Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 27690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #135 on: July 04, 2019, 12:32:02 AM »
Luke/ Ms Mitchell said in the first few instances of being questioned that he arrived home at 9, left again when going out to search. A witness came forward claiming they had see Luke out with the dog around 10pm. This was omitted from both the appellant and Ms Mitchells statements. Again dismissed as being lies by Ms Lean.

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

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

I agree with your opinions and observations parky!

The Joneís and their extended relatives were and are a loving, close knit family, who have stood the test of time, in the most horrific, cruel and unfortunate of circumstances. Why would anyone choose to put them through further unnecessary bullying and provocation?

It sounds to me as if Sandra Lean has attempted to re-invent herself, or at least reinvent the way in which she is perceived.

Sheís playing to a new audience through the James English platform and appears to be attempting to approach the Luke Mitchell case from an alternative angle as opposed to previous failed angles.

What sheís ultimately asking for, is a new trial for Luke Mitchell but this time on HER terms. What does this say about her personality? I know what it says to me.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 12:47:55 AM 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 #136 on: July 04, 2019, 12:37:05 AM »
It may be that IF Luke is innocent her slight and blame towards others may warrant some understanding. Does not excuse however the need to put emphasis on, yet again, misinformation. She puts great weight on how Luke speeded from the house in pursuit of a very fast dog, goes into much detail on both Luke and the dogs fitness. She then goes onto discredit that of Mrs Walker, aiming to cast doubt it seems on how she managed to get to this path so quickly. Claiming 'this is an auld (67) arthritic granny, no way could she move quickly'. Ms Lean uses these words too. On research, this 67yrs old arthritic granny was the former local postwoman. Seen out and about often, marching up and down to the shops etc.  Now if these two people have researched scrupulously as they claim, what purpose is there in trying to mislead?

 8((()*/
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #137 on: July 04, 2019, 12:54:09 AM »
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.

Yet the Joneís and their extended family have no right to privacy?



A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #138 on: July 04, 2019, 01:16:04 AM »
I do not believe she would deliberately lie, as then that defeats the whole purpose of the justice she seeks plus why would she?

Credibility

Ego

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #139 on: July 04, 2019, 02:46:24 AM »
I watched Ms Mitchells podcast in detail this morning. Within minutes it flagged up the first of several odd comments. From an innocent stance she is proclaiming. Luke told her he was going out to search for Jodi, she told him no way , not at this time of night, he was adamant though so he was doing it, telling his mother that it wasn't up for discussion. She is giving the impression of concern. Why did she not go with him? 

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

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

Far fetched and for me suggestive of deception
 

Found it. It was Luke, from Corrine Mitchellís trial evidence

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

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

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

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

She said he ate his meal in the living room before setting off to meet Jodi at around 5.40pm. They had made an arrangement to meet that evening by text message, she said. ďThey arranged to meet. He wasnít sure what time. All he knew was she was coming down.Ē

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

Alan Turnbull, QC, advocate depute, asked why she had been given so much information about her sonís movements that day. ďLuke and I talk a lot,Ē Mrs Mitchell replied.

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

Mrs Mitchell replied that it would have been ďimpossibleĒ.

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

ďDid that surprise you?Ē Mr Turnbull asked.

ďYes, it did,Ē she replied.

She said they thought perhaps Jodi had gone to a friendís house or had been grounded.

ďHow would you describe the way he was reacting to the fact she hadnít turned up?Ē Mr Turnbull asked.

Mrs Mitchell replied: ďI think more miffed that she hadnít turned up.Ē

Asked whether he had seemed anxious, she said: ďNot at that point, no.Ē She said he then went up to his bedroom before taking the dog for a walk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was he disposing of incriminating evidence during his dog walk maybe?

He wasnít taken for questioning until after the discovery of JJís body. What time did he get home? Iím presuming early hours of the morning? And his house wasnít searched for another 3 days, so again plenty of time to cover his tracks further.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 03:02:45 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Angelo222

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #140 on: July 04, 2019, 02:47:50 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.

The entire thing is bizarre. Shane Mitchell's silence speaks volumes imo.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #141 on: July 04, 2019, 07:56:02 AM »
Yet the Joneís and their extended family have no right to privacy?

Of course they do, everyone does. Iím not sure what you are referring to? Shaneís personal details have been posted on both forums, which is a total breach of privacy as far as Iím concerned. People can find out all kinds of info if they want to but I donít agree with personal stuff being posted about anyone, Shane Sandra or Jodiís family

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #142 on: July 04, 2019, 08:03:00 AM »
Credibility

Ego

Sorry still donít agree, that she is deliberately making up lies about stuff to make herself more credible etc, but thatís just my opinion. I just think she is using the information she receives to support her views as much as possible. So do you think if there was undisputed evidence found she would withhold this or try to deliberately discredit it? Ie Lukeís full profile found or knife somehow proved to be lukes etc? And try to cover up his guilt?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #143 on: July 04, 2019, 11:41:22 AM »
Sorry still donít agree, that she is deliberately making up lies about stuff to make herself more credible etc, but thatís just my opinion. I just think she is using the information she receives to support her views as much as possible. So do you think if there was undisputed evidence found she would withhold this or try to deliberately discredit it? Ie Lukeís full profile found or knife somehow proved to be lukes etc? And try to cover up his guilt?

Myself and others have witnessed first hand Sandra Leans capability for denial, over Simon Halls guilt.

She claimed at the time she was being ĒsensibleĒ for choosing to behave the way she did, her attitude suggested otherwise.

Attitude: ďA predisposition or a tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain idea, object, person, or situation. Attitude influences an individual's choice of action, and responses to challenges, incentives, and rewards (together called stimuli).
Four major components of attitude are (1) Affective: emotions or feelings. (2) Cognitive: belief or opinions held consciously. (3) Conative: inclination for action. (4) Evaluative: positive or negative response to stimuli.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/attitude.html


I find it difficult to see how she would be able to cover up Luke Mitchellís guilt if his DNA were to be found on a knife. There would be numerous people involved in the testing process and many interested parties after all.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 12:02:00 PM 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 #144 on: July 04, 2019, 12:07:45 PM »
Sorry I donít know anything about the Simon Hall case but denial and outright lies are 2 completely different things. I think we may have cross wires,  I just donít believe Sandra would lie to people with regards to her answers to queries about Lukes case that are put to her or related to this case. I think she provides the information that she has as fact and is clear when itís her opinion

Also to be clear I do not for a second think Sandra would cover anything up, I just wondered if you did. I think if they found any info that proved Lukeís guilt she would take it on the chin that she was wrong but was only standing up for something she believed, which is all any of us can do.

Anyway yet again we have somehow digressed from the Luke discussion back to Sandra. Letís not.

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #145 on: July 04, 2019, 12:10:58 PM »
I donít  understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodiís family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, Iím not sure Luke had one.

I think everyone can agree the police mucked this up right from the start, the investigation was poor, the treatment of witnesses appalling, the media reports at the time, the trial being held in Edinburgh, all the information that was not used, I can go on and on. So for all those reasons I think a retrial would be the best way forward for everyone. If you believe Luke to be guilty  and there is any evidence to be found by retesting stuff etc. then surely it can only help and prove once and for all, without doubt, that Luke is the killer (which would be the outcome Iíd like to see) It would then shut this down once and for all and everyone can get on with their lives, including Jodiís family who have had to put up with all this crap over the past 16 years, all started because of LB police (IMO).

But if there is the slightest chance Luke did not do it, and its proved in the retrial then can you imagine the pain that would cause all involved, both Jodi and Lukes family and also everyone in danger from the real killer the past years. Iím just not sure and Iíd like to be, as Iím sure lots of other would be, from both sides, a retrial is the only way I can see this being put to bed.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #146 on: July 04, 2019, 12:27:57 PM »
Sorry I donít know anything about the Simon Hall case but denial and outright lies are 2 completely different things.

What is your understanding and interpretation of the two then?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline WakeyWakey

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #147 on: July 04, 2019, 01:15:26 PM »
Thing is the police had the tools to use the mobile data to help them prove apx location, times etc even message content of Luke and others why was this not done, and if it was done why was it not given to the defence? This would have shown once and for all where the call to the speaking clock was made from, the content of the messages between Luke and Jodi, location of Luke when his calls to ao and his mum were made etc I know the technology is not as good as it is nowadays but they could still get basic info.

As far I know location was not done, but message recovery this was done - some msgs not recoverble but some recovered. i remembr readng some frm sandra on bamber forum

I asked about 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.

agree thy have right to privacy - have met shane in past and i thnk he can live his life with head held high and clear consciense but its frustrating knowng he could correct lots of internt myths just by speaking out

Offline Bullseye

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #148 on: July 04, 2019, 01:29:03 PM »
What is your understanding and interpretation of the two then?

Denial - Refuse to believe something to be true

Lie - deliberate intent to deceive others

Are we doing word play again, none of this matters, everyone can make up there own minds what info or people to trust or not.

Tbh I really donít want to discus Sandra any more, you donít believe or trust her, I do I donít think there is anything more to be said we need to agree to disagree and move back to the topic.

I wonder why some phone messages were recovered and others not, like the ones that really mattered between Luke and Jodi, or maybe the were but as it did not help the prosecution case was not used, I donít know how the info is shared with the defence in Cases though. I assume there is no way to try getting that info now, far to much time passed

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #149 on: July 04, 2019, 02:05:19 PM »
Why do these threads all turn into a discussion about Sandra, or a personal slagging match as it appears most of the time. As far as 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.

So what time do you think he put the chicken/steak pie in the oven? Which was it, chicken or steak?

And how does that fit into to your timeline?

My first post, please be gentle lol. Itís been years since I caught up on the case. I use to read the old site til the thread was all removed. Iím not for or against Luke, itís just there has always been some things that didnít sit right with me, maybe you guys can help me gets my facts right and clear up a few things for me?  Itís been a few years to ponder over so thereís a few questions, sorry for the post length.

Any help with all this would be great but please feel free to ignore also, it is a lot of questions lol Iíve only been able to find one other site that has an active chat on this case, just awaiting approval to join. Thanks for your sites quick registration!

This is what I remember or have found during my recent search, which is probably totally wrong.

Clothes
What clothing was Luke wearing that night, I think the police took the clothing the same night?
Witness top of lane- green hip length fishing style jacket
Witness at bottom of lane - green bomber style jacket with orange lining
Police looking for Parker jacket and combat shirt, which Luke said was only purchased after the murder?
What did the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him on the wall at 1745 say he was wearing?
Re missing clothes, were shoes missing also, he just seems the type of lad that wears the same footwear most days? Was he? did any go missing also?

Timeframe I have so far

1640 - last txt between Jodi and Luke,
Luke said he told Jodi he was making the tea and would see her later?
1650 Jodi left house
1650-1655 2 youths seen at top of lane, male in green hip length fishing type jacket
1654 Luke called speaking clock
1705 - 1720 LK heard ďhuman noiseĒ on path behind wall, did not see anyone or hear motor bike
JF and GD on path at same time, motor bike parked at v did not see or hear anything or anyone. (Who was the witness that said they saw the bike parked at v with nobody else around?)
1715 Lukeís mum gets home (is there proof this is when she got home?)
1715-1730 Luke, his brother and mum eat pie and mash (not all together) did his brother at least confirm this, he did eat pie and mash between 1715 and 1730?
1730-1740 Luke said he left his house
1732 - Luke called Jodi home, no answer
1740 called again AO answered and said Jodi already left to meet him.
1740 to 1745 2 witnesses saw a person in a green bomber style jacket with orange lining at gate between Lukeís house and the Path
1745 to 1750 2 boys that knew Luke saw him sitting on a wall near the path, passed him twice (what did they say he was wearing)
1820?? Luke leaves wall and goes to meet other friends around 7 at the abbey (not sure if these times are correct?) Also how long it would take to walk from the path to the abbey, or wherever he met his friend?
930 Luke said he returned home and watched a film
10pm Luke seen returning from newbattle, or outside his home? who was the witness, what was Luke wearing?
1040 txt from Jodi mum.

Everything is centred round that 45 minute timeframe 1700 - 1745, what evidence is there that was the time of the murder, all I could find from the court records was ďAlthough the pathologists were unable to fix a time of death, the untoward sound heard by Leonard Kelly as he cycled along the Roan's Dyke Path would fit with the attack upon her having taken place behind the wall at that timeĒ surely thatís not all they are going by? Also the way she was treated after she was found how reliable would a time of death be, anyone know?

Luke had not showered, clothes and hair and hands dirty?

Was any dna found with full dna profiles other than the sisters bf? And yet to be identified?

Was there a blood stained shirt found in the area that was not tested or examined? Find that hard to believe

Was Lukeís dog training to be a tracker dog?

How long does it take to walk from Jodieís house to the top of the lane? From the top of the lane to the v? The v to the bottom and the bottom to Lukeís house? I believe it takes around 15mins to walk length of the lane.

Again sorry for the length of the post and number of questions!

What reason did he or his mother give for calling the speaking clock?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes