Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 1405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2019, 01:37:29 PM »
Another thing:

Has anyone read Sandraís book Innocents Betrayed? I donít think this so-called criminologist is really of a high caliber.  She doesnít have any credible publications other than a couple of self-written books, hasnít had anyone else credible work alongside her for any substantial period of time, and she also doesnít appear to be associated with, or affiliated to, any university.   

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

Further, I noticed she also made a complete hash of another notable case where she wrongly defended an individual who later came out with a confession for the murder, and people said she hadnít even apologised to the victims family.  Sheís been working on the Mitchell case alone for 15 years.  I suspect she only gained a PhD in criminology so she could gain access to the case papers due to an obsession and infatuation with it. 

I donít actually think she is a credible researcher at all, but more a self-styled sleuth who takes the pride and pleasure of having Dr as her title.  She loves the attention from the media, but hasnít got a reputable peer-reviewed publication to her name.  She doesnít work on behalf of any university, and also therefore doesnít have an office for people to write to or communicate with her. 

Therefore, her input in this case has very much given the public a chance to read case files as presented in her new book, but her overall stance has to be taken with a pinch of salt.  She believes Mitchell is innocent.   Her Ďexpertiseí doesnít really give her argument much weight due to the previous, and I would actually argue that Mitchell isnít innocent.  Sheís not credible or well known enough to pass judgment.

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2019, 02:23:07 PM »
There are, it seems, a few who agree with you and your criticisms of Sandra Lean. And there are people here who know her in real life and so are perhaps better placed to comment than you and I are. However, I feel she gets judged unfairly and by some it is for personal reasons rather than honest criticisms of her efforts.

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

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

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

(I presume you meant self published rather than self written because that would be an extremely strange criticism)

Online Guiltyascharged

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2019, 02:30:06 PM »
sandra has been very unprofessional over the years, pointing the finger at anyone. theres a strong case against luke, nothing against anynumber of people shes tried to point the finger at. hes guilty, end of!

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2019, 05:05:50 PM »
Well, I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions regarding Sandra.  I think she has done an excellent job at exposing this case in her new book, but she does go in extremely hard on the police, almost to a point where it looks very slanderish.  I donít know.  She seems and comes across too involved in the case to be entirely objective and has no doubt been influenced by the Mitchellís over the years.

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

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

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

It would be interesting to know whether the speaking clock had been phoned at any other time in his call history.  Was this a one off occasion or a pattern? Mobile phones have a clock on them.  If he was at home as his mother said, then why is he phoning for the time? There wouldíve been an item at home that couldíve told him that information, such as the computer.  The last thing you would think about to find out what time it was would be to dial the speaking clock. 

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2019, 05:12:05 PM »
sandra has been very unprofessional over the years, pointing the finger at anyone. theres a strong case against luke, nothing against anynumber of people shes tried to point the finger at. hes guilty, end of!

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

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

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

Luke's brother's evidence is more concerning to me. But doesn't prove guilt by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2019, 05:44:43 PM »
Why would he do that from his mobile when he had a landline next to him, though? Why would he do it at all when he was ďat homeĒ anyway? Iím not saying it is damning per se, and ultimately much less so than when his brother couldnít confirm if he was home, but it is another one for the strange basket.

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

Basically, he must have known.  If Mitchell was downstairs cooking dinner, then Shane would have said so.  He would have categorically said so.  The fact he wasnít sure, which I donít buy anyway, tends to suggest he wasnít, as does the mobile telephone to the talking clock, which so happened to be made four minutes after Jodi had left her grandmothers.

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

We donít know who was on the end of the phone when the call was made to her work.  It could have easily been Shane, as already we know he was at home.  What we donít know is whether Mitchell was at home, and why he phoned the talking clock four minutes after Jodi had left to meet him.  That implies to me, on the face of things, that he was checking the time to ensure that he was exactly where he should have been at that point in time.  Why else would he phone the talking clock? We all do strange things when we are younger as you say, but it seems such an outrageous coincidence that this call was made four minutes after she left and that she died on a path that was known to them.  She didnít die on her way to the local grocery store to get shopping for her gran, or even on her way to her sisters.  It seems such a coincidence that she died on her way to meet him.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 05:48:17 PM by TheArmchairDetective »

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2019, 12:28:09 AM »
Are you also aware that Mitchell had spoken with Jodiís step-father Alan Ovens at 17:40 asking if she was ďcoming outĒ? Mr Ovens has confirmed to Mitchell that she had already left (which was about 50 minutes prior) yet Mitchell makes no further enquiries all evening as to why she hadnít appeared at the path where they were supposed to meet.  He only made an effort to find her around five hours later after receiving a text from Jodiís mother.

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

I donít buy it.  It took until nearly 23:00pm that evening for Jodi to even be mentioned again, which was when her mother messaged Mitchellís phone looking for her. 

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2019, 12:32:23 AM »
Why do these threads all turn into a discussion about Sandra, or a personal slagging match as it appears most of the time. As far as Iím concerned she has always tried to answer peoples questions when really she doesnít have to. She has set me right a few times both stuff that goes for and agains Luke. All she is trying to do is help people she believes to be innocent and I take my hat off to her for putting up with all the crap she gets but still carries on. She would certainly be someone Iíd contact if Iíd been done for something I didnít do.

I think the reason he used the mobile to call speaking clock was because he was cooking tea and was getting the time right, I use to call the speaking clock all the time, any excuse really, one reason was for timing the dinner, he used his mobile as the landline would have been engaged as Shane was using the internet. But Shaneís statements have always been confusing to me, did he say he was looking at porn or could he not remember?   There has always been a lot of debate over that and what he remembers from that evening. For me whatever he remembers is proof of Lukeís innocence or guilt, was Luke home, who cooked the dinner, did he see Luke at all, was he watching porn, all this has been mixed up over the years both online and in the papers thatís why I think it be great if he was to release an open letter or statements to clear up the confusion once and for all.

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2019, 10:11:13 AM »
To remind you about Shane Mitchellís testimony -

Luke Mitchell v. Her Majestyís Advovate

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

Shane was viewing porn at the time.  In my opinion, I think it is reasonable to say that whilst engaging in such a task, Shane would have ensured he was safe to do this.  Viewing porn is a private act, one of which would be highly embarrassing if caught, perhaps even highly off-putting if your younger sibling is moping around the house.  You just wouldnít do it if someone else was at home, unless by todays standards you could view it using a smart phone and used the bathroom.  This wouldnít have been the case in 2003.  The porn was on a computer.

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

You say he phoned the speaking clock from his mobile to ensure he had the time right for cooking tea.  Why didnít he simply 1) check a clock, 2) if he didnít own a clock, check the television or some other device.  Youíre saying Shane was on the internet using the landline, then how would it have been possible for Mitchell to have contacted his mother? She claims they had exchanged a telephone call using the landline.  Furthermore, Donald Findlay said in his defence that Mitchell may have phoned the speaking clock out of pure idleness whist at home.  Funnily enough, he didnít suggest that Mitchell had ever used this service previously at any other time, other than - very coincidentally - four minutes after Jodi had left to come and meet him on June 30th 2003.  If Mitchell had used the speaking clock as a regular service, then we could claim it would have likely been another innocent phone call.  There was never any mention in the defence that he had used this service before for anything else, so why at 16:54 on the day he is supposed to meet Jodi?

« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 10:29:09 AM by TheArmchairDetective »

Online Guiltyascharged

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2019, 11:33:34 AM »
Normal tenagers dont threaten girls with knifes

Its no secret that Shane Mitchell, Luke Mitchell's brother runs his own company in Livingston, Scotland.
So lets here from him or is the real reason we dont is because he knows his brother is guilty?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 01:44:04 PM by Angelo222 »

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2019, 11:47:55 AM »
I believe the calls to his mum was before Shane was home and online. I donít know why he called the speaking clock I was only suggesting an explanation going on the reasons I used it when I was younger. I got in big trouble for calling it so much, any reason and making tea was one of them, I had a clock in the kitchen too by the way but would still use the speaking clock. But thatís just me. If I remember correctly was there not call logs on both his mobile and landline to show he called the speaking clock lots of times before? Why It was not used in court Iím not sure but I think there was a fair bit that Findlay didnít use ie the dog training experts and tests carried out donít think that was used in the defence either.

The circumstantial evidence is huge as you say, just a lot of it for me doesnít sit right and as he was only a young laddie at the time Iíd hope for something a bit more concrete as Iím sure a lot of others would. I hope he is guilty, I really do but Iíd just like to hear something that makes me say Yes, it was him. For me it comes down to what the brother can remember, Iíd love to ask him what he does remember from that day, who made the tea, was he watching porn and tossing off, did he think Luke was home, did he see or hear Luke at all, did him mum try to make him give a story he knew to be a lie, does he think his brother did it. Either that or some new full dna evidence found, Lukeís or someone elseís. But I doubt we will ever know for sure unless he or someone else confesses.

I just seen this new post, I donít think itís right to put up peoples personal information on an open forum.

Online Guiltyascharged

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2019, 11:52:09 AM »
Sandra Lean claims its the reason we dont hear from Shane Mitchell. Its no secret.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 01:45:04 PM by Angelo222 »

Offline Baz

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2019, 11:53:51 AM »
Shane said he couldnít be sure Mitchell was in the house, therefore he is not able to confirm his alibi.  Shane would only have viewed porn had the house been empty. 

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

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


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

I donít buy it.  It took until nearly 23:00pm that evening for Jodi to even be mentioned again, which was when her mother messaged Mitchellís phone looking for her. 

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




Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2019, 12:00:33 PM »
I feel there are too many coincidences in the case that simply donít add up.  There is too much strange behaviour, from the satanism and getting tattoos to writing on knife pouches.  I guess we wonít get anywhere debating our differences, but as for the previous post - Iím surprised the forum admin allowed someoneís workplace to be shared.  How do we know for certain thatís Shane Mitchellís work anyway? I hardly think heís going to come on a forum like this to give any sort of opinion anyway.  The case is dead and buried. 

Again - there are too many unexplained coincidences for me in this case.  I appreciate your personal input from what you might have done as a child, but if I am honest, I was the same age roughly as Mitchell and I didnít even know what the talking clock was until I started reading more about his case.

Online Guiltyascharged

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2019, 12:43:35 PM »
Didnt jodis step father tell luke she was on the way to meet him, when david later asked luke where jodi was, luke said she was grounded?