were his timings guesstimated?

Interesting to note Sandra Lean quoted from the following article https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-of-cousin-jodi-1-563199
but what she quoted wasn’t quoted by the journalist who wrote the article. So was that their interpretation/summary of what was said in court?

Here is the full article with all quotes made bold

“A FORMER drug dealer denied repeatedly yesterday that he was the murderer of the Midlothian schoolgirl Jodi Jones.
John Ferris, 18, told a jury that he regularly sold cannabis to Jodi’s boyfriend, Luke Mitchell, who is on trial accused of killing her.

The teenager, who said he was Jodi’s second cousin, said he had been on a path, near to where the girl’s body was found, on the evening of her death.

Under lengthy cross-examination by the defence QC, Donald Findlay, he agreed that after the death he changed his appearance by hacking off his hair, delayed in going to the police, mis-stated the time he had been at the path, and had been ostracised by some of Jodi’s family. Each time Mr Findlay asked if he had murdered Jodi, he replied: "No."

Mitchell, 16, denies repeatedly striking Jodi, 14, with a knife and murdering her on 30 June last year in a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke path, a short-cut between the Easthouses and Newbattle areas of Dalkeith. He says in special defences that it is believed the Crown will contend that Jodi was murdered between 5pm and 5:45pm and that he was elsewhere, and that she was killed by a person or persons unknown. Mitchell also denies unlawfully possessing a knife or knives, and supplying cannabis to Jodi and others.

Mr Ferris told the High Court in Edinburgh that he now lived in Ayrshire, but used to live in the Dalkeith area.

He admitted having supplied cannabis to friends and relatives, and said that Mitchell regularly bought the drug from him, and still owed him for his last purchase, on the day before Jodi’s death. He insisted that he had stopped dealing around Christmas last year.

Mr Ferris said he often saw Mitchell with knives. Once, Mitchell left a knife at a house and Mr Ferris took it home. He had handed it into the police after Jodi’s murder.

On the day of the killing he had ridden an old moped down Roan’s Dyke path to meet his cousin and close friend, Gordon Dickie, at Newbattle. The court was told that witnesses in the area put the time of hearing a noisy moped and seeing two youths at or shortly after 5pm. Mr Ferris said the pair used the path on the return journey.

Mr Findlay asked what time Mr Ferris had told the police he and his cousin were heading up the path. The witness said: "Around five o’clock." Mr Findlay told him to be careful and asked again. He said: "Before five o’clock... I cannot exactly remember."

The QC read from a statement which said "about half-past four". He suggested that that time was about 45 minutes out, and asked for an explanation.

Mr Ferris said he had looked at a clock when he got into Mr Dickie’s house, and it said a quarter to five. It had been wrong. Mr Findlay continued: "You and Dickie may have been in the area at or about the time that Jodi may have been attacked, yet you saw nothing and heard nothing?" Mr Ferris answered: "No."

Mr Findlay: "You would have the jury believe you know nothing?"

Mr Ferris: "Yes."

The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, and that he seemed to be "piling up a rather substantial list of coincidences". He said he did not know why he had not gone to the police for several days, nor told any of Jodi’s family he had been on the path that evening.

He added that he was supposed to go to Jodi’s home that night to see her brother, Joseph, but decided against it. Mr Findlay described that as "another remarkable coincidence".

Mr Ferris accepted that he had changed his appearance, by hacking at his curly hair. Asked why he had been so desperate to get rid of if, he replied: "I do not like curly hair."

He said he was no longer welcome at his grandmother’s house. He had been told by Jodi’s mother that "Joseph was going to batter me."

Mr Findlay, who suggested Mr Ferris would lie when it suited him, asked: "Did you murder Jodi? Did Gordon Dickie murder Jodi? Did the two of you together murder Jodi?"

To each question, Mr Ferris replied: "No."

The trial continues.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 22, 2019, 07:26:03 PM
Sandra Lean states:
Now, for the record, one last time, none of this means Ferris or Dickie lied about knowing anything about Jodi's death. It means, plain and simple, they lied about the time they were on the path, well before the suggested time of death was fixed, well before a final leaving time for Jodi was set and somehow, their lie removed them from the path at precisely the time that would later be the exact claimed time of death.

That's important for a number of reasons. If they were there at 5.15pm (and they, themselves concede that they were) and they heard nothing, that would suggest Jodi was not being violently murdered just metres away. But it raises questions about why they lied to remove themselves at that particular time. Coincidence? Nobody's saying they killed Jodi (well, except Donald Findlay, maybe) but there are questions that need answering - a blind man in a hurry can see that.

When and where did “they, themselves concede that they were at the exact point of the wall behind which Jodi’s body lay?

The court was told that witnesses in the area put the time of hearing a noisy moped and seeing two youths at or shortly after 5pm. Mr Ferris said the pair used the path on the return journey.”

Shortly after 5.00pm could mean 5.01pm 5.02pm and it would have only taken seconds to get down the path on the moped.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 07:20:40 AM
Sandra Lean states:
Now, for the record, one last time, none of this means Ferris or Dickie lied about knowing anything about Jodi's death. It means, plain and simple, they lied about the time they were on the path, well before the suggested time of death was fixed, well before a final leaving time for Jodi was set and somehow, their lie removed them from the path at precisely the time that would later be the exact claimed time of death.

That's important for a number of reasons. If they were there at 5.15pm (and they, themselves concede that they were) and they heard nothing, that would suggest Jodi was not being violently murdered just metres away. But it raises questions about why they lied to remove themselves at that particular time. Coincidence? Nobody's saying they killed Jodi (well, except Donald Findlay, maybe) but there are questions that need answering - a blind man in a hurry can see that.

When and where did “they, themselves concede that they were at the exact point of the wall behind which Jodi’s body lay?

The court was told that witnesses in the area put the time of hearing a noisy moped and seeing two youths at or shortly after 5pm. Mr Ferris said the pair used the path on the return journey.”

Shortly after 5.00pm could mean 5.01pm 5.02pm and it would have only taken seconds to get down the path on the moped.

Sandra Lean states:
“Before we get any of the "it was a long time, how was he supposed to remember?" nonsense, they were pulled back in for questioning weeks later when it was discovered they lied about the time. The statement about Alice telling them not to go to the police was on the basis that they were "on the path too early" - so presumably, he lied to her about the time as well. He was able to tell the police approximately what time he arrived at Dickie's, what time Dickie's Jobcentre appointment was, but somehow, was reliant on a clock telling the wrong time to ascertain what time they got back to Dickie's house? Dickie knew what time his Jobcentre appointment was. He knew what time he called Ferris to come and meet him. Should I continue?

they were pulled back in for questioning weeks later when it was discovered they lied about the time.” but aren’t the public being led to believe Luke Mitchell was the only suspect and no others were fully investigated?

Interesting use of the words “pulled back in for questioning” What does Sandra Lean mean here? Were they arrested or picked up by the police? Or were they contacted by telephone re their original statements and asked to go over their statements?

”At least five other witnesses to the time the two of them came through the Tool hire place and turned onto the path.

What about the witnesses who allegedly saw the moped parked at the V break in the wall?

Again it would have taken them seconds to get down the path on their bike. Seems as though the moped was never parked at the V after all?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 23, 2019, 11:37:01 AM
The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered,

Again it would have taken them seconds to get down the path on their bike. Seems as though the moped was never parked at the V after all?

So you're arguing that Ferris was lying on the stand and that the moped wasn't stopped at the break in the wall?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 02:14:44 PM
So you're arguing that Ferris was lying on the stand and that the moped wasn't stopped at the break in the wall?

The problem with “the witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in the wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered” is a quote taken from a newspaper - and appears to be the interpretation of the journalist who wrote the article?

Without having sight of trial transcripts in order to see exactly what was said it’s difficult to give a definitive conclusion.

The moped could have been stopped at the beginning of the path and wall as opposed to further down. As has already been established it’s not possible to see down the path as has been promoted in the past

There are several videos online that give an idea of the area

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/investigation-continuies-itn-scotland-dalkeith-ext-i-c-newsfootage/682861932?adppopup=true

but it should be remembered the jury were taken to the SOC for a walkabout plus a replica wall was built in order to give the court some idea as to the scale of said wall. (There are photos online but am unable to upload them)

Was Jodi’s body found behind this wall? https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-video-released-itn-ext-i-c-detective-inspector-tom-news-footage/682862314?adppopup=true&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp

the witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in the wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered”

No mention of the V break which Luke Mitchell initially climbed over. A break in the wall is not the same a the break in the wall imo

Plus an as the crow flies view from tool hire place to the V break in the wall will show it wasn’t possible to see the V break.

And Sandra Lean herself has already explained the V break wasn’t noticeable unless one knew where it was.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 23, 2019, 05:09:35 PM
No mention of the V break which Luke Mitchell initially climbed over. A break in the wall is not the same a the break in the wall imo

Yes this is taken from a news report not a transcript but they are representing the actual words used in court and the question put to Ferris wasn't just "a break in the wall" but specifically mentions "behind which Jodi's body was discovered".

It seems like clutching at straws to say that he just meant the same wall but not the same break in the wall where Jodi was found. I am yet to see him be able to give any explanation as to why the bike was stopped there (or any other break in the wall!)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 07:29:49 PM
Yes this is taken from a news report not a transcript but they are representing the actual words used in court and the question put to Ferris wasn't just "a break in the wall" but specifically mentions "behind which Jodi's body was discovered".

It seems like clutching at straws to say that he just meant the same wall but not the same break in the wall where Jodi was found. I am yet to see him be able to give any explanation as to why the bike was stopped there (or any other break in the wall!)

How long was the wall?

Was Jodi’s body immediately behind the V break in the wall?

Remember - the jury were taken to the SOC

What was Luke Mitchell’s “special defence?”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 07:31:43 PM
Wikipedia claims the following:

Mitchell pleaded not guilty and lodged a special defence of alibi: that he was at home cooking dinner at the time of the murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 10:07:50 PM
Wikipedia claims the following:

Mitchell pleaded not guilty and lodged a special defence of alibi: that he was at home cooking dinner at the time of the murder

“Incrimination” was also part of his special defence
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 23, 2019, 10:11:38 PM
Yes this is taken from a news report not a transcript but they are representing the actual words used in court and the question put to Ferris wasn't just "a break in the wall" but specifically mentions "behind which Jodi's body was discovered".

It seems like clutching at straws to say that he just meant the same wall but not the same break in the wall where Jodi was found. I am yet to see him be able to give any explanation as to why the bike was stopped there (or any other break in the wall!)

Who are you claiming “It seems like clutching at straws to say that he just meant the same wall but not the same break in the wall where Jodi was found” the defence?

The jury didn’t buy it. They believed Luke Mitchell was the murderer.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 24, 2019, 10:45:55 AM
RELATIVES of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones were discussing boyfriend Luke Mitchell just days after her death, a trial has heard.
Trainee bricklayer Gordon Dickie, 17, told murder hunt detectives about conversations with his cousin, John Ferris, before coming forward to volunteer information.

But as he gave evidence at the trial of Mitchell, 16, yesterday, Mr Dickie was accused of telling lies about his whereabouts at the time Jodi is thought to have met her death.

Donald Findlay QC, defending, challenged him: "Did you have anything to do with the death of Jodi Jones?" Mr Dickie replied: "No".

Earlier, the trial heard a similar question put to Mr Dickie’s cousin, drug dealer Mr Ferris - who supplied Mitchell and others with cannabis.

Mr Ferris, who made a similar denial, had been with Mr Dickie during the late afternoon of June 30 last year, the court heard.

Together they pushed and rode an old moped along a woodland path in Dalkeith, Midlothian, passing close to the spot where 14-year-old Jodi’s body was found hours later.

In the days which followed, both men made statements to the police in which they gave the wrong time for their moped ride.

On July 7 last year, just over a week after Jodi’s death, Mr Dickie told them: "John and I have been talking about everything and realised we had came up (sic) the Roan’s Dyke path about the time Jodi possibly went missing.

"We kept thinking about everything and talking about Luke."


The murder charge alleges that on June 30 last year - when he was 14 - Mitchell attacked Jodi of Parkhead Place, Easthouses, Dalkeith, in woods near Roan’s Dyke, hitting her and constricting her neck. The charge further alleges that Mitchell struck Jodi with a knife, before and after she died, inflicting wounds to her face, breast and abdomen.

He says that at the time he was in or near his home at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, and that Jodi was murdered by person or persons unknown. The trial continues.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/relatives-discussed-luke-days-after-death-1-1047707



“JODI JONES'S second cousin was yesterday asked if he had murdered the schoolgirl.

John Ferris was quizzed at the trial of her boyfriend Luke Mitchell.

Ferris,18,and a cousin Gordon Dickie had ridden a moped near the spot in Dalkeith, Midlothian, where Jodi's body was found last June.

But Donald Findlay QC, defending Mitchell, said he had 'chopped and changed' the time in his story of the journey.

He had also hacked off his curly hair following media reports describing a mystery man seen following Jodi.

The lawyer also quizzed Ferris on why he waited until five days after the killing before speaking to police.

And he said, on the evening of the killing, Ferris failed to keep an arrangement to meet Jodi's brother Joseph at the house from which she walked to her death.

Mr Findlay challenged Ferris: 'Did you murder Jodi?'He replied:'No.'

Findlay: 'Did Mr Dickie murder Jodi?' Ferris:'No.'

Findlay: 'Did the two of you murder Jodi?' Ferris:'No.'

Ferris told detectives hunting Jodi's killer that he and his cousin headed up the Roan's Dyke path at about 4.30pm.

But other witnesses told police they heard the noisy moped, which did not have a proper silencer, close to one end of the path after 5pm.

Mr Findlay said Ferris and Dickie gave accounts which wrongly put them at Dickie's house 15 minutes before Jodi, 14, is thought to have been killed

But Ferris denied discussing with Dickie what they would say to the police before they gave statements.

Ferris admitted in court that he had only gone to police five days after Jodi died after a TV news report about attempts to trace two youths on a motorbike left him 'shaking'.

Mr Findlay showed the court a selection of newspaper reports describing a potential suspect with curly hair.

He asked Ferris: 'Why were you so keen to get rid of your curly hair that you cut it yourself, making such a mess of it you had to get it sorted professionally?'

Ferris replied: 'I don't know.'

He also denied his personality had changed in the wake of Jodi's death.

And he told Mr Findlay he had failed to keep his arrangement with Jodi's brother because he was having a drink with his cousin instead.

Ferris, who now lives in Ayrshire, told the court he was no longer welcomed by members of Jodi's family.

Mr Findlay pointed to 16-year-old Mitchell in the dock, claiming he had been 'hounded by the Press' and 'locked up since April'.

He asked Ferris: 'Isn't there something now that you just might like to tell us? This might be your last opportunity to do the decent thing.'

He again asked Ferris if he had murdered Jodi. When the witness denied it, Findlay asked: 'Is that your final word?' Ferris replied softly: 'My final word.'


Earlier, Ferris, whose half-sister is Jodi's cousin, admitted supplying cannabis to Mitchell.

Advocate-depute Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting, asked Ferris whether he had ever seen Mitchell with a knife.

Ferris said he had seen him with 'different knives' on 'many occasions'.

He was shown a knife and pictures of knives, including two silver ones and a lock knife with a brown handle.

Ferris identified the ones in photographs as being similar to ones he had seen in Mitchell's possession.

Mitchell denies murdering 14--year-old Jodi at an area near Roan's Dyke path in Dalkeith by striking her with a knife or similar instrument.

He has lodged defences of alibi and incrimination to the murder allegation.

Mitchell also denies carrying a knife or knives and supplying cannabis.

The trial, at the High Court in Edinburgh, continues

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/DID+YOU+MURDER+JODI%3F+QC%27s+challenge+to+her+cousin+at+High+Court.-a0125208334
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 24, 2019, 11:00:48 AM
Who are you claiming “It seems like clutching at straws to say that he just meant the same wall but not the same break in the wall where Jodi was found” the defence?

The jury didn’t buy it. They believed Luke Mitchell was the murderer.

Obviously I'm not talking about the defence as they are the ones asking the question. I'm referring to you as clutching at straws by your assertion that he could have been admitting to be at any break in the wall. When he was asked the question about the break in the wall it even included "behind which Jodi's body was discovered".... but sure, maybe he was talking about a different break!!!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 24, 2019, 11:21:23 AM
“Incrimination” was also part of his special defence

Wikipedia omits the special defence of incrimination, as do several other online articles and sources.

Trial
At his trial at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, Mitchell pleaded not guilty and lodged a special defence of alibi: that he was at home cooking dinner at the time of the murder.[6] He did not testify at his trial, which was the longest and most expensive of a single accused in Scottish legal history.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones


incrimination (alleging someone else committed the crime)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_defence

Sandra Lean claims here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455808.html#msg455808
“Nobody's saying they killed Jodi (well, except Donald Findlay, maybe)”

There’s no maybe about it. Luke Mitchell’s special defence was alibi and incrimination.

Both Ferris and Dickie were asked in court by Donald Findlay - on behalf of Luke Mitchell - if they had murdered Jodi Jones. Both replied “No.”

Parky states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg455858.html#msg455858
Also that SL believes they are not complicit in the murder, itself.
Corrine and her theories, she claims, herself and Sandra have one.
Of this pair having a third person - cutting and changing hair to look like each other.
disposal of said bike in a scrapyard with all the evidence.

Messy.

Corrine Mitchell goes into some detail of her and Sandra Leans theory during the James English interview about Gordon Dickie and John Ferris and the moped

At approx 42.12 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

Corrine Mitchell claims: “Its a small community and they wanted and needed a QUICK conviction. So what easier go after the boyfriend. They thought.. got a wee laddie.. and he was..he was a wee smite he was tiny at 14 . You know, how easy is this gonna be. Get him to confess. No problem. But they didn’t bank on Luke being Luke. And what annoyed them was he was more intelligent than what they were.”

 “We’ve. Sandra and I have got a theory on that one We KNOW there was a scrapyard involved somewhere along the line.”

She goes on

How easy is it to take a motorbike, knife, bloody clothes....Chuck them in the back of a van. Crush it.Gone forever”

But according to Sandra Lean “Nobody's saying they killed Jodi”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 24, 2019, 11:36:39 AM
Obviously I'm not talking about the defence as they are the ones asking the question. I'm referring to you as clutching at straws by your assertion that he could have been admitting to be at any break in the wall. When he was asked the question about the break in the wall it even included "behind which Jodi's body was discovered".... but sure, maybe he was talking about a different break!!!

But Jodi’s body was not discovered immediately behind the V break in the wall was it.

The V break in the wall was used by Luke Mitchell, and some members of the search party, to climb over said wall. It was the easiest access point by all accounts.

Gordon Dickie stated: “John and I have been talking about everything and realised we had came up (sic) the Roan’s Dyke path about the time Jodi possibly went missing.
"We kept thinking about everything and talking about Luke."


“Ferris admitted in court that he had only gone to police five days after Jodi died after a TV news report about attempts to trace two youths on a motorbike left him 'shaking'.

Not one single report ever of Luke Mitchell shaking. No signs of emotion at all. Not one single indication of stress.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Baz on September 24, 2019, 12:49:32 PM
But Jodi’s body was not discovered immediately behind the V break in the wall was it.

Still clutching.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 25, 2019, 12:02:40 PM
Still clutching.

Hardly
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 25, 2019, 04:25:22 PM
Corrine Mitchell goes into some detail of her and Sandra Leans theory during the James English interview about Gordon Dickie and John Ferris and the moped

At approx 42.12 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4

Corrine Mitchell claims: “Its a small community and they wanted and needed a QUICK conviction. So what easier go after the boyfriend. They thought.. got a wee laddie.. and he was..he was a wee smite he was tiny at 14 . You know, how easy is this gonna be. Get him to confess. No problem. But they didn’t bank on Luke being Luke. And what annoyed them was he was more intelligent than what they were.”

 “We’ve. Sandra and I have got a theory on that one We KNOW there was a scrapyard involved somewhere along the line.”

She goes on

How easy is it to take a motorbike, knife, bloody clothes....Chuck them in the back of a van. Crush it.Gone forever”

But according to Sandra Lean “Nobody's saying they killed Jodi”

Sandra Lean claims here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448260.html#msg448260 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448260.html#msg448260)
Although I've made this point many times in the past, I'll make it again, just for clarity. When I discuss people connected with this case, I'm not making any suggestion that they're guilty (or possibly guilty) of anything - I'm pointing out failings in the police investigation.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 25, 2019, 04:41:00 PM
Lilly15 Reply #4177 on: November 07, 2018, 09:10:AM »
“Do you think the huge difference in treatment right from the start was intentional? Everyone else involved or known to Jodi seems to have been able to give various explanations for their actions and whereabouts even changing the info yet the same didnt apply to Luke.
 
Sandra Lean « Reply #4178 on: November 07, 2018, 06:09:PM »
“Without shadow of a doubt lilly15. What people don't realise is that the police were acting on wrong information from the off - for example, they believed Luke was coming up the path on his bike and that Jodi left her home with him at teatime.
Identical circumstances in both families were treated so differently - details about what people ate were treated as instantly suspicious in the Mitchell household, but not elsewhere, even when those details contradicted each other. 14 year old, heavily medicated Luke sleeping on one settee in the livingroom with his mother sleeping on a settee at the other side of the room was indicative of an "unnatural" relationship, but 19 year old Joseph sleeping in his mother's bedroom, wrapped in Jodi's duvet, at the foot of his mother's bed was accepted as perfectly natural.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448514.html#msg448514

A high-profile trial heard bottles of urine were found in Mitchell's bedroom when it was searched in July 2003 and taken away by the police.
John Beckett QC, representing the Crown, told Lords Hamilton, Osborne and Kingarth: "His explanation was that because he slept on top of a bunk bed it was more convenient to do that than to do anything else.
"It was to show that explanation was untrue. The new ones (bottles) came at a time when his position was that he was sleeping in the living room next to his mother, or something like that."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7247137.stm

What people don't realise is that the police were acting on wrong information from the off” People lie so it’s a given police would have been acting on wrong information from the off - part and parcel of the job.

Luke Mitchell’s house was searched days after the murder and bottles of his urine were found in his bedroom. More bottles of his urine were found when his house was searched the next time.

Luke Mitchell told police the reason for them finding the bottles of his urine was because he slept on top of a bunk bed it was more convenient to do that than to do anything else.

Sandra Lean “even when those details contradicted each other

What is Sandra Leans reasoning about WHY Luke Mitchell lied to police about the urine bottles when she claims “14 year old, heavily medicated Luke sleeping on one settee in the livingroom with his mother sleeping on a settee at the other side of the room

And how does Sandra Lean come to the conclusion the police believed Luke was coming up the path on his bike?

What did Luke Mitchell tell police when he spoke to them on the night of the murder? What does his first statement say?

Did Luke Mitchell also tell police he was coming up the path on his bike?

and that Jodi left her home with him at teatime” Where did this come from?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 25, 2019, 05:25:45 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448344.html#msg448344
Not quite! Both had alibis, each of them (obviously) dependent on the word of other people. Luke had an alibi from the first day of the investigation - his mother. His brother told police on day 5 of the investigation that Luke made the tea that evening - in his first statement on day 3, he couldn't remember much about the Monday evening.

Luke Mitchell’s first statement was made on 1st July

What dates were Corrine and Shane Mitchell’s made?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: TheArmchairDetective on September 28, 2019, 08:42:02 AM
Here’s a question:

Where’s the blue forum thread where everyone was debating this case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 10:35:38 AM
Here’s a question:

Where’s the blue forum thread where everyone was debating this case?

It’s been given its own board, with new threads, here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,18.0.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 10:39:50 AM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9995.msg455979.html#msg455979

“It's not difficult to see why the police were instantly suspicious of Luke.

In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."

One police officer noted, after taking the missing person details, that Jodi had left her home at tea time "with her boyfriend."

Both officers on the ground and the 999 operator were of the impression that Luke, and Luke alone, was (a) out looking for Jodi and (b) somewhere behind Newbattle High School on a path.

Then the officers on the ground get a shout - the boyfriend's found a body.

So think about it from their perspective - Jodi left home with her boyfriend at teatime, but now he's saying he hasn't seen her all evening. He's going up a path in darkness on a bike and randomly stops to climb over a wall where he "finds" a body. Suspicious, yes?

So much so that they jumped to the conclusion that the other three searchers had arrived after Luke found the body, hence not taking their statements, not asking any of them to go over the wall again to show them where the body was and separating Luke from the others almost immediately. They hadn't a clue that Kelly and Alice had been over the wall, or that Alice had touched the body, or that all four of them had gone down Roan's Dyke path together.

Even the conclusion that "the boyfriend's found a body" was wrong (in terms of the information being passed to them from control.) Luke told the operator they'd found something - she told the officers on the ground, "He won't say what." It was Kelly who dialled 999 a few minutes later and screamed down the phone, "It's a f*cking body."

But the operator(s) appeared to think the calls they were receiving were from the same person - Luke. The operator who took Kelly's call reported he found the caller's attitude odd - he wasn't reacting the way he'd have expected someone who'd just found a body to act - he seemed more annoyed that the police were taking so long to get there.

So, the police were acting on wrong information and then drawing erroneous conclusions from that wrong information, the assumption, from the off, being that there was something definitely not right about "the boyfriend." Had they not believed Jodi left home "with her boyfriend" at tea-time, had they known he wasn't coming up the path on his bike and he wasn't alone - there were four searchers on the path, all of whom were present when Jodi's body was found - and had they taken statements immediately from all four searchers and discovered the double check of the path was suggested by Alice, would they have jumped to the immediate conclusion that Luke was the killer?

I think it would have been less likely.

If they'd received the call "the search party have found a body," might they have been suspicious about Kelly's comment, "I suppose you've been to my house first?" If they'd been told Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield and the family search trio were leaving from Mayfield to look for her, might they have thought it odd that they didn't look for her in Easthouses/Mayfield but headed straight for the path? Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

Of course, we'll never know, but I do think it helps to understand why they believed what they did in that critical first hour, because it set the direction of the entire investigation

But this in merely Sandra Leans interpretation and a bias account at that. Unless she’s a mind reader she couldn’t possibly know what the police thought.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 10:47:39 AM
Sandra Lean states
“It's not difficult to see why the police were instantly suspicious of Luke.
In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."


I suspect the police were suspicious full-stop. And also and by the sounds of it, especially for those officers directly involved in locating Jodi’s body, in shock by the findings.

Sandra Lean doesn’t say what time Judith Jones first statement was taken nor does she mention Luke Mitchell’s first statement and the time it was taken.

The police took Luke Mitchell to the police station to question him as a witness not long after finding the body. What was said about the “bike?” Did the police ask him where his bike was? Didn’t the police take Mia the dog in a police vehicle to the station? (Corrine Mitchell mentions something about this during her interview with James English)

Without the times of when the police interviewed Luke Mitchell, the search party and all other main witnesses; including Judith Jones, Sandra Lean is - as usual - giving a bias account of events.

More importantly without seeing the disclosure material in full Sandra Lean can continue cherry picking parts of the evidence to fit with a version of events until the cows come home. However it still won’t make what she says factual.

Sandra Lean:
“One police officer noted, after taking the missing person details, that Jodi had left her home at tea time "with her boyfriend." Who was this police officer? Where was s/he when they took the missing person details? Who gave the missing person details to the police? Judith Jones? Alan Ovens? What time were these details given? What did the search party tell police when they met them? What time was a Senior police officer told about the finding of a body and what did they say about the evidence gathered by this point?

Both officers on the ground and the 999 operator were of the impression that Luke, and Luke alone, was (a) out looking for Jodi and (b) somewhere behind Newbattle High School on a path. What about the missing person report? What did that say? Was the 999 operator a police officer? Who mentioned Newbattle High School on a path for Sandra Lean to suggest this is what the police thought?

Then the officers on the ground get a shout - the boyfriend's found a body.
So think about it from their perspective - Jodi left home with her boyfriend at teatime, but now he's saying he hasn't seen her all evening. He's going up a path in darkness on a bike and randomly stops to climb over a wall where he "finds" a body. Suspicious, yes? What police officer said this and when?

How did the police officers on the ground get on the ground in the first place? What info did they have before setting off and heading to the location? Who were they liasing with?

How was the contents of Judith Jones first witness statement being given to the officers on the ground?

Sandra Lean:
In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."

How does Sandra Lean come to the conclusion it took the police until a month later when Judith told police she’d made a mistake Luke Mitchell was “coming up the path on his bike?”

Doesn’t she think the police figured out it was a dog and not a bike fairly early on?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 11:49:12 AM
Sandra Lean:
Even the conclusion that "the boyfriend's found a body" was wrong (in terms of the information being passed to them from control.) Luke told the operator they'd found something - she told the officers on the ground, "He won't say what." It was Kelly who dialled 999 a few minutes later and screamed down the phone, "It's a f*cking body."

It wasn’t wrong though was it. Luke Mitchell found Jodi Jones body. Why did he choose to not tell emergency services what he’d found? At what point did Luke Mitchell tell the other search party members Jodi Jones was dead? What did he say when he got over the wall? What did he tell police? How did he know she wasn’t breathing and couldn’t be saved? How at 14 years old did he know what he quite obviously did?

Did the 999 operator pass on Kelly’s information to the police on the ground a few minutes later?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 12:23:51 PM
Sandra Lean:
So, the police were acting on wrong information and then drawing erroneous conclusions from that wrong information,
But according to the 999 operator Luke Mitchell wouldn’t say what it was he’d found! Why did he choose to not tell the operator he found his girlfriends body and was with 3 other people?  

the assumption, from the off, being that there was something definitely not right about "the boyfriend." Where is this stated in the disclosure documents? If the assumption Luke Mitchell was the killer from the off why wasn’t he immediately questioned as a suspect as opposed to a witness?
 


Had they not believed Jodi left home "with her boyfriend" at tea-time, had they known he wasn't coming up the path on his bike and he wasn't alone - there were four searchers on the path, all of whom were present when Jodi's body was found - Luke Mitchell found Jodi Jones body - the 3 other search party members were on the other side of the wall when he did so
And didn’t Luke Mitchell tell everyone Jodi was due to meet him at his house, he waited for her, phoned his Mum whilst waiting down the road and she didn’t show up?

and had they taken statements immediately from all four searchers What time were all the statements taken?and discovered the double check of the path was suggested by Alice, Why did Alice allegedly decide the double check of the path? What had Luke Mitchell said to her? What were Alices understanding about where her granddaughter was that night? would they have jumped to the immediate conclusion that Luke was the killer? Is Sandra Lean referring to Jodi Jones family?

I think it would have been less likely. What previous convictions did Luke Mitchell have? What did police records flag up about Luke Mitchell?

If they'd received the call "the search party have found a body," why didn’t Luke Mitchell tell the 999 operator he’d found Jodi Jones body and was with 3 others?might they have been suspicious about Kelly's comment, "I suppose you've been to my house first?" If they'd been told Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield Corrine Mitchell said during her JE interview Luke was meeting Jodi and the family search trio were leaving from Mayfield to look for her, might they have thought it odd that they didn't look for her in Easthouses/Mayfield but headed straight for the path? Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

Of course, we'll never know, but I do think it helps to understand why they believed what they did in that critical first hour, because it set the direction of the entire investigation.


Luke Mitchell choosing to not tell emergency services what he’d found and who he was with helped set the direction that night.

What time were the calls made to police that night and how did events really unfold because all we have here are Sandra Leans bias interpretations?

The second plank of evidence were statements from Jodi's family who described Mitchell as having taken them straight to Jodi's body as they searched for her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 12:43:53 PM
Sandra Lean:
“But the operator(s) appeared to think the calls they were receiving were from the same person - Luke

Did the operator (s) put this in their statement (s) or is this again Sandra Leans interpretation?

What do the operators statements say exactly? What exactly were the police on the ground told when and by whom? What information was swirling around in their heads? What do their witness statements actually say?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
In response to Sandra Lean here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg455978.html#msg455978 Nugnug aka Billy Middleton states:

its because they have nothing in the way of an argument soo have to resort to personal attacks.

The denial and egos in this case are off the scale.

Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean* couldn’t accept the fact they’d been conned by Simon Hall and when he confessed in 2013 they posted on the WAP forum reasons why they believed the confession was false. They couldn’t have been further from the truth then as they are now.

Billy Middleton/nugnug making claims of “they have nothing in the way of an argument soo have to resort to personal attacks” shows this moron for what he was then and is now.

*Sandra Lean appeared to accept Simon Halls guilt by early 2014, alongside the guilt of Luke Mitchell. She made reference to Corrine Mitchell’s behaviour over the years (She specifically referred to the relationship between Corrine and Luke and alcohol was also mentioned in relation to Corrine) and appeared distressed when relaying said details to me over the phone. This is around the time she claimed she’d wasted 10 years of her life on Luke Mitchell’s case.

Re the relationship between Corrine and Luke Mitchell - I had been discussing the twisted reciprocal relationship I’d witnessed between Simon Hall and his mother.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on September 28, 2019, 02:56:36 PM
Sandra Lean:
Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

How could the police possibly know this before they were contacted about Jodi’s missing status?

Again, according to Corrine Mitchell via the James English interview Luke was going to Judith Jones house to go through friends phone numbers.

How did the police get given one phone number? Is Sandra Lean referring to Judith Jones number or Luke Mitchell’s?

What time was the first phone call to the police and what were the times of the texts and phone calls between Luke Mitchell and Judith Jones?

What time did Luke Mitchell say he allegedly left his house that night to go to Judith Jones house and what time did he allegedly meet with the search party? What times do Shane and Corrine Mitchell give for Luke’s alleged time of leaving?

Text message from Corrine to Luke Mitchell - 1st July 12.29am


"You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you."

And why at 12.29am did Corrine Mitchell text Luke the above? What previous communication had there been between them both? Where did she plan on going at 12.29am? “I’m on my way up to find you?” Find Luke where exactly? Where did she think he was?

More importantly WHY did she believe something was “wrong?”

And then there was Luke Mitchell's apparent insensitivity and callousness - his reported obsession with Satanism and weird rock music - coupled with the alleged collusion of his mother in covering up his crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 04, 2019, 12:18:25 PM
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.”[/i]

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

Sandra Lean today states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
“I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.


What I find interesting is Sandra Lean indicates she has allegedly today asked the publisher to withdraw the book as opposed to revise it?


10th January 2017 - Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
“Ah, good, I was hoping this would come around again. Stephanie thinks I was “blatantly avoiding” her questions. In fact, the thread had spiralled off in several different directions – I was just waiting until my response made logical sense. So, not hiding anything either.

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
 
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

When I revise No Smoke, the quote I posted earlier, give or take, will be the revision for Simon's case. Take it or leave it!

Sandra Lean:
“Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing.”

A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.

Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.

Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.

Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.

"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."

The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.

Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.

"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."

In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.

"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 04, 2019, 12:39:03 PM
Sandra Lean today states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
“I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.


What I find interesting is Sandra Lean indicates she has allegedly today asked the publisher to withdraw the book as opposed to revise it?

11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 04, 2019, 12:55:59 PM
11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.

Will be interesting to learn if the six other families” who “are immediately affected” were contacted “as a matter of courtesy”

Sandra Lean today claims here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456210.html#msg456210
“I made a mistake 12 years ago - I've put my hands up to that, I've withdrawn the book and I've publicly apologised.”

Is the “mistake 12 years ago” to which she refers to above in relation to having written Stephen Kelly as opposed to Leonard Kelly?

Excerpt from No Smoke by Sandra Lean
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

Sandra Lean claims here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
“I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

“The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall." http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time.”


Court transcripts for what case?

Sandra Lean claims today: “l would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage[/i].

How does

”the book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time

fit with

the two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage?”


Reminds me of word salad

The term word salad refers to a random words or phrases linked together in an often unintelligible manner. Often, a listener is unable to understand the meaning or purpose of the phrase
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 04, 2019, 03:39:05 PM

Sandra Lean claims here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
“I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

How many is “many years?”

Having read/referenced Sandra Leans book “No Smoke” a few years ago I publicly suggested the book should be revised or withdrawn.

I stated here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383041.html#msg383041 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383041.html#msg383041)
“Will you be reflecting on and revising your methodology in order for your book to reflect what you uncovered following it's publication and the impact of the content of your findings.

For example; the following cases -

William (Billy) Middleton
Luke Mitchell
Adrian Prout
Nick Ward

To name but a few.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 04, 2019, 04:51:04 PM
11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.

Why has Sandra Lean chosen today to allegedly withdraw her book No Smoke after her attention has been drawn to her misuse of Stephen Kelly instead of Leonard Kelly but was not withdrawn following Simon Halls confession?

The Stephen Kelly/Leonard Kelly “mistake” has been known about by several people for years.

2013
iiHEARTy0u wrote: »
The semen was found on her underwear. He was also one of a few people seen walking on the path.[/QUOTE]
D2BD wrote: »
Hi iiHEARTyOu, I havent read this before, are you sure SK was seen walking the path? GD and JoF were on the path, as were other people but I'm sure I haven't read or been told before that Kelly was. :confused:
iiHEARTy0u wrote: » This is an extract from Chapter Six by Sandra Lean

Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path
[/i]
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1783648/killer-luke-mitchell-passes-lie-detector-test/p15

Why now?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on October 12, 2019, 05:51:14 PM
Quote
Games to who?

And why choose to use the word games

The mention of game playing has been something I'd brought up before Nicholas.
Different roles that each may have - in their individual persona.
Not each an individual person - In some cases one person split into different characters.
Used to put out questions - to be answered by their alter ego - so to speak.
Which in itself of course - limits those who truly are fighting for this laddie - even more so.

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jigsaw_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Angeline_Morrow_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Bullseye_(Lester)_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Gordo_Brown_(Earth-616)
https:https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Marty_Delarosa_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Nug_(Earth-616)



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 19, 2019, 09:59:29 AM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
2h
GoFundMe have taken down the Luke Mitchell fundraiser - I'm still awaiting an explanation from them. I'll update as soon as I can.

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Oct 17
I've been quiet here of necessity - lots of behind the scenes developments in Luke's case. We need your help - can you share this link and help us raise the money we need to help Luke? Thank you
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 19, 2019, 06:04:43 PM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Still nothing from GoFundMe - I'm looking for another platform because time is of the essence. I'd be grateful for any suggestions. Thank you all!
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1185572236205404162
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 21, 2019, 11:05:26 AM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Still nothing from GoFundMe - I'm looking for another platform because time is of the essence. I'd be grateful for any suggestions. Thank you all!
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1185572236205404162

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
17h
They took it down - we put it back up on a new platform! Ne details for Luke Mitchell - 42 days for justice - thanks to everyone for their support!

Donate to the Luke Mitchell Case - 42 days for Justice.
Weʼre raising money to the Luke Mitchell Case - 42 days for Justice.. Support this JustGiving Crowdfunding Page.
justgiving.com




Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
13h
A little video explaining why we need the fundraiser "Luke Mitchell Case - 42 days for justice" and a link to the campaign. Thanks to everyone for the RTs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M8nlouz9n_E

Luke Mitchell case - 42 days for Justice
42 Days for Justice - that's all it took in 2004 to convict a 14-year-old boy of murder. All these years later, can just 42 days see true justice finally don...
youtube.com
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 21, 2019, 07:07:59 PM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
13h
A little video explaining why we need the fundraiser "Luke Mitchell Case - 42 days for justice" and a link to the campaign. Thanks to everyone for the RTs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M8nlouz9n_E

Luke Mitchell case - 42 days for Justice
42 Days for Justice - that's all it took in 2004 to convict a 14-year-old boy of murder. All these years later, can just 42 days see true justice finally don...
youtube.com
[/color]

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10023.msg457705.html#msg457705
The first book took 4 years to research and write, the second took another 11 on top. Which bit of "urgent" did you not understand? It's the whole point I was trying to make - if the work has to wait until I have spare time (like it has done until now), we won't be able to get it done in time.

I can't afford to just give up my job, or only work half hours at it, in order to get the casework done in the time-frame needed.[


Re fund raising - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M8nlouz9n_E

Have the Mitchell family ever offered to contribute towards helping Sandra Lean with costs over the years and would it not be possible for them to pay for a couple of hours of work a week in order to get things off the ground?

Or, if, as Sandra Lean suggests “we won't be able to get it done in time” (Not sure what she means by this or who she means by “we” unless she is referring to Corrine Mitchell?)

Wouldn’t it makes sense for Sandra Lean to show Corrine Mitchell how to get the documents scanned in order to get things started?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Parky41 on October 22, 2019, 03:34:13 PM
My opinion is this: Just that - an opinion, for what it is worth.

A student/author needs subject and content.
Throughout these 20yrs or so for Ms Lean - these have come in the form, primarily of MOJ's.
This tireless work over some two decades has gained Ms Lean - the completion of many studies,
the writing of two books.
Reviewing the Mitchell case intricately over time, and being heavily involved in all that entailed.
She was primarily responsible for the submission to the SCCRC after her first review when obtaining POA.
Working part time whilst studying?
The studies have finished and full time work obtained.
Perhaps, at the time topped up with bursaries and student loans.
Both of which, when stopped, bring a decline in income - thus full time employment is required.
I have no idea if this is fact - if however there are loans, then after a certain threshold of income, these are required to be
repaid.
Point here for me is this: This has not been a one way street of giving.
Ms Lean has gained in many forms, along the way.
It has supplied her with ample material, for studies and writings.
Subsequently obtaining employment through these.

We have no idea if Ms Lean, yet again has become POA, one would imagine she has.
Now that she is solely in charge of this casework, it being yet again in her possession.
Also of being given or offering the task of taking over form MOJO - in doing another review.
There are no studies now, no bursaries and bills have to be met.
The option now is to cut her employment but this is not going to be pro bono - one must live.
She is asking for 10K to meet a cut in wage for one year - to enable her to primarily make a hard copy of these case files.
Whilst doing so, she can review all that is there - yet again.
Whilst taking this cut - the threshold for any repayments is well below the requirement for student loans.
All material/expense on any self employment is tax deductible - Ms Lean in part, would be self employed, if for nothing else then that of a
writer?
Therefore - no direct expense from herself. It could of course spill over - and some, may indeed be met in the form of unpaid overtime?

The deadline - the urgency?
There has been mention before, about MOJO missing one - of the opportunity of vital evidence being lost.
Two pieces of information are been pushed out recently.
One of this knife that requires testing - is this the urgency, that items such are these, are disposed of after a certain time.
Lost and found situation.
This confession - are these linked in some way? Or rather, the hope that they are.

The point you, yourself raise Nicholas, as does Wakey.
Why are  the Mitchells not funding these man hours for this admin work and review.
We know the brother has his own business.
We know nothing of the fathers finances - nor am I particularly interested.
We know the family business, on the mothers side is still ongoing.
This is 10k, surely if there is this urgency in time that this money can be met by them.
Surely is will be met by them regardless - by whatever means?
That, IF, this is it, there is finally something, that can happen to prove, once and for all - innocence.
Why also - are there not many/any other campaigners - doing this also, this mass of support.
As you point out - surely Ms Mitchell can do a lot of this admin work.
She has run a business for many years, she knows this case inside out. Obviously.
Ms Leans time is obviously of great value to this case, she is a must have - surely the Mitchells can see and
appreciate this. Therefore pay her for this time, rather than having to ask Joe public?
Are the sales from the books - also so poor that they can't even reach the level - 0f opening up this promised
web site?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on October 23, 2019, 10:17:00 PM
My opinion is this: Just that - an opinion, for what it is worth.

A student/author needs subject and content.
Throughout these 20yrs or so for Ms Lean - these have come in the form, primarily of MOJ's.
This tireless work over some two decades has gained Ms Lean - the completion of many studies,
the writing of two books.
Reviewing the Mitchell case intricately over time, and being heavily involved in all that entailed.
She was primarily responsible for the submission to the SCCRC after her first review when obtaining POA.
Working part time whilst studying?
The studies have finished and full time work obtained.
Perhaps, at the time topped up with bursaries and student loans.
Both of which, when stopped, bring a decline in income - thus full time employment is required.
I have no idea if this is fact - if however there are loans, then after a certain threshold of income, these are required to be
repaid.
Point here for me is this: This has not been a one way street of giving.
Ms Lean has gained in many forms, along the way.
It has supplied her with ample material, for studies and writings.
Subsequently obtaining employment through these.

We have no idea if Ms Lean, yet again has become POA, one would imagine she has.
Now that she is solely in charge of this casework, it being yet again in her possession.
Also of being given or offering the task of taking over form MOJO - in doing another review.
There are no studies now, no bursaries and bills have to be met.
The option now is to cut her employment but this is not going to be pro bono - one must live.
She is asking for 10K to meet a cut in wage for one year - to enable her to primarily make a hard copy of these case files.
Whilst doing so, she can review all that is there - yet again.
Whilst taking this cut - the threshold for any repayments is well below the requirement for student loans.
All material/expense on any self employment is tax deductible - Ms Lean in part, would be self employed, if for nothing else then that of a
writer?
Therefore - no direct expense from herself. It could of course spill over - and some, may indeed be met in the form of unpaid overtime?

The deadline - the urgency?
There has been mention before, about MOJO missing one - of the opportunity of vital evidence being lost.
Two pieces of information are been pushed out recently.
One of this knife that requires testing - is this the urgency, that items such are these, are disposed of after a certain time.
Lost and found situation.
This confession - are these linked in some way? Or rather, the hope that they are.

The point you, yourself raise Nicholas, as does Wakey.
Why are  the Mitchells not funding these man hours for this admin work and review.
We know the brother has his own business.
We know nothing of the fathers finances - nor am I particularly interested.
We know the family business, on the mothers side is still ongoing.
This is 10k, surely if there is this urgency in time that this money can be met by them.
Surely is will be met by them regardless - by whatever means?
That, IF, this is it, there is finally something, that can happen to prove, once and for all - innocence.
Why also - are there not many/any other campaigners - doing this also, this mass of support.
As you point out - surely Ms Mitchell can do a lot of this admin work.
She has run a business for many years, she knows this case inside out. Obviously.
Ms Leans time is obviously of great value to this case, she is a must have - surely the Mitchells can see and
appreciate this. Therefore pay her for this time, rather than having to ask Joe public?
Are the sales from the books - also so poor that they can't even reach the level - 0f opening up this promised
web site?

It’s a shame others aren't offering to help Sandra Lean with Luke Mitchell’s case papers

Apparently Mick Geen, Ben Geen’s father, is about to start digitalising his sons case papers?

And it would seem Bamber’s campaign team, well Trudi, has given him advice or he’s asked her/them (the CT) for advice?

Mick Geen says on twitter:

”@tru68 has good experience regarding digitalising and cataloging large quantities of documentation. I might ask the Bamber team for some advice and guidance of how to do this efficiently.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2019, 12:24:23 PM
Cannabis and this horrific tidal wave of violence against women
By Ross Grainger -  August 1, 2019

“THERE are many angles from which one can argue that cannabis is a dangerous drug, but, writing for The Conservative Woman for the first time, I shall take one I have emphasised only little since founding the website Attacker Smoked Cannabis last year, and that is the astonishing number of cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women.

THERE are many angles from which one can argue that cannabis is a dangerous drug, but, writing for The Conservative Woman for the first time, I shall take one I have emphasised only little since founding the website Attacker Smoked Cannabis last year, and that is the astonishing number of cases of psychopathic violence committed by men against women.

In the week that Darren Pencille was found guilty of murdering Lee Pomeroy by stabbing him 18 times on a train, a severely mentally ill man was convicted of stabbing his mother to death, in part, he claimed, because he felt she had never forgiven him for stabbing her in the neck and drinking her blood some years earlier. The previous week, a man and two female accomplices were found guilty of beating and torturing a young woman in a failed attempt to induce a miscarriage of the baby she was carrying as a result of intercourse with the male defendant, who had taken issue with the girl’s refusal to have an abortion. The following week, a man with the grimly apt name of Adrian Sword was convicted of slashing his wife across the face with an eight-inch Samurai-style blade. The day after this, a 26-year-old man was found guilty of raping and murdering 13-year-old Lucy McHugh, in whose house he had been lodging, after she told him she was pregnant with his child.

The powerful psychoactive pleasure drug common to all these crimes is, of course, cannabis, in every case copious amounts of it smoked over many years. Either this is a relevant factor or it is not. At the very least, I think, we ought to find out before we yield to the demands of billionaire corporations and their political patsies to legalise this drug.

One difficulty such an investigation would have is defining the relationship between cannabis and psychotic aggression. Cannabis, like alcohol, does not cause violence. Violence is a voluntary action that ultimately depends on somebody’s decision to commit it. It would, though, be as ludicrous to suggest that violence and cannabis are not connected as it would be to claim there is no link between violence and alcohol. Both drugs can blur the frontiers between civilisation and savagery, one of which is the inability of a sane man or boy to countenance, much less commit, violence against a woman or girl.

Call it playing to the gallery if you wish, but I think I speak for most civilised men when I say that a savage fight between males moves me less than a single slap by a man on a woman. With cannabis, though, the violence rarely involves a single strike. As one judge put it, in his sentencing remarks to a man convicted of punching his girlfriend and burning down her house (which she and her children managed to flee), ‘Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality.’

Extraordinary, yes, but rarely swift. Macbeth (urged on, ironically for us, by his deranged and evil wife) says of his planned assassination of the king that ‘If it were done when tis done then t’were well / It were done quickly.’ Cannabis smokers, in inflicting many minutes, sometimes hours, of pain and terror on their innocent victims, betray their dulled and unresponsive brains.

No woman or girl is safe from this. Babies, children, adolescents, adults, pensioners; a man’s daughter, his girlfriend, his wife, his mother, his grandmother, his aunt, or a total stranger: neither age, nor common bloodline, nor common humanity moves a mind ‘steeped’ in cannabis. Here are reports of ten telling cases (from a catalogue of hundreds) that, if they caught your attention at the time, may have slipped from it since:

1) Robbie McIntosh, 15, stabbed civil servant Anne Nicoll 29 times in what was described as a frenzied attack. The court heard that McIntosh, who had been smoking cannabis, alarmed three strollers with his odd behaviour shortly before the killing. (17 April 2002)

2) Philip Caswell, 31, was unable to accept his relationship with Stephanie Hancock had ended. Winchester Crown Court heard how she was strangled, battered and stabbed at her Hampshire home.  The court also heard how Caswell suffered from a personality disorder because of a long-term dependence on cannabis. (19 Dec 2002)

3) Luke Mitchell, 15, stripped, tied up and repeatedly stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend Jodi Jones on a wooded path near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian. Sentencing Mitchell, by then 16, to 20 years in jail, Edinburgh high court judge Lord Nimmo Smith linked the attack to the killer’s heavy cannabis use and fascination with the occult and the goth rocker Marilyn Manson. ‘I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug,’ he said. ‘In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments.’ (12 Feb 2005)

4) A skunk-addicted schizophrenic set out to kill a black woman and stabbed a grandmother picked at random. Ezekiel Maxwell was 17 when he launched a frenzied attack on Carmelita Tulloch, 51, as she walked to work in Kennington, south London. (3 Apr 2007)

5) Adrian Jones, 17, beat Kelly Hyde, 24, from Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, around the head with a barbell. Jones did not know his victim and police said they still did not know his motive. He told jury he came across a dog lead used by Ms Hyde as he walked along the bridle path smoking cannabis on the day she disappeared. (17 July 2008)

6) Marc Middlebrook, 27, had ignored repeated warnings to quit using cannabis when he stabbed Stephanie Barton 15 times with three knives as she lay naked in his bed. Middlebrook had become convinced she was part of a plot to kill him and he ‘wanted to put her out of her misery’. (7 Oct 2008)

7) Schizophrenic labourer Maxwell Twyman, who had smoked super-strength skunk for ten years, knifed his 62-year-old grandmother Valerie on Christmas Day as she lay in bed in the Kent home they shared. Afterwards the 25-year-old calmly walked round to his aunt and uncle’s house to wish them season’s greetings and deliver presents before confessing: ‘I’ve killed my grandmother.’ (21 Nov 2008)

8) Martin Bell, 45, bludgeoned and stabbed Gemma Simpson to death after they smoked cannabis together. He told her: ‘God wants me to kill you.’ He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was jailed for a minimum of 12 years. (19 Dec 2014)

9) Christopher Whelan, 21, drowned his aunt Julie Hill, 51, and strangled his 75-year-old grandmother Rose Hill after cannabis use exacerbated his violent thoughts linked to an obsessional disorder. (21 Nov 2016)

10) Jordan Matthews murdered his girlfriend after getting paranoid that she was unfaithful. Xixi Bi suffered 41 injuries, including a broken jaw and ribs. Matthews accepted he was smoking ‘quite a lot’ of cannabis at the time. (21 Feb 2017)

Paranoid, brutal, frenzied, sudden, sustained, psychotic: when you read of one or more of these characteristics, you can almost guarantee the attacker smoked cannabis.

I wrote earlier that no woman is safe from the deranged violence of cannabis smokers. It is almost the case that no political party is safe from the deep pockets and slick PR of the cannabis lobby. The Liberal Democrats, with Sir Norman Lamb MP to the fore, are the most vocal dupes, but they have allies in the Conservatives and Labour. In fact, no sooner had I finished this article, than a cross-party trio comprising David Lammy, Jonathan Djanogly and Sir Norman returned from Canada after a ‘fact-finding’ mission paid for by a cannabis company called MPX
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cannabis-and-this-horrific-tidal-wave-of-violence-against-women/

Commission refers the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

27th November 2019
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Jones was convicted at Swansea Crown Court in July 2008 for the murder of Kelly Hyde who was killed while walking her dog in September 2007.

The prosecution case was that Mr Jones, who was aged 16 at the time, was responsible for the murder of the deceased. Mr Jones claimed that he did not know and had had no contact with her.

Because of his age at the time he was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum prison term of 11 years and 79 days.

Mr Jones tried to appeal against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed in October 2009.

After his appeal Mr Jones accepted his responsibility for the killing. He applied to the CCRC for a review of his case in September 2015.

The Commission has conducted a detailed review of the case which has included considering reports from a number of psychiatric experts and commissioning its own psychiatric expert evidence.

The Commission has decided to refer Mr Jones murder conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new psychiatric evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the killing which raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the murder conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Mr Jones died of natural causes while in custody in February 2018. His family have pursued the application on his behalf. In light of that, the Commission has decided to refer the case, not only on the basis that there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction, but also because it considers that there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will approve Mr Jones’ Mother under subsection 3 of section 44A of Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to appear in lieu of her son.

Mr Jones/the Jones family were not legally represented during their application to the CCRC.
http://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-adrian-jones-to-the-court-of-appeal/

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2019, 12:25:47 PM
Commission refers the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

27th November 2019
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Jones was convicted at Swansea Crown Court in July 2008 for the murder of Kelly Hyde who was killed while walking her dog in September 2007.

The prosecution case was that Mr Jones, who was aged 16 at the time, was responsible for the murder of the deceased. Mr Jones claimed that he did not know and had had no contact with her.

Because of his age at the time he was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum prison term of 11 years and 79 days.

Mr Jones tried to appeal against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed in October 2009.

After his appeal Mr Jones accepted his responsibility for the killing. He applied to the CCRC for a review of his case in September 2015.

The Commission has conducted a detailed review of the case which has included considering reports from a number of psychiatric experts and commissioning its own psychiatric expert evidence.

The Commission has decided to refer Mr Jones murder conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new psychiatric evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the killing which raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the murder conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Mr Jones died of natural causes while in custody in February 2018. His family have pursued the application on his behalf. In light of that, the Commission has decided to refer the case, not only on the basis that there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction, but also because it considers that there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will approve Mr Jones’ Mother under subsection 3 of section 44A of Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to appear in lieu of her son.

Mr Jones/the Jones family were not legally represented during their application to the CCRC.
http://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-adrian-jones-to-the-court-of-appeal/

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/south-wales-guardian-overturns-reporting-ban/

Murderer's appeal 'unarguable from the start'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/murderers-appeal-unarguable-from-the-start-1806567.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2019, 01:37:59 PM
sandras youtube channel says

- ** DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, THE LAUNCH OF www.longroadtojustice HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MONDAY 8TH JULY.

and yet nothin has happend today - this was alredy delayed?

i wonder what theyr playin at, or if theyv run into some legal challnge or trouble

Edit: actully forum is accessible but look like its got 3600+ members which loook spammy maybe thsi was the technical difficulty lol

http://longroadtojustice.com/community/members/

?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
Why did Luke Mitchell and Corrine Mitchell LIE to the police and not tell them about Luke taking Mia out between 2105 to 2241? Did Shane Mitchell also LIE about this?

29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody. He had spoken to the witness Ovens around 25 minutes after he had been waiting outside, and was told that the deceased had left. David High had appeared around 25 minutes after the appellant had phoned him. After spending some time at the Abbey, the appellant went home, arriving between 2105 to 2110. He watched a video until he received the text from the deceased's mother at 2241.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The LIE about taking Mia out reminds me of the Halls (And others) lies about the zenith burglary.

How could Luke Mitchell have watched a video until he received the text from the deceased mother if he’d taken Mia out for a walk to save his mums legs, as she claimed to James English?

WHY did Luke and Corrine Mitchell choose to not tell the police about this crucial piece of evidence?

What was their reasoning behind excluding this fact?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2019, 05:44:21 PM
Commission refers the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

27th November 2019
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the murder conviction of Adrian Jones to the Court of Appeal.

Mr Jones was convicted at Swansea Crown Court in July 2008 for the murder of Kelly Hyde who was killed while walking her dog in September 2007.

The prosecution case was that Mr Jones, who was aged 16 at the time, was responsible for the murder of the deceased. Mr Jones claimed that he did not know and had had no contact with her.

Because of his age at the time he was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum prison term of 11 years and 79 days.

Mr Jones tried to appeal against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed in October 2009.

After his appeal Mr Jones accepted his responsibility for the killing. He applied to the CCRC for a review of his case in September 2015.

The Commission has conducted a detailed review of the case which has included considering reports from a number of psychiatric experts and commissioning its own psychiatric expert evidence.

The Commission has decided to refer Mr Jones murder conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new psychiatric evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the killing which raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the murder conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Mr Jones died of natural causes while in custody in February 2018. His family have pursued the application on his behalf. In light of that, the Commission has decided to refer the case, not only on the basis that there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction, but also because it considers that there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will approve Mr Jones’ Mother under subsection 3 of section 44A of Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to appear in lieu of her son.

Mr Jones/the Jones family were not legally represented during their application to the CCRC.
http://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-adrian-jones-to-the-court-of-appeal/

My boy did not kill Kelly

THE mother of the Ammanford teenager jailed for the brutal murder of Kelly Hyde has claimed: “There’s no way my son killed that poor girl.”

Adrian Vivian Jones, formerly of Mill Terrace in Pantyffynnon, was sentenced to a minimum of 12 years behind bars at Swansea Crown Court. Now plans are underway for an appeal.

Breaking her silence for the first time, Jones’ mother Diane, 36, told the Guardian why she is convinced of her 17-year-old son’s innocence.

“Whoever did that to Kelly is a psychopath and my son is no psychopath,” she said.


“For my child to be accused of something so evil just tore me apart.

“I had to face Kelly Hyde’s family at that trial and seeing the looks on her parents’ faces nearly killed me.

“My son had no motive. When they showed photos of the body in court I had to leave to be physically sick.

“The impact of those blows would have left whoever killed Kelly absolutely covered in blood. The force that was used was so violent their hands would be bruised and swollen.

“Kelly’s family have lost a daughter and I just cannot imagine their pain.

“I have a daughter of my own and if the same thing happened to her I wouldn’t be here now.

“I feel the deepest sorrow for their loss, but two families have been destroyed.”

The mother-of-three vowed to get her son’s conviction overturned and claimed the real killer was still on the loose.

“My 14-year-old daughter has to be in by nine o’clock every night and I text her every so often because I always want to know where she is,” she added.

“I saw Adrian for the first time since the trial on Sunday and he is still in a state of shock.

“But he was telling me to be strong because he knows I’m such a cry baby.

“The whole thing is so surreal and I keep thinking this cannot be happening.

“When I saw Adrian after he had been charged, he was curled up in a ball on the floor of a police cell crying his eyes out.

“He was accused in court of being cold and unfeeling, but he has been in a cell for nine months.

“He has had months of abuse from other inmates and has had to put up walls to protect himself.

“He was found guilty because he lied about finding the dog lead, but he has always been a magpie, he has always brought home things he has found.

“How can a child who is terrified because he has found something connected to a murder be expected to contact the police?

“If he had known anything about Kelly’s death he would have broken down and confessed under the pressure they put on him.

“My heart goes out to Kelly’s family, but Adrian is innocent.

“He is not guilty of anything and I will not sit back and allow this to happen”

https://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/3557319.my-boy-did-not-kill-kelly/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 02:14:50 PM

The prosecution case was that Mr Jones, who was aged 16 at the time, was responsible for the murder of the deceased. Mr Jones claimed that he did not know and had had no contact with her.

Because of his age at the time he was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum prison term of 11 years and 79 days.

Mr Jones tried to appeal against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed in October 2009.

After his appeal Mr Jones accepted his responsibility for the killing. He applied to the CCRC for a review of his case in September 2015.

The Commission has conducted a detailed review of the case which has included considering reports from a number of psychiatric experts and commissioning its own psychiatric expert evidence.

The Commission has decided to refer Mr Jones murder conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new psychiatric evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the killing which raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the murder conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Mr Jones died of natural causes while in custody in February 2018. His family have pursued the application on his behalf. In light of that, the Commission has decided to refer the case, not only on the basis that there is a real possibility that the Court will quash the conviction, but also because it considers that there is a real possibility the Court of Appeal will approve Mr Jones’ Mother under subsection 3 of section 44A of Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to appear in lieu of her son.

Mr Jones/the Jones family were not legally represented during their application to the CCRC.
http://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-adrian-jones-to-the-court-of-appeal/

During police questioning convicted murderer Adrian Jones said,

I would not be out of my house the next day laughing and smiling with my friends, partying basically.”

“I am not a murderer, I would not have a clue. What would a murderer do, do you know what I mean. It's berserk.
"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7493676.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 02:18:59 PM
During police questioning convicted murderer Adrian Jones said,

I would not be out of my house the next day laughing and smiling with my friends, partying basically.”

“I am not a murderer, I would not have a clue. What would a murderer do, do you know what I mean. It's berserk.
"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7493676.stm

What have the CCRC got the “psychiatrists” to say about Adrian Jones in order to attempt to reduce his murder conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

And was Adrian Jones assessed before or after his death or both maybe?

The Cardiff Newsagent 3 had their murder convictions overturned on the basis Darren Hall had an anti social personality disorder.

‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered an appeal, during which the unreliability of Hall's "confession" was emphasised, on the basis that he was suffering from antisocial personality disorder at the time the statement was made, and had since retracted it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Newsagent_Three

Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 02:40:13 PM
What have the CCRC got the “psychiatrists” to say about Adrian Jones in order to attempt to reduce his murder conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

And was Adrian Jones assessed before or after his death or both maybe?

The Cardiff Newsagent 3 had their murder convictions overturned on the basis Darren Hall had an anti social personality disorder.

‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered an appeal, during which the unreliability of Hall's "confession" was emphasised, on the basis that he was suffering from antisocial personality disorder at the time the statement was made, and had since retracted it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Newsagent_Three

Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/

Helen Pitcher OBE said, “I think perhaps too little attention is paid to the other outcomes of the Commission’s work, such as the considerable value we bring to the justice system in the de facto audit of the safety of convictions and correctness of sentences in each case we consider but do not refer, and the feedback we provide and warnings we give to other parts of the justice system when we see worrying trends.”
https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/news/ccrc-in-the-dock/163

The CCRC don’t appear to have looked into the trend of ‘innocent fraud’ and appear to be part of the problem

“In 1999, together with Michael O’Brien, Ian Simms challenged a ban on prisoners having access to journalists, brought in by Michael Howard in 1995 in response to a complaint from Marie McCourt’s MP. Mrs McCourt argued that: “Prisoners should not have the privilege of contact with journalists [to] publicise either their cases, for monetary gain or to boost their egos and self esteem.”

Lawyers for Jack Straw, then home secretary, argued that allowing prisoners visits from journalists would harm prison discipline, and stories related in the media would upset relatives of the crime victims.

But, in an influential affidavit, solicitor Gareth Peirce told the judges there was no legal aid for investigations and more than 90% of applicants to the newly created Criminal Cases Review Commission had no solicitor. Cases with the best chance of being taken up by the CCRC were those which “arrive at the commission fully researched and investigated with new evidence compellingly presented”, and resources available to television and the press provided the best chance of discovering new evidence.

https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/articles/helen-s-law-could-keep-the-wrongfully-convicted-in-jail/169
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 02:51:10 PM
What have the CCRC got the “psychiatrists” to say about Adrian Jones in order to attempt to reduce his murder conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

And was Adrian Jones assessed before or after his death or both maybe?

The Cardiff Newsagent 3 had their murder convictions overturned on the basis Darren Hall had an anti social personality disorder.

‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered an appeal, during which the unreliability of Hall's "confession" was emphasised, on the basis that he was suffering from antisocial personality disorder at the time the statement was made, and had since retracted it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Newsagent_Three

Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/

The chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor has written in The Times that “sick and dangerous” people who commit crimes should be in secure hospitals or other care facilities, not prisons, describing the criminal justice system as “dysfunctional and defective, broken and on-the-floor”.

People who are bad should be punished and, if possible, reformed. People who are unwell should be treated and, if possible, healed,” said Sir Tom, head of the police watchdog since 2012.

https://www.insidejustice.co.uk/news/many-prisoners-unwell-not-evil/168

Would be interested to hear how Sir Tom Watson would have ‘healed’ Adrian Jones if, as the CCRC appear to think, he was ‘unwell’ as opposed to ‘bad’

16 year old Adrian Jones told police he was out partying with his mates after murdering Kelly Hyde. His mum believed Ms Hyde’s killer to have been a psychopath. Would she have known what being a psychopath entailed?

The CCRC claim Adrian Jones died from ‘natural causes’ yet the prison and probation ombudsman don’t appear to have published a report on his death?

If anyone finds any information relating to Adrian Jones death, please post it on the forum.

Three judges in the Court of Appeal in London ruled that the challenge brought by Adrian Vivian Jones was "unarguable from the start".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/murderers-appeal-unarguable-from-the-start-1806567.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 04:27:40 PM
What have the CCRC got the “psychiatrists” to say about Adrian Jones in order to attempt to reduce his murder conviction to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility?

And was Adrian Jones assessed before or after his death or both maybe?

The Cardiff Newsagent 3 had their murder convictions overturned on the basis Darren Hall had an anti social personality disorder.

‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered an appeal, during which the unreliability of Hall's "confession" was emphasised, on the basis that he was suffering from antisocial personality disorder at the time the statement was made, and had since retracted it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Newsagent_Three

Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/

Wonder if the CCRC have ever considered they may have been duped by Michael O’Brien?

Michael O'Brien has had plenty of time to choose his words carefully. Jailed 11 years ago for a murder he always insisted he did not commit, he and two others yesterday had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Standing outside the court yesterday, Mr O'Brien, said: "I have got mixed feelings. I am pleased that my name has been cleared but I also feel for the victim's family. We know who the real killer is - his name has been mentioned in court. It is up to the police to arrest him."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-frees-three-over-killing-of-newsagent-739755.html

So who was the  alleged ‘real killer” of Philip Saunders?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 04:44:54 PM
Wonder if the CCRC have ever considered they may have been duped by Michael O’Brien?

Michael O'Brien has had plenty of time to choose his words carefully. Jailed 11 years ago for a murder he always insisted he did not commit, he and two others yesterday had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Standing outside the court yesterday, Mr O'Brien, said: "I have got mixed feelings. I am pleased that my name has been cleared but I also feel for the victim's family. We know who the real killer is - his name has been mentioned in court. It is up to the police to arrest him."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-frees-three-over-killing-of-newsagent-739755.html

So who was the  alleged ‘real killer” of Philip Saunders?

This article contains Photographs of Dennis Eady, of South Wales Liberty, Michael O’Brien and Dr Michael Naughton who was best man at one of O’Briens weddings

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hideous-murder-miscarriage-justice-still-15338340
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 05:53:29 PM
Cannabis and this horrific tidal wave of violence against women

5) Adrian Jones, 17, beat Kelly Hyde, 24, from Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, around the head with a barbell. Jones did not know his victim and police said they still did not know his motive. He told jury he came across a dog lead used by Ms Hyde as he walked along the bridle path smoking cannabis on the day she disappeared. (17 July 2008)
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/cannabis-and-this-horrific-tidal-wave-of-violence-against-women/

There’s no evidence Adrian Jones was smoking cannabis on the day of the murder, only his story that he was.

Dyfed Powys police officers at the murder scene in Pantyffynon near Ammanford, where Kelly Hyde`s body was found.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-dyfed-powys-police-officers-at-the-murder-scene-in-pantyffynon-near-53459018.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 06:26:25 PM
After his appeal Mr Jones accepted his responsibility for the killing. He applied to the CCRC for a review of his case in September 2015.

The Commission has conducted a detailed review of the case which has included considering reports from a number of psychiatric experts and commissioning its own psychiatric expert evidence.

The Commission has decided to refer Mr Jones murder conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new psychiatric evidence relating to his mental state at the time of the killing which raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the murder conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
http://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-adrian-jones-to-the-court-of-appeal/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/manslaughter-by-reason-of-diminished-responsibility/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2019, 06:28:25 PM
Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/

Michael O’Brien and Dr Michael Naughton who was best man at one of O’Briens weddings
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hideous-murder-miscarriage-justice-still-15338340

Michael Naughton and Michael O’Brien in Armenia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm2P9s3Li-k


Press release issued: 20 January 2016
From 1-6th February Dr. Naughton will take part in a professional exchange programme to build capacity of government and civil society in Armenia.
The FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Programme (HRDP) is a dedicated annual fund to support human rights and democracy work overseas.
The thematic priorities of the HRDP are the promotion of democratic processes, the abolition of the death penalty and prevention of torture or other ill-treatment.
Through targeted projects, it aims to lift the capacity of governments and civil society to promote and protect human rights.
British Horizons, the professional exchange programme, is one such project and aims to connect experts from the UK with partner organisations in Armenia.
Dr. Naughton will partner with “Innocence Armenian Project” in Yerevan to deliver high-level professional training, exchange and public diplomacy in the domain of democracy building and human rights.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2016/naughton-fco-trip-armenia.html

No mention of Michael O’Brien in the above article but presume his trip was also funded

This time for “Prison Notes” I’ve interviewed Michael O’Brien, who spent eleven years in a British prison for a crime he didn’t commit. O’Brien will soon visit Armenia to speak about what happened to him and how he was finally found innocent after a long and difficult legal battle. He studied law while in prison and after being released launched a campaign to make changes to the laws on the books in Britain. What follows is the letter I wrote him and the uplifting response I received.
https://hetq.am/en/article/65389

As far as I’m aware, to date Michael O’Brien has yet to prove he his ‘innocent’ only that his murder conviction was showed to be ‘unsafe.’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 09:41:42 AM
Michael Naughton and Michael O’Brien in Armenia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm2P9s3Li-k


Press release issued: 20 January 2016
From 1-6th February Dr. Naughton will take part in a professional exchange programme to build capacity of government and civil society in Armenia.
The FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Programme (HRDP) is a dedicated annual fund to support human rights and democracy work overseas.
The thematic priorities of the HRDP are the promotion of democratic processes, the abolition of the death penalty and prevention of torture or other ill-treatment.
Through targeted projects, it aims to lift the capacity of governments and civil society to promote and protect human rights.
British Horizons, the professional exchange programme, is one such project and aims to connect experts from the UK with partner organisations in Armenia.
Dr. Naughton will partner with “Innocence Armenian Project” in Yerevan to deliver high-level professional training, exchange and public diplomacy in the domain of democracy building and human rights.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2016/naughton-fco-trip-armenia.html

No mention of Michael O’Brien in the above article but presume his trip was also funded

This time for “Prison Notes” I’ve interviewed Michael O’Brien, who spent eleven years in a British prison for a crime he didn’t commit. O’Brien will soon visit Armenia to speak about what happened to him and how he was finally found innocent after a long and difficult legal battle. He studied law while in prison and after being released launched a campaign to make changes to the laws on the books in Britain. What follows is the letter I wrote him and the uplifting response I received.
https://hetq.am/en/article/65389

As far as I’m aware, to date Michael O’Brien has yet to prove he his ‘innocent’ only that his murder conviction was showed to be ‘unsafe.’

Michael O’Brien says in this video here https://www.media-center.am/en/1454693307

That he “owes his freedom to the media”

and “if it wasn’t to them finding the new evidence”

Man wrongly convicted of murder fails in bid to get police officer prosecuted
Excerpt:
“Crucial to their conviction was testimony given by Detective Inspector Stuart Lewis, who claimed he overheard a shouted conversation between Mr O’Brien and Mr Sherwood while they were in cells at the city’s Canton police station. The conversation appeared to amount to a confession that they had committed the murder.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 10:39:45 AM
Wonder if the CCRC have ever considered they may have been duped by Michael O’Brien?

Michael O'Brien has had plenty of time to choose his words carefully. Jailed 11 years ago for a murder he always insisted he did not commit, he and two others yesterday had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Standing outside the court yesterday, Mr O'Brien, said: "I have got mixed feelings. I am pleased that my name has been cleared but I also feel for the victim's family. We know who the real killer is - his name has been mentioned in court. It is up to the police to arrest him."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-frees-three-over-killing-of-newsagent-739755.html

So who was the  alleged ‘real killer” of Philip Saunders?

Michael O’Brien stated earlier this year,

We should also not forget the victims of crime in my case the killer is still free after 31 years and that bothers me just as much as my wrongful conviction.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/mobrien1967/status/1123860684058562561

So WHO is the ‘killer’ Michael O’Brien?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 10:47:07 AM
Michael O’Brien stated earlier this year,

We should also not forget the victims of crime in my case the killer is still free after 31 years and that bothers me just as much as my wrongful conviction.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/mobrien1967/status/1123860684058562561

So WHO is the ‘killer’ Michael O’Brien?

Interesting how Michael O’Brien tells us ‘we should also not forget the victims of crime’ than focuses on ‘the killer’

Are these his unconscious thoughts perhaps? Is ‘the killer’ to whom Michael O’Brien refers the ‘victim’ he has become?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 10:54:58 AM
Interesting how Michael O’Brien tells us ‘we should also not forget the victims of crime’ than focuses on ‘the killer’

Are these his unconscious thoughts perhaps? Is ‘the killer’ to whom Michael O’Brien refers also a victim?

Why does Michael O’Brien support Jeremy Bamber? What’s his motivation?

Jeremy bamber has served 33 years in prison for a crime he did not commit join me tomorrow at 8pm on Richie  Allen show to hear of the injustice done to him.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mobrien1967/status/962975190274715649?lang=en-gb
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 11:10:18 AM
Michael Naughton and Michael O’Brien in Armenia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm2P9s3Li-k


Press release issued: 20 January 2016
From 1-6th February Dr. Naughton will take part in a professional exchange programme to build capacity of government and civil society in Armenia.
The FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Programme (HRDP) is a dedicated annual fund to support human rights and democracy work overseas.
The thematic priorities of the HRDP are the promotion of democratic processes, the abolition of the death penalty and prevention of torture or other ill-treatment.
Through targeted projects, it aims to lift the capacity of governments and civil society to promote and protect human rights.
British Horizons, the professional exchange programme, is one such project and aims to connect experts from the UK with partner organisations in Armenia.
Dr. Naughton will partner with “Innocence Armenian Project” in Yerevan to deliver high-level professional training, exchange and public diplomacy in the domain of democracy building and human rights.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2016/naughton-fco-trip-armenia.html

No mention of Michael O’Brien in the above article but presume his trip was also funded

This time for “Prison Notes” I’ve interviewed Michael O’Brien, who spent eleven years in a British prison for a crime he didn’t commit. O’Brien will soon visit Armenia to speak about what happened to him and how he was finally found innocent after a long and difficult legal battle. He studied law while in prison and after being released launched a campaign to make changes to the laws on the books in Britain. What follows is the letter I wrote him and the uplifting response I received.
https://hetq.am/en/article/65389

As far as I’m aware, to date Michael O’Brien has yet to prove he his ‘innocent’ only that his murder conviction was showed to be ‘unsafe.’

If Dr Michael Naughton has yet to join the dots in the Simon Hall case (As per his recent tweets) and is allegedly phoning level 2 registered sex offenders in the states (Casper Volk) what’s the point of the above exactly?

He states:
Finally, if it is found that an alleged innocent victim of wrongful conviction in a member case is not innocent, the case will cease to be a member of Empowering the Innocent (ETI) and any information about the case will deleted from its website

What does he think deleting material from a website will achieve?

I don’t believe Dr Michael Naughton hasn’t joined the dots in the Simon Hall case and that it serves his purpose and personal agenda to attempt to deceive his unsuspecting audience (As it appears to me)

I don’t know if Laurence Cawley from the BBC misunderstood Dr Michael Naughton when he wrote,

“Dr Michael Naughton told how he received a letter last week from Hall's wife Stephanie telling him her husband had admitted the murder and asking him to close the case down.

or whether Dr Michael Naughton misled Mr Lawrence Cawley by claiming to have received a ‘letter’ from me?

But for the record no ‘letter’ was sent by me. The fact is Neil Bellis helped me communicate with both the CCRC and Dr Naughton regarding Simon Halls guilt via an email.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 11:18:28 AM
Why does Michael O’Brien support Jeremy Bamber? What’s his motivation?

Jeremy bamber has served 33 years in prison for a crime he did not commit join me tomorrow at 8pm on Richie  Allen show to hear of the injustice done to him.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mobrien1967/status/962975190274715649?lang=en-gb

Following Simon Halls confession Dr Michael Naughton claimed,

“We are not shocked - we are alive to the possibility that a lot of people who say they are innocent are not.”

Who are the “lot of people” referred to by Dr Naughton?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 02:47:26 PM
Why does Michael O’Brien support Jeremy Bamber? What’s his motivation?

Jeremy bamber has served 33 years in prison for a crime he did not commit join me tomorrow at 8pm on Richie  Allen show to hear of the injustice done to him.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mobrien1967/status/962975190274715649?lang=en-gb

At approx 4.19 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wdfmKI2IjEo Michael O’Brien makes claim of working for MOJO.

The same MOJO currently being investigated by the Scottish government's criminal justice division
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 04:00:32 PM
At approx 4.19 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wdfmKI2IjEo Michael O’Brien makes claim of working for MOJO.

The same MOJO currently being investigated by the Scottish government's criminal justice division

Michael O’Brien and David (Dai) Morris https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/thousands-join-campaign-claiming-dai-17292788
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 04:09:17 PM
Michael O’Brien claims,

In total since my release 23 Criminal offences have been committed against me including the latest false statement put on wales online Yet not one have been investigated by SWP maybe its time for them to explain why to the public?
https://mobile.twitter.com/michael47478285/status/1200057266306768898
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 06:38:07 PM
Michael O’Brien and David (Dai) Morris https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/thousands-join-campaign-claiming-dai-17292788

Mass murderer David Morris had his original murder convictions quashed in 2005 after judges ruled that a conflict of interest involving a member of his legal team meant he had not received a fair trial.

David Morris was represented on appeal by Michael Mansfield QC https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489284/Builders-four-murder-convictions-quashed-by-appeal-court.html

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f21c2c94e0775e7f265c

Brian Thornton wrote about the ‘Clydach murders’ here stating,

What could I – a journalism lecturer with no formal legal training – and a bunch of undergraduate journalism students do with a case that had already been checked and signed off by some of the country’s most experienced legal minds?https://www.thejusticegap.com/clydach-murders-five-years-working-hopeless-case/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 07:29:55 PM

Michael O’Brien, one of the 3, is the CCRC’s poster boy

https://ccrc.gov.uk/home/_survivor/

Don’t know how long Michael O’Brien will remain the CCRC’s ‘poster boy’ as he’s now calling for its abolishment.

Mr O’Brien also said that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - the statutory body responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland - should be abolished.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2019, 08:21:20 PM
Don’t know how long Michael O’Brien will remain the CCRC’s ‘poster boy’ as he’s now calling for its abolishment.

Mr O’Brien also said that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - the statutory body responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland - should be abolished.”

Re the David (Dai) Morris retrial, 

Patrick Harrington QC said, “the Crown's case in the retrial of Morris would be that the defendant was "a violent thug" with a strong history of "violence towards women".
https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-386734/Sexual-adventurer-family-killed-scrap-dealer.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2019, 02:59:03 PM
Standing outside the court yesterday, Mr O'Brien, said: "I have got mixed feelings. I am pleased that my name has been cleared but I also feel for the victim's family. We know who the real killer is - his name has been mentioned in court. It is up to the police to arrest him."[/i]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-frees-three-over-killing-of-newsagent-739755.html

Michael O’brien made the above public comment in December 1999

Fast forward to September 2008 where he claims:

“I don’t know who killed Mr Saunders, but I certainly have my suspicions about a man who has a violent past, and who once told me in the street that I couldn’t prove anything. I would like the police to pursue that line of inquiry.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/obrien-not-guilty-says-lie-2150029.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 12:41:46 AM
Michael O’brien made the above public comment in December 1999

Fast forward to September 2008 where he claims:

“I don’t know who killed Mr Saunders, but I certainly have my suspicions about a man who has a violent past, and who once told me in the street that I couldn’t prove anything. I would like the police to pursue that line of inquiry.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/obrien-not-guilty-says-lie-2150029.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true

“O'Brien used the talk to make the point that the person who killed Saunders is still at large and that the people who have suffered most in the whole sorry affair are the newsagent's relatives and friends. He has offered £50,000 from his compensation package as a reward that might lead to the real killer – and he has his own theory as to who that might be, as the Hay audience heard.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/28/michael-obrien-philip-saunders-cardiff-newsagent-three
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 01:04:24 AM
Michael O’brien made the above public comment in December 1999

Fast forward to September 2008 where he claims:

“I don’t know who killed Mr Saunders, but I certainly have my suspicions about a man who has a violent past, and who once told me in the street that I couldn’t prove anything. I would like the police to pursue that line of inquiry.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/obrien-not-guilty-says-lie-2150029.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true

“Following a lengthy campaign backed by politicians and the human rights group Liberty, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of Mr O’Brien, Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall. South Wales Police was strongly criticised for its handling of the case, and two years ago agreed to pay Mr O’Brien £300,000 in an out-of-court settlement of a civil case he was bringing against the force for malicious prosecution.

Yet he has never received an apology, and as recently as 2006 his ex-wife and sister-in-law were questioned on suspicion of receiving money stolen from Mr Saunders when he was murdered.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 01:13:30 AM
“Following a lengthy campaign backed by politicians and the human rights group Liberty, the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of Mr O’Brien, Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall. South Wales Police was strongly criticised for its handling of the case, and two years ago agreed to pay Mr O’Brien £300,000 in an out-of-court settlement of a civil case he was bringing against the force for malicious prosecution.

Yet he has never received an apology, and as recently as 2006 his ex-wife and sister-in-law were questioned on suspicion of receiving money stolen from Mr Saunders when he was murdered.

“Update 3 December: The male and female, arrested on 1 December 2010 for alleged offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice at the criminal trial in 1988 relating to the murder of Phillip Saunders, have been released on bail while enquiries continue. They will return to a police station at a later date.
https://www.theguardian.com/cardiff/2010/dec/01/cardiff-arrests-in-connection-with-canton-murder
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 01:21:09 AM
Following Simon Halls confession Dr Michael Naughton claimed,

“We are not shocked - we are alive to the possibility that a lot of people who say they are innocent are not.”

Who are the “lot of people” referred to by Dr Naughton?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287

“The Commission’s referral is based in part on new evidence that a number of officers from South Wales Police who were involved in the Lynette White murder inquiry (the Cardiff Three case), and the Philip Saunders murder inquiry[3] (the Cardiff Newsagent Three case), were also involved in Mr Charlton’s case and may have used investigative techniques similar to those used in the Lynette White and Philip Saunders cases and which contributed to the quashing of the convictions in those cases.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-alan-charlton-to-the-court-of-appeal/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 01:24:54 AM
“The Commission’s referral is based in part on new evidence that a number of officers from South Wales Police who were involved in the Lynette White murder inquiry (the Cardiff Three case), and the Philip Saunders murder inquiry[3] (the Cardiff Newsagent Three case), were also involved in Mr Charlton’s case and may have used investigative techniques similar to those used in the Lynette White and Philip Saunders cases and which contributed to the quashing of the convictions in those cases.
https://ccrc.gov.uk/commission-refers-the-murder-conviction-of-alan-charlton-to-the-court-of-appeal/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-26351930
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2019, 07:49:55 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-26351930

Read here http://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/R-v-Alan-Charlton-and-Idris-Ali.pdf what the CoA judges said about the CCRC’s submissions
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 05, 2019, 03:14:29 PM
Read here http://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/R-v-Alan-Charlton-and-Idris-Ali.pdf what the CoA judges said about the CCRC’s submissions

Taken from the above Judgement

CCRC review of the convictions of Charlton and Ali

63. The CCRC carried out an extremely thorough review of the three police inquiries, in particular the police inquiry into KP’s murder. We do not intend to rehearse the reports’ conclusions in their entirety; we shall focus on the material gathered that is said to undermine the safety of these convictions. We should emphasise, however, that we have read both reports with very considerable care. If we do not mention something that the CCRC considered potentially relevant to these appeals, it is because, with the assistance of counsel, we have determined that the matter is not, in fact, relevant to these appeals.

64. The CCRC analysed the extent to which there was any crossover between the evidence gathering process in this case and the investigations into the murders of Lynette White and Philip Saunders. CCRC concluded “it is possible to demonstrate a significant co-relation” between the way three inquiries conducted and that there is “a significant risk that the (police) practices demonstrable in the Lynette White and Philip Saunders inquiries occurred also during the Karen Price inquiry”.

65. The CCRC noted that at the time of the investigation into Karen Price’s murder the tactics that had been employed by officers in the Lynette White and Philip Saunders inquiries had not been properly scrutinised. The involvement of some of the same officers in the Karen Price murder inquiry is, the Commission considered, potentially suggestive of a “closed-minded” investigation which, ultimately, leads to the very real possibility that evidence given by various witnesses, both at trial and at crucial stages during the course of the investigation, was falsified and obtained through the use of oppressive techniques and bullying.

66. They categorised officers centrally involved in the KP inquiry and criticised in the Saunders or White inquiries as ‘Category A’ officers. Officers involved in the other inquiries and in the KP inquiry but not criticised have been categorised as ‘Category B’ officers.

67. Category A officers involved in both investigations were DI (acting DCI) Lewis, DI Mouncher, DS Rogers, DS Fenton, DC Cullen, DC Hodgson, DC Norman, DC Thomas and DC Griffiths. In particular, the CCRC describe DI Lewis as the officer in the case in both the Karen Price and Phillip Saunders investigations and subject to criticism by this court in the O’Brien appeals. DI Mouncher was the senior officer allegedly behind the “fictitious Lynette White murder scenario” and was also “centrally involved” in the KP murder inquiry at the crucial time. Essentially, it is said he spoke to potential witnesses “off the record”, was behind the case theory that Charlton was guilty, conducted research into D’s background and according to his desk diary spoke to her “off the record” for fifteen minutes at 15.30 on 23 February 1990 before her arrest. DS Rogers was centrally involved in the Saunders inquiry. He was accused of taking false evidence from witnesses, interviewing a witness “off the record” immediately before he provided an incriminating statement and, with DI Lewis, pressurising a witness to change her evidence.

68. The CCRC lists and considers the role of a number of other officers who were involved in the other two inquiries (and accused of improper conduct, for example putting pressure on witnesses) who were also involved in the KP investigation. They include DC Cullen. DC Cullen took statements from witnesses including Morris. Morris alleged that DC Cullen pressurised her into making a statement incriminating O’Brien and others. This was robustly denied by DC Cullen herself. DC Cullen, with DC Taylor (neither category A or B), were responsible for the lengthy interviews of D that feature so prominently in this case.

69. The CCRC gave a number of examples of what they considered parallels from the Saunders and White inquiries and the KP investigation. They include:
i) The extensive questioning of D as a voluntary witness and what allegedly happened to Chick and Morris in the Phillip Saunders investigation.
ii) The uncertainty as to the time when D was picked up on the morning of 23 February 1990 with the similar imprecision as to times of detention in the Phillip Saunders case.
iii) The obtaining of a cell confession from Philip Ashong and Aquilina (not used) against Charlton and the alleged cell confessions by Hall and Sherwood.
iv) The treatment of D as a witness and Jack Ellis in the Lynette White investigation. Mr Ellis has complained subsequently of his being interviewed repeatedly when tired and of being put under intolerable pressure.
v) The involvement of DC Cullen who interviewed D (with DC Taylor) both before and after her arrest and took her third incriminating statement from her and DC Cullen’s involvement in the Saunders murder inquiry.

70. The CCRC note that some of the original handwritten exhibits in the O’Brien prosecution had disappeared, as have the handwritten originals of D’s critical third statement. Other documents are no longer available, for example, contemporaneous notes from pocket books as to the treatment of D before she was arrested. The only note in relation to this period of time is the one in Mouncher’s desk diary of an “off the record” conversation with her shortly before her arrest.

71. Ultimately, the CCRC concluded “it is possible to speculate” the investigating officers in the KP inquiry were ‘infected’ by the prevalent culture in the murder squad and may have behaved inappropriately towards witnesses in ways that cannot now be discovered.

72. The CCRC believe that the material from the other investigations now available could have been the basis for an abuse of process application to stay the proceedings. At the very least it could have been used to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. Further, they suggest that Ali’s evidence was so prejudicial to Charlton it should have been excluded from the trial and that just as the inadmissibility of the Hall confessions adversely affected the trial of his co-defendants, O’Brien and Sherwood, so the inadmissibility of Ali’s confessions adversely affected Charlton’s conviction.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 06, 2019, 12:04:13 AM
Don’t know how long Michael O’Brien will remain the CCRC’s ‘poster boy’ as he’s now calling for its abolishment.

Mr O’Brien also said that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - the statutory body responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland - should be abolished.”

And has even set up a petition https://www.change.org/p/102-petty-france-london-sw1h-9aj-united-kingdom-abolish-the-criminal-cases-review-commission?recruiter=35044305&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=Search%3ESAP%3EUK%3ENonBrand%3EExact&recruited_by_id=e45e0660-0595-0130-da23-40401bfb750c
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: jixy on December 06, 2019, 07:24:56 AM
A graffiti artist writes rubbish where it doesnt belong and most people try to ignore. Luke Mitchell theories???
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 06, 2019, 09:30:34 AM
And has even set up a petition https://www.change.org/p/102-petty-france-london-sw1h-9aj-united-kingdom-abolish-the-criminal-cases-review-commission?recruiter=35044305&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=Search%3ESAP%3EUK%3ENonBrand%3EExact&recruited_by_id=e45e0660-0595-0130-da23-40401bfb750c

Maybe someone will split this from the Luke Mitchell board and start a new thread on Michael O’Brien and the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3 case ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 06, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
Luke Mitchell theories???

No amount of spinning and weaving of the facts of this case will make any difference to Luke Mitchell. He revealed his true colours to all of those around him early on in this case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 11, 2019, 05:32:19 PM
leading lights in the miscarriages world” (ie: David Jessel, Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield)

DAVID JESSEL says: September 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
My CCRC friends tell me that this just shows how ‘unsafety’ rather than innocence should be the criterion. I’ve never bought that. Such a view simply entrenches that bloodless tendency which reduces injustice to the formulaic, tick box exercise so comfortable for lawyers (one extremely grand lawyer believed the CCRC should be ‘the anteroom to the Court of Appeal’) I wanted to refer Simon Hall because I believed (wrongly) that he didn’t do it. I know it’s not very lawyerly, but I’m rather less interested in giving the guilty a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Ralph was the first investigations adviser at the CCRC”

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ly-7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=jon+robins+miscarriages+of+justice+thesis&source=bl&ots=0KerOM9Qkj&sig=ACfU3U3i7tBDel_iI8cHq-TNOkq7EVdVlQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH2qTombfjAhWHLsAKHbenBgo4ChDoATALegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=jon%20robins%20miscarriages%20of%20justice%20thesis&f=false

How many cases did “Ralph” investigate whilst he was at the CCRC and what cases were they?

He played a major role in many of the Commissions best-known cases”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 11, 2019, 05:44:01 PM
How many cases did “Ralph” investigate whilst he was at the CCRC and what cases were they?

He played a major role in many of the Commissions best-known cases”

From Jon Robins book, ‘The First Miscarriage of Justice’ (Link above)

Ralph was the first investigations adviser at the CCRC”

What cases was ‘Ralph’ involved in and were the ‘Commissions best-known case’s’ based on factual innocence or technicalities?

‘Ralph’ was apparently “former head of Essex CID”

Jon Robins states, “I was commissioning a collection of essays called ‘Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice?’ It featured contributions from leading lights in the miscarriage world - investigative journalists such as David Jessel, lawyers like Michael Mansfield QC and Campbell Malone, academics and campaigners. I was keen to have a strong CCRC perspective, and it was suggested I make contact with Ralph who had stepped down from the CCRC after 13 years service in 2011 at the age of 67.

The ‘essays’ can be read here https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/40223/1/SJ_Miscarriages_of_Justice_LOW_RES.pdf and Ralph Barringtons ‘Up for the job’ can be found on page 34
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 16, 2019, 05:50:58 PM
Will be interesting to learn if the six other families” who “are immediately affected” were contacted “as a matter of courtesy”

Sandra Lean today claims here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456210.html#msg456210
“I made a mistake 12 years ago - I've put my hands up to that, I've withdrawn the book and I've publicly apologised.”

Is the “mistake 12 years ago” to which she refers to above in relation to having written Stephen Kelly as opposed to Leonard Kelly?

Excerpt from No Smoke by Sandra Lean
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

Sandra Lean claims here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
“I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

“The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall." http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time.”


Court transcripts for what case?

Sandra Lean claims today: “l would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage[/i].

How does

”the book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time

fit with

the two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage?”


Reminds me of word salad

The term word salad refers to a random words or phrases linked together in an often unintelligible manner. Often, a listener is unable to understand the meaning or purpose of the phrase

What ‘court transcripts’ did Sandra Lean have for the Simon Hall case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: Nicholas on December 18, 2019, 11:14:05 PM
10th January 2017 - Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
“Ah, good, I was hoping this would come around again. Stephanie thinks I was “blatantly avoiding” her questions. In fact, the thread had spiralled off in several different directions – I was just waiting until my response made logical sense. So, not hiding anything either.

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
 
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

When I revise No Smoke, the quote I posted earlier, give or take, will be the revision for Simon's case. Take it or leave it!

Sandra Lean:
Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing.”

A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.

Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.

Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.

Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.

"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."

The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.

Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.

"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."

In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.

"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

MOJO - An Update 26th August 2019 BY EUAN MCILVRIDE
”Following on recent media publicity concerning the Organisation, the effect of which has been to cause significant unnecessary anxiety to our service users and supporters, we provide the following update.

At our own instigation, necessary improvements to our compliance and governance arrangements were introduced by MOJO in April and May of this year.   As we are a registered charity these were properly reported to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, by ourselves, at the time.

The recent publicity followed on allegations of impropriety in our revised governance arrangements, subsequently made to  OSCR, and to the Scottish Government, by a now ex-director of MOJO and others associated with him.   Similar allegations were made, by the same parties, to our funders and potential funders which resulted in the withdrawal of some recently agreed financial support.

OSCR rightly reviewed these allegations and we fully cooperated with their enquiries. OSCR has confirmed that there are no matters of regulatory concern.   

Our funding from the Scottish Government remains in place and we are now working to restore the funding recently lost because of these allegations, as we are determined to expand and improve the aftercare service we provide to our vulnerable and deserving clients.

It is a matter of deep regret to us that needless anxiety and uncertainty has been caused to those who matter most – the clients whom we serve.   Throughout this difficult time we have continued to provide our usual services, and we will continue to do so.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your kind support throughout this period.   We are grateful.

https://mojoscotland.org/mojo-an-update/?fbclid=IwAR1uTjbKeUOt0LtLOIFJZcjBAUnPBYLo4C_Ixhd5TT00-DB-Mc4cisVmVtQ
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
Post by: William Wallace on March 08, 2020, 02:31:20 AM
This thread is very interesting and without repeating too much what others have already said, I would like to add that the number of 'eyebrow raising' coincidences about Luke Mitchell, none of which had believable explanations was astounding. He must certainly be the unluckiest person on the planet if he's innocent.

Firstly, the speaking clock hogwash. The last time I phoned this was in 1978 and I didn't even know it still existed until this case. Regardless, claiming to have phoned the speaking clock when you are in a house when the exact time can be seen on laptops, clocks and TV news channels is laughable. Not only that, WHO phones speaking clocks in the middle of cooking? Right, I better watch these pies don't burn and make sure the spuds aren't too hard......oh wait I better phone the speaking clock!! It has been claimed by S.Lean that LM phoned this speaking clock habitually.......there was NO EVIDENCE provided in Court of previous calls to this, none, zero, nada. Thus it would not be unreasonable to assume he was NOT in the habit of phoning it. This alibi of 'being at home cooking dinner' also sounds laughable. It doesn't even sound credible, it sounds like the worst excuse you could make up for not being outdoors. That's why Shane changed his statement, he was told to invent the 'cooking dinner' fable by Corrine. A load of utter HOGWASH. The reason LM phoned the speaking clock could be deduced by an 8 year old.......... he  was OUTDOORS and in a place where there were no clocks, shops or people where he could check the time. He was in the woods and needed to know exactly when Jodi would arrive.

Now, onto what makes LM the unluckiest man on the planet.........the odds of all these having an innocent explanation would be into millions.

1. Jodi went missing and was killed when she was on the way to meet HIM, not when she was going anywhere else. Isn't that strange.
2. Mitchell owned a knife but after the murder, his knife 'just happened' to be MISSING.
3. Mitchell made no attempt to find out where Jodi was the whole night after she apparently failed to appear, despite the fact he KNEW she was not allowed to walk up that path alone. That factor proves those who say 'oh he was 14 and maybe didn't bother' are just deluding themselves.
4. The 2 young people seen at the Easthouses end of the path were Mitchell and Jodi. To suggest the Police would not have traced those 2 if it was NOT them, in a town with a population half the size of Castlemilk in Glasgow is laughable. More so after 16 years, they still haven't been traced.
5. Any criminologist would state that due to the nature of this murder, the perpetrator would be highly likely to strike again. There's been no similar murders in that area or even in Scotland since this one. How coincidental. Remember the Bible John murders stopped for 18 months? They stopped at the same time Peter Tobin was in jail. Mitchell has been in jail for 16 years which is why no similar murders have occurred (obvious).
6. Mitchell told a witness 'Jodi would not be coming out tonight' after the time of the murder, despite not apparently knowing where she was.
7. A discarded knife was found years later not too far from where the murder was which had the name 'Luke' inscribed on it. What a strange coincidence that the only knife found up until then just happened to have that not particularly common name on it.
8. Mitchell's knife pouch had 666 scrawled on it with that message about Jodi. That in itself speaks volumes.
9. Corrine bought him another knife (despite being a suspect) to replace the missing one.
10. Corrine assisted him to attend a tattoo parlour knowing he had fake ID and was under age, to have a Satanic tattoo done, a skull with flames shooting out of it. She also pointed to it and said.....'that's him' !!
11. A paramedic who attended the murder scene stated in Court that Mitchell was the only person present who was not upset. He was sitting texting on his phone looking perfectly calm.
12. Mitchell has never shown any emotion in 16 years, not even a shout on the way in and out of Court proclaiming he's innocent.
13. He was described by one Appeal Judge as 'an unsympathetic individual'. Assumably because he's sat there looking unperturbed or unfazed every time and never expressed an ounce of emotion.
14. Mitchell demanded Satanic books be sent to him in Shotts Prison in 2014.

I've read SL's book and yes there were issues with the Police investigation, but the amount of circumstantial evidence against Mitchell is overwhelming. That's why a 6 week trial took a Jury only a few hours to reach a verdict. I would also like to vote the alibi of 'at home cooking dinner' as the cheesiest most laughable pile of hogwash ever produced for an alibi. It's the sort of excuse that would produce raucous laughter at a stage show. Woeful attempt.

All of the above points to 1 thing only, which is why all appeals were refused.