Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 27803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #120 on: July 03, 2019, 05:49:08 PM »
mislead
/mɪsˈliːd/
verb
cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.
"the government misled the public about the road's environmental impact"
synonyms:   deceive, delude, take in, lie to, fool, hoodwink, lead astray, throw off the scent, send on a wild goose chase, put on the wrong track, pull the wool over someone's eyes, pull someone's leg, misguide, misdirect, misinform, give wrong information to;

the Cambridge dictionary
mislead
to cause someone to believe something that is not true:
He has admitted misleading the police about his movements on the night of the murder.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mislead
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 05:59:05 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Rusty

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #121 on: July 03, 2019, 05:52:52 PM »


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


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

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #122 on: July 03, 2019, 06:00:30 PM »

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

 8((()*/

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

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

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

Quote
We have to stress that we do not believe these two are directly linked to the inquiry but we need to trace them to establish what, if anything, they may have seen.
"They attracted attention because they seemed to be having some engine problems with their bike which was initially very noisy but eventually cut out altogether leaving the boys to push it."
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 06:39:13 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #123 on: July 03, 2019, 06:22:11 PM »
Sandra lean asks here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU

Why did the search parties statements change?

I can answer that for her

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

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

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

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






« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 06:33:31 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #124 on: July 03, 2019, 06:38:46 PM »
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyoneís questions or provide any information and Iím just glad she does even after all the stuff that gets posted about her. I have found she always says if the info is accurate or if she canít remember. Itís usually times and places Iím interested which she has always kindly provided answers to where she can. She may put her interpretation in the information she provides but is that not why we are all here, to share each otherís interpretation of all the info thatís out there, I think we are all guilty of that. I may not always agree with her views etc but that applies to a lot of folk on these forums for me. I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she? Iím still on the fence on the whole thing there are points from both sides I agree and disagree with.

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

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


Bullseye. I have asked many people this Q. It is where I started from when looking into this case. With all the cries of 'trial by media' targeting Luke etc. If there was no evidence against him, lots towards other (if that is to be believed of course) Why do you think the police chose to target Luke?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #125 on: July 03, 2019, 06:59:36 PM »
I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she?

I do.

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

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

the Cambridge dictionary
mislead
to cause someone to believe something that is not true:
He has admitted misleading the police about his movements on the night of the murder.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mislead
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 07:02:19 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #126 on: July 03, 2019, 07:04:33 PM »
Sandra lean asks here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5rMioQIlU

Why did the search parties statements change?

I can answer that for her

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

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

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

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

Nicholas, this is another area I have asked about, no reply as yet. From JB forum.

[What's surprising about all of this is that they were all talking from the early hours of July 1st - we know a group of Jodi's extended family members were in Judith's house by 4am and even more gathered in Alice's house later that morning - there was plenty of time to check with each other whether their recollections about June 30th tallied with other people's.] quote Sandra Lean.


Through many areas of study it has been shown that immediate corroboration of events usually happen with the perpetrators of a crime. I found Ms Leans statement above rather enlightening. Have no doubt that Ms Lean knows that people who are trying to cover something up, get their stories together from the onset. Why therefore would she show surprise at all of the Jones' family not discussing their recollection of events within hrs of what must have been a horrific, massive shock. Not that she is trying to imply anything with this type of word play?


I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments. From an innocent stance she is proclaiming. Luke told her he was going out to search for Jodi, she told him no way , not at this time of night, he was adamant though so he was doing it, telling his mother that it wasn't up for discussion. She is giving the impression of concern. Why did she not go with him?  Onto the part when the police arrived at the scene. 'They were trying to get the only child, he was the only child out of the search party, to go back over the wall. They wanted him back over the wall to try and get him to leave his DNA. Odd? Why from that very first instance would you feel the police were out to get you? Then on Newbattle Road she asked the police 'if he was under arrest?' Like myself, no doubt others this does seem suspicious. The police, IMO who first attended that night were probably in shock, perhaps being the worst thing they had ever had to attend. I struggle to believe that within less than a couple of hours the police chose to lie.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #127 on: July 03, 2019, 08:03:15 PM »
I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments. From an innocent stance she is proclaiming. Luke told her he was going out to search for Jodi, she told him no way , not at this time of night, he was adamant though so he was doing it, telling his mother that it wasn't up for discussion. She is giving the impression of concern. Why did she not go with him?  Onto the part when the police arrived at the scene. ĎThey were trying to get the only child, he was the only child out of the search party, to go back over the wall. They wanted him back over the wall to try and get him to leave his DNA. Odd? Why from that very first instance would you feel the police were out to get you? Then on Newbattle Road she asked the police 'if he was under arrest?' Like myself, no doubt others this does seem suspicious. The police, IMO who first attended that night were probably in shock, perhaps being the worst thing they had ever had to attend. I struggle to believe that within less than a couple of hours the police chose to lie.

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

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

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

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

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




« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 08:05:55 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #128 on: July 03, 2019, 08:45:58 PM »
Her podcast is riddled with many telling pieces of information which the police would have quite obviously picked up on from the moment of meeting with her following the murder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
xy
2 months ago

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

Many people I have conversed with on this, voice much the same.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 08:48:40 PM by Parky41 »

Offline WakeyWakey

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #129 on: July 03, 2019, 10:39:10 PM »
When it comes to info Sandra provides, we have to remember she is one of the few folk that had access to the records and so much more. She does not need to answer anyoneís questions or provide any information

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

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

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

Offline WakeyWakey

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #130 on: July 03, 2019, 10:52:36 PM »
Wonít answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?

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

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

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

No othr family or friends

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #131 on: July 03, 2019, 11:22:53 PM »
I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments.

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

Quote
From an innocent stance she is proclaiming. Luke told her he was going out to search for Jodi, she told him no way , not at this time of night, he was adamant though so he was doing it, telling his mother that it wasn't up for discussion. She is giving the impression of concern. Why did she not go with him? 

Totally

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

ďNot at this time of night youíre not laddie. Attempting to suggest she asserted her authority as the parent

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

Hadnít she said somewhere sheíd already taken Mia for a walk?

Quote
Onto the part when the police arrived at the scene. 'They were trying to get the only child, he was the only child out of the search party, to go back over the wall. They wanted him back over the wall to try and get him to leave his DNA. Odd?

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception

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


Guilt

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

Quote
Then on Newbattle Road she asked the police 'if he was under arrest?' Like myself, no doubt others this does seem suspicious. The police, IMO who first attended that night were probably in shock, perhaps being the worst thing they had ever had to attend. I struggle to believe that within less than a couple of hours the police chose to lie.

Paranoia


« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 12:09:04 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #132 on: July 03, 2019, 11:48:04 PM »
think i politeley disagree  -by makin publc claims about the timeline or how things panned out usin records that arnt public, and askin people to beleive her version of events without acces to the evidenc, she open herself up to bein challenged and question, naturaly.

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

Yes I agree by answering questions and making public claims etc she does open herself upto being challenged, but from what I have read itís the same stuff she has answered many time that she keeps being asked about (including from me) yet she still replies and I just donít think she needs to do that so respect that she does.

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

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

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

Iíd love to see Luke speak, and tell his side, answer some questions directly himself, like itís been said, itís been all these years but you never hear from Luke, Iíd love to see him being interviewed, wonder what is needed for that to happen.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #133 on: July 04, 2019, 12:08:08 AM »
Indeed it did. More than several when you compare them with previous comments she has made

Totally - impression management

ďNot at this time of night youíre not laddie. Attempting to suggest she asserted her authority as the parent

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

Hadnít she said somewhere sheíd already taken Mia for a walk?

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception
 

Guilt

Paranoia

Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

Revert back to my previous post and all that may or not ring true. My disbelief in what Ms Lean puts forward in blatant play on words and selectiveness backed up with the continuous attack on all evidence against this laddie. Far better and without bias to admit the reality of what was proven to be evident. The road to justice is NOT paved with blinkers or unwarranted halos.

Be real, be honest, be just.  "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #134 on: July 04, 2019, 12:27:16 AM »
donít think Sandra had all the info and records, only some of what was given to the defence. Iím sure there is a whole lot of stuff they didnít get so there will be big gaps. Take the phone records, I think there were more calls made but they just were not given all the logs. With all the mobiles, house phones etc being used at the time. So I tend not to take the info Iím given about stuff as final or full but only a part of the picture. But I do agree there is a lot of word play going on from both sides.

Thing is the police had the tools to use the mobile data to help them prove apx location, times etc even message content of Luke and others why was this not done, and if it was done why was it not given to the defence? This would have shown once and for all where the call to the speaking clock was made from, the content of the messages between Luke and Jodi, location of Luke when his calls to ao and his mum were made etc I know the technology is not as good as it is nowadays but they could still get basic info.

I asked about Lukeís dad and brother, if they believe he is innocent and why they donít show public support. I was told they always supported Luke only want to keep their privacy which I can understand. But I was also told Shane has never supported Luke and freely says Luke is guilty, so until Shane or the dad speak out themselves itís anyoneís guess. For my it all hangs on Shane, if he says Luke was home cooking tea and left at 5.40 and he think he is innocent or that he thinks Luke did it and categorically was not home that evening then thatís enough for me, his statements and what was said in court is too conflicting. What he has to say now Iíd love to hear. But like I said either way if he thinks his bro is innocent or guilty he deserves his privacy.