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  *&^^&



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2019, 11:39:19 PM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

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.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on June 24, 2019, 11:58:51 PM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2019, 12:08:49 AM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

Indeed, the language of manipulation

Interesting to note Sandra Lean says here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y @ approx 44.02

 “it’s all designed to undermine the credibility of the information”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 11:47:05 AM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

What I find interesting is she’s had several years to address her misinformation regarding Simon Halls confession.

It appears to me it’s more beneficial to her agenda for doubt to remain as opposed to accepting she was conned.

Simon Hall and the others who knew about the Zenith burglary (whom she liaised with in order to carry out research for the chapter in her book “No Smoke”) failed to disclose their knowledge on this vital piece of information to her.

Yet when she learns about it she says:

In Feb 2013 she stated to me:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years


Let’s not forget - “Criminology is the study of crime, order and criminal justice. It considers a broad range of topics related to offending and victimisation, including their causes, social impact and prevention.

I’d be really interested to hear how she thinks I should have “handled Simon’s confession to the other burglary.”

there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.”

She concluded it was “detrimental to public support for Simon” and “a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.”

All of which I found extremely telling. 

For example; indicative of a lack of insight and no thought whatsoever or consideration for me or indeed what the consequences of said “confession” meant in the grand scheme of things.

Which, on its own, should be a red flag for people like Corrine Mitchell.

This is factual evidence of how Sandra Lean ticks. She claims to be a “truthseeker” but I have long disbelieved this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 01:08:42 PM
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

IMO all those people who have been taken in by Sandra Lean should put their bias to one side and not allow the fact the above statements are written by a retired prosecutor to get in the way of their judgement.

He makes valid points!

completely eclipsed” to the detriment of others.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

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.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

Still none the wiser to the time Luke Mitchell phoned and spoke to his gran. Was it 4.15 or 4.25pm or 4.50pm?

And can Corrine Mitchell remember what make of pies they were? Was it one pie between them or smaller individual pies? Don’t think that fact has been established? Where did she usually buy her pies? What were their favourite pies?

And was it a chicken pie or a steak pie? What did each of their witness statements say? Did one say steak and the other chicken for example?

If we can find out the type of pie(s), we can find out how long they would have taken to cook instead of guessing the length of time it takes to cook a pie.

Much of my research on the length of time it takes averaged around the 45-50 minute mark.

It might also be helpful if we can find out the make and model of the cooker used to cook said pies as well, as some ovens take longer than others. Was it an electric over, gas etc?

And did Luke put it on the top shelf as has been suggested? Where would he normally put food when he was cooking it in the oven? What shelf? Did the shelves get moved around on a regular basis or did they stay the same, as with many households?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 01:40:48 AM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997

I don't have time to address the mass of misinformation Lithium has posted here tonight - it'll have to wait until Monday.

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.


@ approx 109.33 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4 Corrine Mitchell states Luke spoke to his Gran when he phoned his Mums work

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg538201#msg538201
 
And Luke says he spoke to his Gran

Quote
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.

Not according to Luke Mitchell it wasn’t!

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.

But Shane Mitchell said didn’t say anything to Luke about the burnt pie because he didn’t want to insult him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 04, 2019, 01:55:09 AM
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173

“I've said for many years, there's a huge possibility that this was a stranger murder (as in, the killer didn't know Jodi personally

In contradiction to any alleged “punishment killing” then?

Who’s misleading who? Corrine Mitchell or Sandra Lean or both?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 02:40:43 PM
My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

Guess it’s dependent on the personality of the person caught within the lies

Self-deception
The works of philosopher Alfred R. Mele have provided insight into some of the more prominent paradoxes regarding self-deception. Two of these paradoxes include the self-deceiver's state of mind and the dynamics of self-deception, coined the "static" paradox and the "dynamic/strategic" paradox, respectively.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception


A 2016 study here https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4426.epdf of what happens in the brain when you lie found that the more untruths a person tells, the easier and more frequent lying becomes. The results also indicated that self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 07, 2019, 10:02:05 AM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that Ferris's statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that (Ferris's statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John Ferris said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 12:10:56 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that Ferris's statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that (Ferris's statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John Ferris said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]


Could this help your work? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgIwfl4MBk


”The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative


Stephanie Hall has very valid points here. Obviously I have no doubts about Ben Geen, absolutely none whatsoever. But the “miscarriage of justice movement” does make mistakes because it is human and a human system, and humans and human systems do make mistakes. I think myself about the case of José Booij who, though herself certainly innocent, I am sure, was a very complex and unusual person with her own narcissism, and so blinded by the injustice that was done to her, that she blindly manipulated anyone who (she thought) might possibly be able to come to her aid. Who wouldn’t, in her situation?

To whom a disaster befalls it makes no difference whether they were innocent victims or evil perpetrators.

We have to remember that, in the penultimate analysis, *we are all narcissists*. We have to keep being reminded of Kant’s categorical imperative. It’s not built into our own brain/mind system. It was an invention, not a discovery. We have to choose to follow it. (We have to decide for ourselves, moreover, who we are going to include in the category “other people”. Immanuel Kant, for instance, probably excluded women and possibly also people of different “race” to his own).


Professor Richard Gill (with permission from the author to share with whoever may find it useful)

The above was in response to the following https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2019/05/11/the-clues-that-point-to-barry-georges/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 03:35:47 PM
I’m not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story"

This part of the response I find interesting for varying reasons but for another time maybe
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 11:45:31 PM
My study just now is the play on 'words'

This is taking a liberty  *&^^&

Justice campaigner: The Herald 15 Sep 2018ROZLYN LITTLE
“DOCTOR Sandra Lean has dedicated her career to defending those who have been wrongfully convicted.
A mother of two daughters, she had a quiet but content life, running her own business in the town of Dalkeith.
But that all changed when the area was rocked by the brutal murder of 14-year old Jodi Jones in June 2003.
The teenager was discovered in woodland behind Newbattle High School – the same school that her eldest attended. At the heart of the crime was the accusation that 14-year old Luke Mitchell, Jodi’s boyfriend, was the murderer.
The murder would take Lean in an unexpected direction, as she sought to understand the events which were unfolding on her doorstep. After doubts that Mitchell was the killer, she began to investigate, leading to the publication of her first book about miscarriages of justice.
She then gained her PHD in criminal justice, becoming a fully qualified paralegal at the same time as finishing her thesis, all the while campaigning for those wrongfully convicted.
She is currently assisting the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, to launch a new appeal for the release of Mitchell, who was convicted of the murder of Jones.
She said: “My girls went to Newbattle High School and they walked along the path which runs at right angles to the path where Jodi was found. And the more I saw, the more I thought, ‘are my kids safe walking that path to school? Have they gone after the wrong guy?”
“I want to know, I want to be absolutely sure that they’ve got the right guy, so I know my girls are safe and that the person that did this is not still hanging about in those woods.”
Initially, she was surprised at how quickly suspicion fell on Mitchell and decided to turn away from local gossip. She was convinced of his innocence in 2009, when she first gained access to his case files.
She said: “There were at least half a dozen people who were people of interest. For example, people with previous histories of violently attacking women. These people all had a history. They were in the system, and usually when something like that happens, they trawl the system looking for people who have committed similar crimes. That’s just a standard thing. And yet they didn’t do it in this case. And you’re just left thinking, why?”
Dr Lean is back compiling evidence alongside other experts to launch a third appeal for Mitchell.
She says: “It’s wrong and it needs to be put right because it could be any one of us. And to sit where Jodi’s mum is sitting now, 15 years down the line, not knowing the truth. That cannot be acceptable.”
Along the way, she has faced criticism and even death threats from members of the local community. Some call her disrespectful for her work, but she says. “I don’t think it’s disrespectful to seek the truth under any circumstances.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 09, 2019, 09:42:51 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 04:11:17 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.

Information the police had around 16 years ago. Around the same 16 years ago when Corrine Mitchell heard on the grapevine in Midlothian that there was a women who knew nothing about the CJS but thought her son might be innocent. Go figure.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 05:27:24 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

[This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.]


If Ms Lean has the information that MK walked that route for beer that evening, she is also aware what time this was at? MK was not on Newbattle R'd. at the time of sightings, by these witnesses. Little pieces of misinformation accumulated, yet again to add weight, to what is becoming exceptionally flimsy, the more it is examined. IMO.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that point was in one of the 30-40 boxes presented to and knocked back by the SCCRC! (She gained access to the files in 2009).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 11:56:25 PM
And you can bet your bottom dollar that point was in one of the 30-40 boxes presented to and knocked back by the SCCRC! (She gained access to the files in 2009).

She removed 29 boxes of evidence from the charity’s Glasgow office this week.
Read more at https://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/luke-mitchells-mum-blasts-charity-for-lack-of-support#JcY2Txc7YFyQB83e.99

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 10, 2019, 03:31:57 PM
Really? No time to address the mis quotes of information until Monday, first response was within an hour of saying this.

My study just now is the play on 'words' the eagerness to respond , simply for attention of 'mis-information' put forth. What truly drives a person caught within lies?

“Paltering is the active use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression. Across 2 pilot studies and 6 experiments, we identify paltering as a distinct form of deception. Paltering differs from lying by omission (the passive omission of relevant information) and lying by commission (the active use of false statements). Our findings reveal that paltering is common in negotiations and that many negotiators prefer to palter than to lie by commission. Paltering, however, may promote conflict fueled by self-serving interpretations; palterers focus on the veracity of their statements (“I told the truth”), whereas targets focus on the misleading impression palters convey (“I was misled”). We also find that targets perceive palters to be especially unethical when palters are used in response to direct questions as opposed to when they are unprompted. Taken together, we show that paltering is a common, but risky, negotiation tactic. Compared with negotiators who tell the truth, negotiators who palter are likely to claim additional value, but increase the likelihood of impasse and harm to their reputations.

“We identify paltering as a distinct form of deception. Unlike lies by omission, paltering involves the active use of statements to create a false impression. Unlike lies by commission, paltering involves the use of truthful statements to mislead others. Importantly, paltering readily enables self-serving assessments of morality. By contrast, if discovered, targets harshly judge palterers who actively misled them. This contrast identifies a broken mental model. How greatly this broken model matters depends on how likely paltering is likely to be discovered relative to other deception tactics. Most importantly, we identify paltering as not only a distinct form of deception, but also a widely employed tactic in negotiations.
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000081.pdf
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 05:28:50 AM
What reason would the police have for deleting Luke Mitchell’s texts?

What time did he initially phone the police?

(The police operator who took Luke’s call asking police to come quickly noted, “The laddies in a right states”) (Excerpt from No Smoke)

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452391.html#msg452391

Luke deleting texts and call history
“He had no recollection of deleting texts. We now know that the call history was deleted just after 12.30am on July 1st - when the phone was in the possession of the police. We also know a text was sent from Luke's phone in this same time period and, although Luke was later grilled about "checking his voicemail" while standing on the path, waiting for the police, the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it . Since the police clearly interfered with the phone by deleting the call record  and allowing a text to be sent while the phone was in their possession, we can never be sure if it was Luke who deleted the earlier texts or not. All we have are his police statements that he had no recollection of doing so - from that, the police questioned him about what reasons he might have had for deleting them. Fair enough, you'd think, but that was exactly the line of questioning they used  when questioning him about why he thought Jodi hadn't turned up. Luke tried to think of various reasons and they later used that against him to suggest he was "lying." (Phone records and interview transcripts available

Saying he said “he had no recollection of deleting texts” doesn’t mean he didn’t.

What did this text allegedly sent by police say exactly and who was it sent to?

Could an explanation for this simply be the police logged the wrong time down for the time they seized the phone?

What time did police log Luke getting in the Land Rover and seizing his phone and what time did they arrive at the station?  Do all the times tally up? What officer logged the time? Had he been to the crime scene? Was the officer in a state of shock?

He also claims that when police arrived at the murder scene he was asked to take an officer to the body.
“I couldn’t. I couldn’t bring myself to go back over the wall,” said Mitchell. “Then an officer put me in the back of a police Land Rover and took my phone off me.”
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505

Did the police actually take him phone when in got in the Land Rover or is this a figure of speech? What do police notes/logs suggest?

Are there police statements stating an officer accidentally deleted Luke’s texts?

And what time period? 12.30am onwards? What time exactly?

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
“Texts on both Judy’s and Luke’s phone had been erased, so there is nothing to prove what was said in those texts. However, if this was the first point at which Luke became aware that he would be seeing Jodi that night (Since she was still “grounded”) an important issue arises. There are only 11-16 minutes between those texts being exchanged, and the sighting by Andrina Bryson at the Easthouses end of the path. It is not possible for Luke to have made the journey, on foot, from his home to the Easthouses end of the path in that time. Yet, what reason would he have, prior to that time, to be anywhere near the path? He believed he was not meeting Jodi because she had been grounded. .
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:34:01 AM
“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

Evidence her daughter had told her she’d be with Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 01:27:41 PM
Further evidence of WAP putting out disingenuous and misleading information into the public domain

“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

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".

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 - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
“Search party events 3” by Billy Middleton of now defunct WAP Organisation http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=19.0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOPKAviAgYM

22.39 Luke receives a text message on his phone from Judy

“Right Toad say night to Luke, that’s you grounded for another week”

Most of the information on the WAP forum at the time came from Luke Mitchell. Information he and his mother had given Sandra Lean in order to help her write the chapter in her book.

Sandra Lean didn’t get sight of the working case files until sometime in 2009/10.

Meaning Sandra Lean had an opportunity to correct misleading information in the public domain as early as 2009/10.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:38:09 PM

Luke deleting texts and call history
“He had no recollection of deleting texts. We now know that the call history was deleted just after 12.30am on July 1st - when the phone was in the possession of the police. We also know a text was sent from Luke's phone in this same time period and, although Luke was later grilled about "checking his voicemail" while standing on the path, waiting for the police, the records show, quite clearly, that this was a log of an incoming voicemail from Corinne asking where he was, being recorded on his phone, not Luke checking it . Since the police clearly interfered with the phone by deleting the call record  and allowing a text to be sent while the phone was in their possession, we can never be sure if it was Luke who deleted the earlier texts or not. All we have are his police statements that he had no recollection of doing so - from that, the police questioned him about what reasons he might have had for deleting them. Fair enough, you'd think, but that was exactly the line of questioning they used  when questioning him about why he thought Jodi hadn't turned up. Luke tried to think of various reasons and they later used that against him to suggest he was "lying." (Phone records and interview transcripts available

What date is Sandra Lean referring to when these questions are being posed to Luke? His first interview as a witness or the times he was interviewed as a suspect?

And Donald Findlay QC and his team failed to spot this but Sandra Lean has?

And David Morris from L&B tech support also didn’t notice this? Or are Luke Mitchell’s supporters claiming he was also part of some conspiracy?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 02:45:17 PM
Most of the information on the WAP forum at the time came from Luke Mitchell. Information he and his mother had given Sandra Lean in order to help her write the chapter in her book.

Sandra Lean didn’t get sight of the working case files until sometime in 2009/10.

Meaning Sandra Lean had an opportunity to correct misleading information in the public domain as early as 2009/10.

What was happening with the Luke Mitchell case around this time and what was going on with regards WAP and Billy Middleton etc.

Why the need by Sandra Lean to attempt a distraction with this? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383377.html#msg383377

Sandra Lean stated:

”It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 05:47:55 PM
 Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Quote
Yes, Sandra most certainly is! I do not have an "extremely strong relationship" with Corinne, she is not "my friend,"  or my "best buddy." My reasons for continuing with Luke's case have nothing to do with any relationship I have with Corinne - good or bad.

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:09:19 PM
Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.

Quite!

8 days before attending the COA, whilst I was in probably one of the most volatile and vulnerable positions I’ve ever experienced in my life, the pair of them chose to do this!?!

In a blatant attempt at damage limitations because THEY had been exposed!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:53:31 PM
Quote Sandra Lean http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

Understandably-Lawyers don't usually become friends with their clients, would seem feasable that, after Ms Leans stand down from the case following the SCCRC (Or having power removed at that point?) that any relationship may have became strained.

I suspect a conversation has been had amongst them, cards have been put on the table, and Corrine Mitchell has gone for it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 07:10:11 PM
Nugnug states: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452502.html#msg452502 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452502.html#msg452502)
thats not a refution its just insult.

seems you cant refute my point.

why would lue delted incriminating texts knowing full well jodis mum would still have them

why would jodis mum not go t the police and say she had them.

come on whats the nser to that


It’s basic logic, if only he and the rest of them understood the people within the case and could see past the BS.

Jodi was a private individual; she deleted her messages to Luke so that her mum wouldn’t see them.

The Joneses and extended family were and are a close knit, loving and private family. If Jodi’s mum did delete her messages it was done to protect her privacy. It’s normal for people to delete messages. The fact she handed her phone to the police shows she had nothing to hide. She would not have known if the police could have retrieved all the data or not.

The other fact of course is none us know what the make and models of the phones were and what there capabilities were at the time nor the capabilities of L&B police and their data retrieval systems at the the time.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 10:20:06 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452488.html#msg452488
I didn't mean the actual call was still on Luke's phone - I should have made that clearer. The record of the call going to voicemail is in the phone logs, Corinne said in her statement that she was trying to call Luke to find out what was going on, but got his voicemail - the timings given in her statement and both her and Luke's phone records all matched up. My point was that the police deliberately lied about Luke "checking his voicemail" when the log is clearly labelled "incoming

This isn’t a deliberate lie it’s a lie of commission. I very much doubt they would have been interviewing him with their call logs on the table in front of them, and him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 11:11:04 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 12:25:47 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.

It appears to me Sandra Lean is using the Luke Mitchell case as a mere means, just as she appears to have done in the Simon Hall case.

She is not concerned with how Luke Mitchell’s guilt will impact on and effect all those around him, she merely wants to use the case in a personal attempt to expose the CJS.

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452332.html#msg452332

I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.

Maybe before writing her 2nd book and demanding answers of others in her alleged search for the truth it would have been an idea for her to explain to the rest of us (Also searching for the truth) how it came to be she made the decision to go into partnership with Billy Middleton (And at the time she did) and to tell us all where the charity monies ended up?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.0

She didn’t resign until April 2013.

From:​ S​andra Lean
Sent:​ Friday, April 05, 2013 5:37 PM To:​ ​Billy Middleton
Subject:​ WAP
Dear Billy,
Please accept this email as notification of my resignation as a director of the Wrongly Accused Person charity
I have been unwell for some time now, and the stress of worrying about ​the accounts situation, in particular​, is something I cannot cope with at the moment, so I feel it is best if I simply resign, and concentrate on regaining my health.
Kind regards Sandra

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.msg524659#msg524659

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199

http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.htm

Sandra Lean stated in January 2011:
Throughout my involvement with the Wrongly Accused and Convicted, I have acted with honesty, integrity and transparency, and that will continue to be the case. I have the truth on my side, and nothing can change that. I am aware that the attacks will continue, and I have neither the time, energy, nor inclination to continually refute them.

For almost 8 years, I have done what I have done voluntarily, and at my own expense. I ask for nothing in return – this was my choice, and continues to be my choice. For those who wish to see my reputation destroyed, or to have me go away, crushed by their incessant attacks, I have just one message – not a chance. Do your worst – you will not stop me from doing what I do. In the words of Dr Wayne Dyer, what you think of me is none of my business. If I bow to your opinion of me, I become your version of me. Why would I want to do that?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8119.0
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 06:44:16 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/

Quote
“The prosecution are fond of inferring that the defendant was at the scene of a crime, based on Cell Site Analysis. We are often able to show the court that the defendant could also have been in a number of other places, as the serving cell covered a large geographical area.”


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 06:48:08 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.

Yep
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 12:34:41 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg

The Lerwick fire station offered room in its yard as well as the use of two hose reel jets.”
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2019/07/01/car-wash-raises-cash-for-mri-appeal/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 02:40:33 PM
These are the areas, when searching as to WHY? the police chose to fit up this laddie, for me fell flat. The constant supposition of pinning the blame from the onset. CM's claims of wanting him over the wall to leave his dna, Ms Leans that the police deleted the phone records, immediately upon taking his phone? Mainly though, the, I have all knowledge approach, I've seen it all. None of which can ever be fully backed up resulting in nothing being given a fair balance. Becomes tangled in multiple reasons behind different sources of misinformation. Basically, take your pick? believe or not.

During her podcast with JE Sandra Lean mentions “copycat murder”

Was “copycat murder” ever mentioned during Luke Mitchell trial?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 13, 2019, 03:45:26 PM
Quote
During her podcast with JE Sandra Lean mentions “copycat murder”

Was “copycat murder” ever mentioned during Luke Mitchell trial?



Not that I am aware of? resemblance to which is not of the same strength of meaning as "copycat". to infer copycat, easier to dismantle evidence showing in retrospect of the the Manson dvd. IMO
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:08:00 PM


Not that I am aware of? resemblance to which is not of the same strength of meaning as "copycat". to infer copycat, easier to dismantle evidence showing in retrospect of the the Manson dvd. IMO

Neither am I

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 07:02:42 PM
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/


Another area of misleading/misinformation. Ms Leans claims that the police did not try to trace where Lukes/anyones mobiles were being used from. Probably aware that 1) they were tested and or 2) in 2003, mobile tracking data was in its infancy. Covering an area from the defendants house to where it is believed he used his phone, would have been impossible to determine, other that the general area.

According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

“A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 07:38:38 PM
According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

“A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago

”over a decade ago” not 16 years ago

interesting
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:00:56 PM
According to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

A full review of the case can be found in a recently published book titled ‘Innocents Betrayed’, written by criminologist Dr Sandra Lean who has already spearheaded some of the SCCRC appeals. The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury. Such anomalies today would likely raise eyebrows among Police officials, which brings into question the reliability and overall safety of the conviction of Luke Mitchell for this crime over a decade ago. Furthermore, a podcast with Dr Sandra Lean can now be found on YouTube where she discusses some of the anomalies, such as DNA profiles which were identified at the scene as being from different individuals (i.e, that of a used condom located near the deceased body of Jodi Jones). Between the podcast and the book, a full comprehensive overview of never seen before elements of this crime are now within the public domain.

At the bottom of the page it states: Last edited 21 days ago by Ginsburg5882

And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginsburg5882 is states: Ginsburg5882 Joined 24 days ago

And the new book contains a “a full review of the case” then states “The 350+ page book outlines numerous anomalies that were never presented before the Jury”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:14:14 PM
Wrongly Accused
@WronglyAccused1
·
5h
Sheila Williamson donated to this even after hearing how many mistakes I'd made already 😂 (link: https://www.facebook.com/1755326327/posts/10206364988520971/) facebook.com/1755326327/pos…

https://mobile.twitter.com/wronglyaccused1?lang=en

https://m.facebook.com/MRIMaakers/posts/2032398537069879?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCW-it8YV18HQNHLECm97lP7daU6iyNZZu6ZQ8wMu0irXUBmkDkym7rWDkUgcSm5yl7GLHOXdHbaIOZxIGX67CtAcE0raB9NAGenANpYhFcopg_pbtKsP0B6PL67A4Wb3l-ekxiLYanRy4N6D8AsgreVPW5ZJ1wORrxYBKNHNYqP5vBhoCoUoB_pnHukzG8UGhz7hVxmwiKkwDG-fMXwoIALzJWVyVShRq7Zp9QZ35EblhASsga17FGUI4YRh1nwdms-YR24fNheHkDmZ6T4AZ9bAB8SZ2kUL2DpsZClWEohT39pjM4aiWudwHzRqBJ60wA5AdNCcdvZJDoAlSfw9nvbhFPL-PO8yv4vH6cQDIfNS8n&__tn__=%2Cg

”Poor Billy! His mum designs a hat she thinks might sell a dozen of, them it goes global. He has pattern design, online marketing, photography, website and Facebook to deal with and now knitting. They say it’s relaxing and therapeutic Billy. Good luck!

https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=2032398537069879_2032426683733731&count=2&curr&pc=1&ft_ent_identifier=2032398537069879&gfid=AQAOXmMv905xYCPh
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
There are so many lies being told in this case so thought it was worth pointing out about the family liaison officer.

She was appointed on 1 July 2003 and contacted the Mitchell family that evening.”
(157) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

So the Mitchell’s or Luke had the whole of the following day to dispose of incriminating evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 15, 2019, 12:14:22 AM
There are so many lies being told in this case so thought it was worth pointing out about the family liaison officer.

She was appointed on 1 July 2003 and contacted the Mitchell family that evening.”
(157) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

So the Mitchell’s or Luke had the whole of the following day to dispose of incriminating evidence.

Had most of the night of the 30th, any other time of the Liaison officer not being present (not there 24/7) Media used as another reason prohibiting any disposal.

Luke being out of the house, witnessed yet lied regarding length of time. Shane out and about that evening also.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 08:35:38 AM
Had most of the night of the 30th, any other time of the Liaison officer not being present (not there 24/7) Media used as another reason prohibiting any disposal.

Luke being out of the house, witnessed yet lied regarding length of time. Shane out and about that evening also.

Sandra Lean states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452619.html#msg452619
The "struck by a branch" suggestion came from SIO Dobbie - there was nothing to support it (for example, no impact staining on any of the branches, only drips)

Maybe because it had been taken away from the crime scene and burnt
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 01:12:03 PM
“Furthermore, it ought to be recognised that a substantial part of the publicity which the case had attracted was based upon statements made by or on behalf of the appellant. The fact that some of the publicity had been generated in that way was relevant to the present issue. If some disadvantage was self-inflicted, the appellant could hardly complain of it.” [54]
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:24:22 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that Ferris's statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that (Ferris's statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John Ferris said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]


There’s no doubting it’s intentional Parky
https://exploringyourmind.com/7-ways-identify-master-manipulator/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:36:10 PM
Fake news, also known as junk news or pseudo-news, is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media or online social media.

Fake news is written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[5][6][7] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership. Similarly, clickbait stories and headlines earn advertising revenue from this activity.[5]

Fake news is a neologism[1][19][21] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media[1] or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate [/i]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 02:45:41 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that Ferris's statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that (Ferris's statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John Ferris said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]


Misinformation or disinformation?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 03:12:13 PM
The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that Ferris's statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that (Ferris's statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John Ferris said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]


So much for transparency
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 05:19:31 PM
Podcast with James English and Sandra Lean and discussion at beginning re lie detectors

Neither of them knew what the questions were gonna be they didn’t know until the day the guy turned up to do the test and they were done I think two months apart so there wasn’t even an opportunity for them to discuss potential answers because they had no idea what was gonna be asked
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 05:43:48 PM
Is nugnug claiming to have heard the interviews? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452828.html#msg452828

untill you hear the interview you dont actull i think it was more along the lines of he id know  maybe not

it was an increible agressive interview that the sccrc agread breached his human rights.


Luke Mitchell was interviewed several times by police but their behaviour was not found to be “overbearing” on every occasion he was questioned.



[144] The first passage that had been founded upon by the Crown was to be found at page 17 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant agreed that on 30 June 2003 his mother and brother had had a fire in the log burner.
However, there had been evidence of that fire from Mr and Mrs Frankland and also from Mr Ramage.

The second passage relied upon was at page 21 of the transcript of the interview and related to the knife owned by the appellant. A photograph of the knife had been shown to him. That photograph had not featured elsewhere in evidence, but the knife itself had done so, for example, at page 106 of the transcript of the earlier part of the interview, Crown production 42, which had not been objected to.

A further passage relied upon was to be found at page 35 of the transcript in which the appellant had explained why he did not telephone the now deceased to see where she was when she failed to meet him. It was submitted that this passage had not made any new contribution to the evidence, since the appellant had said to David High that that was the case.

Reference was also made to the transcript, Crown production 40, pages 70, 120 and 143. The fourth passage relied upon by the Advocate depute was at pages 36 to 37 of the transcript, where the appellant was asked why he had not telephoned Jodi Jones when he had got home after playing with his friends. There had been nothing in that passage which had not appeared elsewhere in the evidence.

The fifth passage relied upon appeared at pages 39 to 40 of the transcript of the interview, where the appellant had been asked about what he had said to David High when he met him and why he appeared to know that David High had said to the police that the appellant had said to him that Jodi was not coming out on the night in question. The fact was that the appellant had not agreed that he had said this at all. In any event, there had been no overbearing behaviour on the part of the interviewers at that point.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 19, 2019, 05:51:59 PM
“[144] Further, the appellant had said to Judith Jones that he had thought that Jodi had been "grounded".
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 12:15:33 PM
@ approx 11.28 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UbHl3oCCClI

Corrine Mitchell says;

At one point when Luke asked for a certain witness to be called his QC banged his fist on the table and said ‘it’s my way or no way laddie.”

“Asked by the popular podcast host about the trial, and why her son seemingly refused to give his side of the story, Corrine tells James: “Findlay wouldn’t allow him.”

When James ask why, she responds: “I’ve no idea, he just wouldn’t allow him. Luke wanted to take the stand, we wanted him to take the stand, but when you’re 15 you don’t argue with Findlay.”

If you say something that Findlay doesn’t like he’d slam his fist down on the desk and say, ‘It’s my way or no way, laddy!’”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4298552/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-trial-lawyer-mum-corrine-james-english-anything-goes-innocent/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Findlay says: “I do worry. I worry about what is happening during a trial. I tend to take work home with me, and after a trial if the client has been convicted then I worry that perhaps I could or should have done better.

"But during a trial you do see some pretty horrendous things. Man’s inhumanity to man is pretty endless and you just have to harden yourself and look as it as best as you can as a piece of evidence.

“But some things I have looked at can be quite distressing, involving dead children and so on.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17769853.donald-findlay-qc-talks-distressing-toll-work/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 25, 2019, 01:14:28 AM
Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

Area at present- JoJ, brother , Joey ?? whatever the handle. Never been questioned, under the radar and so forth as is being maintained at present.  Will post sources from SL going back to 2012. One in ref to Joj stateing they had sat around the table eating dinner, another of his medical conditions ( extracting from them but not divulging what is in them) Q re misinformation, why are these medical notes within sight of SL and the information from Joj himself regarding eating dinner togeter round table? Quite the opposite of not being questioned or followed up IF there are medical notes in the first instance and 'his' statement of sitting eating dinner together.  So , the obvious is, the police , prosecution/defence did do interviews and background work on him- Now the cry is of 'nothing' . A somewhat large piece of selective misinformation for purpose of?


Will post source later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on July 25, 2019, 05:44:01 PM
Excuse timings-supposed to be on my hols! Working away within given opportunities, making notes re misinformation as per.

Area at present- JoJ, brother , Joey ?? whatever the handle. Never been questioned, under the radar and so forth as is being maintained at present.  Will post sources from SL going back to 2012. One in ref to Joj stateing they had sat around the table eating dinner, another of his medical conditions ( extracting from them but not divulging what is in them) Q re misinformation, why are these medical notes within sight of SL and the information from Joj himself regarding eating dinner togeter round table? Quite the opposite of not being questioned or followed up IF there are medical notes in the first instance and 'his' statement of sitting eating dinner together.  So , the obvious is, the police , prosecution/defence did do interviews and background work on him- Now the cry is of 'nothing' . A somewhat large piece of selective misinformation for purpose of?


Will post source later.

Did SL’s spiel re her interests and hobbies remind you of the Carol Felstead case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on July 27, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
G30
Quote
Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis
[/b].


One of the main areas around doubt being cast on the LM case is the presence of DNA from traced sources. Of which there are two full profiles- one being SK and the other condom man. There has been, time and time again misinformation pushed out on this. So much so that still, 16yrs later it is used as one of the main points to draw in support. For those who believe in the wrongful conviction of LM. SK, is a very unfortunate guy whom by a simple twist of fate, was drawn into being a suspect in one of this countries most heinous crimes. Not enough for this guy to have known the victim, to have been there when she was found, no doubt traumatized, the main supporters of LM feel it is right that he is brought to the fore time and time again. Books, podcasts and so forth. 

The continuous attempts to cast doubt on the search parties statements revolve around this. For those not aware of many aspects of this case. The search party went to the Path connecting the areas to meet LM as he was already at the foot of it.  The mismatch of telephone conversations centre on what LM has stated (proven to have lied over and over) and not the truth-heard at trial.

SK- I have provided a link below in respect of, the testing of sperm residue through washing cycles. Evidence was shown in court to this effect. The victims clothing smelt strongly of washing powder,( LM's hair of shampoo although dirty from his escapades in the woods later that evening) Evidence also produced on the transfer of sperm between clothing. The claims that it could not have transferred via the rain and so forth on that night. How do these people know that-by their own admission they do not know at what points the clothing may have been together, neither do they know if it transferred via a washing cycle. One scenario given of white clothes washed with dark, that it just doesn't happen? I'm guilty of that. Are others? when washing items at a low temp. Was the bra within the t-shirt and not noticed? No one knows. BUT the innocent reason for the DNA being there is and IMO was just that

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on July 31, 2019, 04:34:12 PM
G30 .


One of the main areas around doubt being cast on the LM case is the presence of DNA from traced sources. Of which there are two full profiles- one being SK and the other condom man. There has been, time and time again misinformation pushed out on this. So much so that still, 16yrs later it is used as one of the main points to draw in support. For those who believe in the wrongful conviction of LM. SK, is a very unfortunate guy whom by a simple twist of fate, was drawn into being a suspect in one of this countries most heinous crimes. Not enough for this guy to have known the victim, to have been there when she was found, no doubt traumatized, the main supporters of LM feel it is right that he is brought to the fore time and time again. Books, podcasts and so forth. 

The continuous attempts to cast doubt on the search parties statements revolve around this. For those not aware of many aspects of this case. The search party went to the Path connecting the areas to meet LM as he was already at the foot of it.  The mismatch of telephone conversations centre on what LM has stated (proven to have lied over and over) and not the truth-heard at trial.

SK- I have provided a link below in respect of, the testing of sperm residue through washing cycles. Evidence was shown in court to this effect. The victims clothing smelt strongly of washing powder,( LM's hair of shampoo although dirty from his escapades in the woods later that evening) Evidence also produced on the transfer of sperm between clothing. The claims that it could not have transferred via the rain and so forth on that night. How do these people know that-by their own admission they do not know at what points the clothing may have been together, neither do they know if it transferred via a washing cycle. One scenario given of white clothes washed with dark, that it just doesn't happen? I'm guilty of that. Are others? when washing items at a low temp. Was the bra within the t-shirt and not noticed? No one knows. BUT the innocent reason for the DNA being there is and IMO was just that

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508

Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 01, 2019, 12:02:55 PM
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

I am compiling a list of comments and sources when I get home from holiday.  The report came from a post by 'Jigsawman' from the Fact & Myth site.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on August 01, 2019, 01:39:22 PM
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and the penalties for breaching same. Please keep posts amicable and constructive and above all, on topic. TY
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 04, 2019, 12:41:28 PM

Quote
Can you show a source for Luke's hair smelling of shampoo? Not sure I've heard that before.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL
Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 09:19:32 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 10:12:27 AM
Thanks but is that your only source for Luke's hair apparently smelling of shampoo? Is this another case of you intentionally putting misinformation out in the world for your thesis? I ask because you have only quoted part of the post and made it sound like the exact opposite of what Sandra was clearly intending:

"We'd then have to factor in Luke getting completely cleaned up and back out with the dog at 10.30pm to be out when Judith's text for Jodi came in at 10.38pm. During that period, he'd have to get dirty again. The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt) - it was quite clear that Luke's hair was described as "unwashed"."

She is saying that the police doctor would have commented that his hair smelt clean but was dirty if that has been the case which it clearly wasn't.


What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 10:55:08 AM

What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.


Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?

I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 11:46:28 AM
I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.

Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.

Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?

Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.

So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.

Quote
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt)
[/color]


It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 12:05:27 PM



It's the little things, my humblest apologies Baz. "His hair smelled freshly washed". My little brain running away with me here. No shampoo 'actually' mentioned.


Good to see, you're on the ball. :-) Keep up the good work, you can obviously pick up the misinformation from the facts.

My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 12:13:09 PM
My issue isn't that shampoo itself wasn't specifically mentioned. My issue is that no one has said that Luke's hair smelled freshly washed. You have, AGAIN!!, taken a small part of a sentence out of it's context and changed the original meaning. I think the punctuation in the original post has perhaps caused you some confusion but as Sandra has just clarified that you've taken her words wrongly, I don't understand why you are continuing to believe this.

What Sandra's post is expressing is this, and I hope my editing the quote helps you to get it:

The police doctor didn't say "his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed"

He didn't say this. He didn't say it was dirty but smelled washed. No one, as far as I have ever read about the case, claims that Luke's hair smelled washed.

Does that help at all?

You're wilfully pushing misinformation.

Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 05, 2019, 01:28:38 PM
Apologies again Baz, I appear to have upset you somehow. Most definitely not my intention. The statement is however pretty clear. The police doctor did not state (say) that LM's hair was dirty BUT oddly smelled washed. SL? is referring to what the police doctor reported? If there is confusion in that, it is from SL, yes?

Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 05, 2019, 03:32:19 PM
Don't worry, it would take a lot more than this to upset me. I'm just thoroughly confused by why you are obstinately sticking to your belief that Luke's hair smelled washed based on a forum post by Sandra in which she states the exact opposite. Even more so now that she has out right stated today: "My quote is absolutely clear - the police doctor did not say Luke's hair smelled of shampoo."


SL is picking up on the word 'shampoo' She is not disputing her reference to the police doctors report on 'smelling washed'. She is, as your are?, putting forth that I am taking things out of context. (pushing out misinformation) You asked a question about proof of 'shampoo'. I gave an answer of 'similarity'  - IF (IMO) some ones hair 'smells' washed, it would give the 'impression' one had 'smelled' shampoo.

I therefore apologized to yourself for using the word 'shampoo'. However, what SL may take from 'her' comment on this, 'smelled washed,' is neither here nor there. IF she is correct, that the police doctor did indeed say LM's hair smelled washed, it is up to us, as individuals to deduce what we may from it. For me, that although his hair had been dirtied over the evening, it had at some point been washed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Rusty on August 05, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Bullseye on August 05, 2019, 08:24:17 PM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

I don’t think it matters who baz is, what they are saying is spot on imo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Baz on August 06, 2019, 08:37:21 AM
You sure this baz, is not actually you know who?

Voldemort?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Parky41 on August 06, 2019, 12:34:11 PM
Voldemort?
(&^&

 Slytherin,  Those cunning folk use any means, To achieve their ends.     8)--)) *%87
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 01:46:25 AM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:04:51 AM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks

Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:12:59 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

Sandra Lean and the Mitchell’s need updating also

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:17:54 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

2011
“The murder trial began at the High Court in Glasgow on 1 February this year, making it the longest criminal trial with a single accused in Scottish legal history.
The jury took less than four hours to convict Webster.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/malcolm-webster-guilty-of-killing-first-wife-and-attempted-murder-of-his-second-1-1648802
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 11:37:12 AM
Mitchell was tried for the murder and after Scotland's longest single-accused trial, Mitchell was convicted in January 2005. (Prior to the trial of Malcolm Webster which surpassed Mitchell’s case as the longest single-accused trial). He was sentenced to detention without limit of time with a minimum of 20 years even though there was no DNA evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jodi_Jones

2005
“The Jodi Jones murder case is, it has been said, the longest Scottish murder trial against a single accused.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 01:06:43 PM
Murderer Malcolm Webster - Scotland's longest-lasting single accused criminal trial - 16 weeks

Sandra Lean Sept 2018
“This would be the biggest embarrassment possibly ever for the Scottish police.
It was such a big case, the longest trial of a single accused in Scottish history. He was 14 years old when they first targeted him.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16868077.crime-experts-fight-to-clear-luke-mitchell/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2019, 12:15:44 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452720.html#new

 SL

Also sated by SL. I'll post the Jigsawman (similar post!) later.

Any luck with this Parky?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 08, 2019, 10:49:41 AM
Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


The fly in the ointment for me sort of speak is the guy who boasted in prison that he killed Jodi Jones. Alan Roberts was a predator with learning difficulties who used the cycleways around Edinburgh regularly. He would go out on his bicycle armed with a rape kit which he could used to gag and restrain his victim. He was eventually caught and convicted, it was after this that he made the confession to a fellow prisoner. The police and Mitchell's defence team were told of Robert's confession at the time, he was thereafter interviewed in HMP Edinburgh by Lothian & Borders Police. I have always wondered if the unknown DNA found at the murderscene was ever cross checked against Robert's DNA. One would have thought that Mitchell's then defence team would have followed up on these things.

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/rape-kit-man-begins-life-sentence-for-sex-attack-1-1047688

On the other hand, there is evidence that Luke Mitchell had the opportunity to carry out the murder, at least three independent witnesses place him near the murderscene, he also had the perfect escape route back to his house without being seen walking along the main road. He had a history of cannabis abuse and had previously threatened another girl with a knife. All very sinister imo.


Q1. Sandra Lean has a history of forgetting things but to be fair she usually apologises and retracts later.

Q2. Sandra Lean takes so much for granted when she categorically claims that no clothes were burned. She has no special inside knowledge what occurred, she wasn't there, she is merely repeating the Mitchell story.  There was ample opportunity to dispose of items during the many hours following the murder when Luke Mitchell was allegedly playing in the woods.

Q3. Sandra Leans criticism of the police for allegedly not acquiring the mobile phone analysis of Luke's phone movements on the night of the murder is warranted but the failure of the defence to do so is inexcusable. The old legal aid excuse just doesn't wash IMO.  Luke Mitchell could very well have been seen with Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path, his mobile phone being in his jacket pocket. After all, he was seen at the other end of the path shortly after Jodi's murder by two independent witnesses in a car.

Q4. Sandra Lean claims that there was no forensic evidence linking Luke Mitchell to the crimescene or the crimescene to him. Given that it rained on the crimescene on the night following the murder it was to be expected that valuable forensic evidence would be washed away. The police failure to protect the crimescene is well documented, even the first forensic officer to attend the scene was so fat she couldn't get over the wall to inspect the body...what a shambles.  Forensics failed to identify any DNA connecting Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones despite the fact that they were together earlier in the school day...failures all around agreed.

Q5. Fair point on the polygraph but as it is a fake science imo, I see it as being of limited use. There are exceptions of course, one being the Prout case when following a failed polygraph, Adrian Prout confessed to murdering his wife.

Q6. Repeat reference to contaminated crimescene covered in Q4 above.

Q7. I agreed that the police interview of 14-year-old Luke Mitchell was disgraceful but that doesn't render him not guilty. Sandra Lean suggests that Luke's conviction should be quashed merely because of the way in which he was interviewed, effectively a technical overturning of his conviction. This in itself smaks of sheer desperation imo.

Q8. Further reference to lack of forensics linking Luke Mitchell to the crimescene.

Q9. Sandra Lean suggests that old school defence lawyer Donald Findlay QC failed to grasp the extent to which the media involvement in the case affected the outcome.  He certainly cost an arm and a leg for all his failed efforts!

Q10. Sandra Lean questions the alibi provided in respect of Jodi's sister's boyfriend and other Jones family members. This blaming of others as a means to exonerate Luke Mitchell has been a consistent element of her involvement in the case.

She refers to the condom which found near the crimescene and again points out that there was no forensic connection to Luke Mitchell. She draws attention again to the police forensic failings and alleges that they intentionally briefed that the condom was unconnected to Jodi's murder.

Q11. Sandra Lean denies that she had blamed others for the murder of Jodi Jones but the documented online record speaks for itself. Sandra Lean claims that she is irrelevant in the case and is only the messenger...hmm

Q12. Sandra Lean claims to do what she does for Jodi's family just as much as for Luke's as neither have got justice. That is Sandra's opinion.

Q13. The question as to why only Luke Mitchell was treated as a suspect when others had been on the path the night that Jodi was murdered yet none of them were taken in for questioning that night, had their clothing taken for analysis or were subjected to a physical examination by a police doctor. Sandra Lean is right to ridicule the police actions but again, this has no relevance to Luke Mitchell's guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: John on September 08, 2019, 04:05:19 PM
Contd.

Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


Q14. Sandra Lean's response to the question as to why the Mitchell Alsatian Mia didn't find Jodi's body the first time she and Luke Mitchell walked past it is extremely convoluted. I would take the claim that the dog could be 'put into tracker mode' with a very big pinch of salt. In any event, Luke Mitchell had just walked along the path and found nothing whatsoever untoward, why on earth would he do anything differently on the way back unless he knew where Jodi's remains lay.

Q15. This question touches on Luke Mitchell's use of cannabis.  Immediately, Sandra goes into defensive mode and instead of answering the question posed, she goes off at a tangent to ask why the other cannabis users weren't investigated too.  I refer back to the James English interview at this point when Sandra Lean stated that Luke was a normal student with no issues. Is it normal for a 14-year-old schoolboy to be using his bedroom to weigh and package cannabis to be sold to other schoolchildren?  Clearly yet another large pinch of salt required.

Q16. This question touches on Luke's use of cannabis and how psychosis may have played a part in Jodi's murder. Sandra Lean again goes into a defensive mode pointing out that someone very close to Jodi, her brother actually, was allegedly on the highest prescription for psychosis even though he was a regular cannabis user.

Q17. This question was posed by someone who apparently knew Sandra Lean's daughters and had met Luke and his mother at the caravan park. They claim that his goth look made him stand out and an obvious target of police interest.  Sandra Lean rubbishes this observation yet she claims not to have known Luke or his mother prior to the murder.

Q18. This respondent asks why Sandra Lean only puts out facts and information favourable to Luke Mitchell. I think we all know the answer to that one.

Q19. This responded claimed that Sandra Lean has a motive and that is to prove that Luke Mitchell has no case to answer.  I wonder where he or she got that idea from?

Q20. This question relates to disclosure and the basis on which an appeal can be made. Sandra Lean states that only new evidence which has surfaced since the initial trial can be used in an appeal. She asks how Donald Findlay can defend against something he doesn't know about?

Q21. This from someone who knew a policeman who worked on the case. Claims that the moment he heard about the murder he knew that Luke Mitchell was involved. Also claims that he told his own son to keep away from Mitchell at school. Sandra Lean replies that this is the problem with this case, many claims but no context, no evidence, nothing.  Could this be another instance where Sandra Lean is blind to incriminating evidence?

Q22. Raises the claim that convicted rapist Robert Greens might have been the killer. Sandra Lean states that the police refused to give an answer when asked if Greens had been investigated with respect to Jodi's murder.

Q23. Asks why Luke didn't show emotion. Sandra Lean explains that he was warned not to show emotion as he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. She goes on to explain that Mitchell was on strong medication, the purpose of which was to stifle such emotions.

Q24. Respondent asks why Sandra Lean stopped working on the case?  Sandra states that she stopped working bon it in 2014 but started again in 2016. She explains that when the SCCRC refused to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the evidence she had presented that she felt that there was nowhere left to go.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
Post by: WakeyWakey on September 09, 2019, 01:01:04 AM
Look like your reply broken John.

Contd.

Sandra Lean answers questions following the James English podcast, "Did Luke Mitchell kill Jodi Jones" revealing more shocking details about the case.


Q14. Sandra Lean's response to the question as to why the Mitchell Alsatian Mia didn't find Jodi's body the first time she and Luke Mitchell walked past it is extremely convoluted. I would take the claim that the dog could be 'put into tracker mode' with a very big pinch of salt.

regarding this


Q11. Sandra Lean denies that she had blamed others for the murder of Jodi Jones but the documented online record speaks for itself. Sandra Lean claims that she is irrelevant in the case and is only the messenger...hmm


i share your doubt here. woiuld like to be able to establish with certainty prior links to the acccused family but havent ben able to concretely yet.  i was one of those cockburn street youths of years 2002 or about then and remember sandras daughter and luke being pals. (he sold me hash once lol) seems very likely to me that they all knew each other even then