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: John on August 15, 2012, 02:00:34 AM

Title: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 02:00:34 AM
Just to let you know Mat, the photograph which has been posted on the blue forum as depicting Luke Mitchell on the day of the murder is yet another misrepresentation of the facts.

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

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

(http://i.imgur.com/AJYar.jpg)

Luke Mitchell in August 2003.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 03:03:29 PM
Thanks, John.

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

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

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 03:47:52 PM
The obvious difference between Andrina failing to identify Luke in court and Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh managing to do so is simply explained by logic. Andrina didn't see Luke that day but Messrs Fleming and Walsh did.

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

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


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Thanks, John.

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

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

And a general feeling on the case - your thoughts.

This is just a short synopsis from memory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 04:55:13 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

Sandra L is now posting on the blue forum - I guess somene told her I'd taken an interest in the case and began posting in the topic - I don't see why else she would suddenly begin posting and comment on the points I made. Which I think is my que to stop posting about it simply because I have no interest in getting into a war of words with a PR guru type person dressed as a lawyer.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 05:52:12 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

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

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

All you have to do is to ask her about Adrian Prout and you won't see her for dust!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Joanne on August 15, 2012, 06:25:53 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 06:40:55 PM
Its seems you think rather highly of yourself mat as SL did not post simply to rebuke your interest or to simply highlight this case. The fact that it continues to be eroded by simple misrepresentation by the owner of this site stands to give "PR" as you state to the case, its what we strive for as having the case in the publics mind can only help.

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

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

John 2/10 must do better.

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

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

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

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

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

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


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

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

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

You won't read that in the newpapers Gordo!

Just to know that Sandra Lean is the one behind the website tells you all you need to know and will ever need to know. The fact that she's too busy with so many cases shows the thoroughness that she approaches her cases with. I am not shocked by her comments or by her delusion of grandeur. She probably hasn't had the time to fully inform herself of the case - which is the same rubbish they throw at me - since she is so busy with multiple cases.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 09:01:52 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

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

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

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

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

Grahame getting involved in the topic now........... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 09:21:11 PM
As far as the multiple cases are concerned the vast majority are stagnant in the water.   They are only window dressing for the WAP site, a means to an end.  Most of the people who have put their trust in WAP will be disappointed in the end because not even super woman could get them off the hook.  They are fighting a lost cause with one hand tied behind their backs.

You only need to look at who is actually running WAP.  An unemployed former mussel farmer from Lerwick whose only claim to fame is that he was found 'not proven' of molesting his ex wife and of murdering their baby daughter in a double arson attack at their home...I ask you?  Would you even buy a second hand car from such a clown?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on August 15, 2012, 09:24:54 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

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

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

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

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

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

In that case it is definately going downhill fast from now on.  Grahame reminds me of the master of the Titanic, hopeful to the bitter end and then content to go down with his ship.   8)-)))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 15, 2012, 09:52:42 PM
Thanks, John. You've confirmed most of what I thought and got from what I have read. There are those around that try and dillute key information which I think speaks for itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Bates?    >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

She was a friend of the Mitchell family Joanne, she just sort of got involved.  Then along came Middleton with his case and she got involved with him too and formed the Wrongly Accused Person Org.  The rest as they say is history.   8)--))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:32:16 PM
And it is worth pointing out to Gordo that the error in relation to the photo originated on the blue forum where it was wrongly claimed that the Luke Mitchell mugshot was taken on the day of the murder.

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

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

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 15, 2012, 11:36:56 PM
I've just been reading the mentioned thread on thr blue forum and if I got arrested and it was a straight choice of duty solicitor, Mat or Sandra Lean, it wouldn't be a hard choice, Mat would win hands down. I don't think Sandra Lean is credible which is a shame because she looks sensible and she's obviously clever-did the Mitchell family do their homework before letting her in on the case?

Thanks, Joanne. :)


And it is worth pointing out to Gordo that the error in relation to the photo originated on the blue forum where it was claimed that the Luke Mitchell mugshot was taken on the day of the murder.

So much for accuracy and completeness...at least I can amend my posts accordingly.   @)(++(*




I don't know why they are saying that the photo confusion was you, John. That information came from FreeWillieGage
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 15, 2012, 11:41:30 PM
I have stressed that the poster who came up with that was one advocating Lukes guilt and most probably one of your own crew on here or more likely yourself.

I must applaude you on your efforts at correcting us with your own inaccuracies but then again I have never claimed
Quote
The problem for them is that I know the case inside out,
.  Lets call a spade a spade here and just admit you made an arse of yourself here today John, it wasn't pleasant to watch but It will highlight to everyone including your own initiates just how falible your are.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 15, 2012, 11:54:16 PM
I am away from the office at the moment and my huge database of information and links which is why I erred on the date that photo was taken by the police.  There is a much better picture of Luke Mitchell however taken on the very day of Jodi's funeral when he was giving an interview to James Matthews of Sky News. 

I can certainly vouch for the date of this photo!

3rd September 2003.

(http://i.imgur.com/Rd2ln.jpg)

Luke Mitchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 12:01:13 AM
I have stressed that the poster who came up with that was one advocating Lukes guilt and most probably one of your own crew on here or more likely yourself.

I must applaude you on your efforts at correcting us with your own inaccuracies but then again I have never claimed
Quote
The problem for them is that I know the case inside out,
.  Lets call a spade a spade here and just admit you made an ar.. of yourself here today John, it wasn't pleasant to watch but It will highlight to everyone including your own initiates just how fallible your are.

Oh but I would be the first to admit this.  As I explained, I cannot have everything to hand when I am away from home.  I corrected the post accordingly as we don't want new readers being misled now do we?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:01:54 AM
Wait a min here John as didn't you come back to me with the idea that Luke had to have been arrested to have had a photo taken and used in a photo gallery ID? This surely would have been written through your own personal experiences of the judicial system I would have thought. Its certainly not something you would have had to refer to notes or files to make sure that any post you wanted to make would be factual!!!

I wonder was it just a case of you seeing an opportunity to belittle the Mitchell camp? an opportunity too great to miss by not being at your office, well you may want to keep those files close at hand more often John as it will stop this type of thing happening in the future as I'm not sure how many more of these occurrence's you could take.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: ActualMat on August 16, 2012, 12:07:28 AM
So John mixes up a picture, corrects the information - and is slated for it? Hmmm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 12:10:25 AM
Wait a min here John as didn't you come back to me with the idea that Luke had to have been arrested to have had a photo taken and used in a photo gallery ID? This surely would have been written through your own personal experiences of the judicial system I would have thought. Its certainly not something you would have had to refer to notes or files to make sure that any post you wanted to make would be factual!!!

I wonder was it just a case of you seeing an opportunity to belittle the Mitchell camp? an opportunity too great to miss by not being at your office, well you may want to keep those files close at hand more often John as it will stop this type of thing happening in the future as I'm not sure how many more of these occurrence's you could take.

There is something very odd about the taking of that Polaroid picture.  The police couldn't have taken it without Luke's permission so I wonder what was the reason given to him or the appropriate adult who attended with him?

I bet they didn't tell him that they wanted it in order to show it to a potential witness.   >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:15:34 AM
So John mixes up a picture, corrects the information - and is slated for it? Hmmm.

If only he had Enigma......
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:20:16 AM
Its is a large Hmmmm when he goes on to describe himself as knowing the case inside out, I didn't need any notes myself to realise that what he had posted this morning was inaccurate but then again I don't know the case inside out!!

Quote
If only he had Enigma......
I really am lost... but then again just how lost am I
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:24:36 AM
Its is a large Hmmmm when he goes on to describe himself as knowing the case inside out, I didn't need any notes myself to realise that what he had posted this morning was inaccurate but then again I don't know the case inside out!!

Quote
If only he had Enigma......
I really am lost... but then again just how lost am I

Possibly as lost as Mike when he flounders about, bamboozling people with Ali Bongo, Z and Enigma.

Not to mention Sheila barking like a dog, Sheila's arm, grainy sunlight......at this point I always feel like the little boy in the Emperor's New Clothes.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:28:27 AM
I can't believe that Mike has 2 pieces of evidence that would, at least, further JB's case, but he chooses to sit on them like some massive, constipated chicken. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man"? What about cometh the evidence, cometh JB having something new and helpful to present? Is it some weird game? Puh.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 12:29:36 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:34:31 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:38:56 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!

To put it in very simplistic terms, why would anyone else have murdered Jodi?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 12:55:03 AM
Ah is this a Bamber thingy? strange how you should turn to this to try and level things up. I have never commented on the Bamber case or any other case on the Bamber forum. It does amuse me to watch how much you guys put into this cross ridicule thing you have got going. If I must be caught up in it to correct things on either forum then so be it. 8-)(--) ?>)()< 8(0(* 8(>(( ?{)(** 8)><( 8)--)) 8)-))) 8(8-)) ?8)@)-) @)(++(* 8()(((@# 8@??)( 8((()*/ 8**8:/: >@@(*&) Im sure this is what you do after each post, right!

Sorry, gordo, it became a Bamber thingy when I said Enigma. I didn't mean to jump into the Mitchell case, I don't know enough about it. You are more than welcome to correct me on here. If you can!!

To put it in very simplistic terms, why would anyone else have murdered Jodi?

I find it reminiscent of the Joshua Davies/Rebecca Aylward murder.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: puglove on August 16, 2012, 01:05:01 AM
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 03:36:09 AM
Shane Mitchell, 23, initially told detectives he got home from work about 3.40pm on the day Jodi died.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shane replies: 'Yes.'
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Angelo222 on August 16, 2012, 10:29:35 AM
And I would have to question why Luke was obsessed with knives, slept in utter squalor and weed paraphernalia, and filled his room with bottles of his own urine. Possibly not a regular teenager.

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

Luke was a spoiled child and Corinne has excused this by reason that she tried to make it up to him for the loss of his father from the parental home.  Whether she was successful is another question?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 10:57:51 AM
I suggested some time ago that the Mitchell's offer a reward for information but this was received with some hostility.  I always wondered at that reaction, anyone who was genuinely interested in procuring witnesses would do all and anything to achieve that end but not Corinne Mitchell. They rolled out all ther old excuses why offering a reward would not be appropriate but I still fail to see how any of these reasons could ever trump the need to get an innocent lad out of prison.  If you had something to hide however, that would be another story!    8(0(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 02:42:17 PM
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 03:49:52 PM
If I remember there was a reward posted for Simon Hall although not now. I also see a reward posted on another case, I must admit they are truly working and as they were selectively picked  as case's warrenting a reward you must have felt that you were getting close to receiving information to bring these case to fruition, shame they have not had the desired effect John!

But that is where you are so wrong.  The offer of a reward in several of our cases had the desired effect.  That's more than I would say a couple of junk science polygraph tests and blaming every other male in Easthouses and surrounds have brought to the Luke Mitchell case.  Terry Mullins must be raking it in now, he should team up with that other showman Derek Acorah.  Oh I forgot, Acorah was revealed as a fraud by Sky TV.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

That junk science happens to be at this moment under research as to it used with allowing child abuser's and rapist's from coming into our society., something I would have thought would have had your utmost backing!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 04:19:05 PM
Yeah of course it has as one crime remains unsolved and the other remains behind bars!! Is this the desired effect you had in mind John.

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

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

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

I wonder how many will put their hats in the ring or their careers on the line?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 16, 2012, 04:43:00 PM
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

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

 What fear should there be to offenders who feel they have been rehabilitated in taking a test that may see the freed from the confinement? Fear would surely equal guilt!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 16, 2012, 04:48:39 PM
Quote
Oh but it does but not by deceiving the very people it is meant to help.  They are using the threat and the fear of the test to scare offenders and that is not what the polygraph is supposed to be about.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:53:58 AM
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.

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

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

Bottom line...don't be fooled by deceptive descriptions.    8(0(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 02:05:42 AM
It should also be noted that Steven Kelly's alibi for earlier that day was by his father, now deceased. Jodi's sister Janine met up with him later and they were together all evening. 

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: James on August 19, 2012, 02:16:09 AM
The Mitchells and Sandra Lean have had ten years to concoct some sort of cock and bull story to back up their innocence claims.   The more I read about Sandra Lean the more ridiculous she sounds to me.   @)(++(*

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

The blue forum really must get their act together and stop posting rubbish!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 02:29:00 AM
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


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

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 02:51:35 AM
Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


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

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

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

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: James on August 19, 2012, 03:00:00 AM
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


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

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

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

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 03:02:33 AM
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


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

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

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

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?

Exactly James so by inference there is no evidence that any blood belonging to Stephen Kelly was found on anything at the scene of the murder. Just more wishful thinking on behalf of the Mitchell camp.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 10:57:34 AM
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 19, 2012, 11:10:59 AM
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:49:49 PM
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.

Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.  Saying that it was highly likely that a DNA profile came from blood just doesn't cut it.  Either it did or it didn't and it is most obvious that your information provider Sandra Lean doesn't know the answer to this.

The only evidence which has been universally accepted is that there was a DNA profile found on Jodis t-shirt which was owned by her sister Janine who was then in a relationship with Stephen Kelly.  As this t-shirt was borrowed by Jodi just before the murder it has also been accepted that the semen stain was deposited on it quite innocently and had nothing at all to do with the assault on Jodi.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.

The end game Gordon is that only two DNA profiles recovered from the murder scene were identified.  They belonged to Jodi and Stephen.  Several other profiles both full and partial remain to be identified and these included a partial profile relating to Luke Mitchell himself which is not really surprising given that they had been together in some capacity earlier that day.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 20, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:39:31 AM
Quote
Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.

Even although this is in direct contrast to your initial believe that the sightings by F&W proved that Luke didn't have the time to do just that!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: gordo on August 21, 2012, 08:41:35 AM
Quote
odi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Haven't you just tried to chastise me ragarding making assumptions, what was it you said again oh yeah! Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 16, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 16, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!


Sandra Lean is an expert at manipulating facts to suit her own agenda.   
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 16, 2012, 08:56:26 PM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?

Would that be the same expert opinion that got him convicted in the first place?   8)--))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: devils advocate on September 19, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?



The trouble with you Gordo is that you talk the greatest shite.  sorry admin   8(8-))
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 10:35:09 AM
The police found bottles of Mitchell's urine stored in his bedroom. Sandra Lean suggests he started doing this AFTER he had murdered. Where is her proof for this?

"Pattern 3 Compulsivity- The killer may suffer from some type of obsessive compulsive disorder. This obsession will cause him to commit the same crime over and over again. It will first appear in the second developmental stage of serial killing, the trolling phase where the killer drives or walks around for hours looking for the perfect victim. It will also be evident at the crime scene the killer will have a compulsion to hide a body in a certain place or commit certain acts of post -mortem mutilation. It’s also the reason the killer will keep items from each of his victims
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/cjrp/traits.html

It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 10:42:38 AM

Sandra Lean is an expert at manipulating facts to suit her own agenda.

"Explaining his motivation, Mr Binstead said: “I had contemplated writing the book for some years because I had always been fascinated by the mysterious and unique case of Gordon Park.

“What finally provoked me into actually putting pen to paper was a 2015 book 'No Smoke!

The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.

“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”

Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.

He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-Lady-in-the-Lake-murder-conviction-5999268a-951e-413c-9ed6-9562fdc5819f-ds


"NO Smoke" Should be Revised or Withdrawn - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on November 25, 2017, 12:41:36 PM
...and still no word on why Luke Mitchell would request books on satanism




"A trio of books on Mitchell’s list are by Anton Szandor LaVey, the US founder of the Church of Satan, and include essays on demons, Nazism, cannibalism, death and child abuse.

In The Satanic Bible, LaVey discusses how someone could be considered “fit and proper” as a human sacrifice. The book concludes: “The answer is brutally simple. Anyone who has unjustly wronged you.”

Another title, Satan Speaks, has a foreword by goth musician Marilyn Manson, whose paintings and music were said to have inspired Mitchell’s murder of tragic Jodi.

Mitchell was just 15 when he stabbed his 14-year-old girlfriend to death in Easthouses, Midlothian.

Jodi’s mutilated body was found in woods near her home.

It emerged Mitchell had scratched 666 into his arm with a compass and drew Satanic symbols and quotes on his schoolbooks.

At his trial, prosecutors highlighted he was a Marilyn Manson fan who had shown an interest in the Black Dahlia, a notorious unsolved 1947 murder when aspiring Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short was mutilated. While under investigation for Jodi’s murder it emerged he had a demonic tattoo done.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463



"Religious beliefs" - were these the same "religious beliefs" he held before murdering JJ?  *&^^&


Dupers delight springs to mind  *&^^&