Author Topic: Luke Mitchell Theories  (Read 7272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #285 on: September 28, 2019, 10:39:50 AM »
Sandra Lean states here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9995.msg455979.html#msg455979

“It's not difficult to see why the police were instantly suspicious of Luke.

In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."

One police officer noted, after taking the missing person details, that Jodi had left her home at tea time "with her boyfriend."

Both officers on the ground and the 999 operator were of the impression that Luke, and Luke alone, was (a) out looking for Jodi and (b) somewhere behind Newbattle High School on a path.

Then the officers on the ground get a shout - the boyfriend's found a body.

So think about it from their perspective - Jodi left home with her boyfriend at teatime, but now he's saying he hasn't seen her all evening. He's going up a path in darkness on a bike and randomly stops to climb over a wall where he "finds" a body. Suspicious, yes?

So much so that they jumped to the conclusion that the other three searchers had arrived after Luke found the body, hence not taking their statements, not asking any of them to go over the wall again to show them where the body was and separating Luke from the others almost immediately. They hadn't a clue that Kelly and Alice had been over the wall, or that Alice had touched the body, or that all four of them had gone down Roan's Dyke path together.

Even the conclusion that "the boyfriend's found a body" was wrong (in terms of the information being passed to them from control.) Luke told the operator they'd found something - she told the officers on the ground, "He won't say what." It was Kelly who dialled 999 a few minutes later and screamed down the phone, "It's a f*cking body."

But the operator(s) appeared to think the calls they were receiving were from the same person - Luke. The operator who took Kelly's call reported he found the caller's attitude odd - he wasn't reacting the way he'd have expected someone who'd just found a body to act - he seemed more annoyed that the police were taking so long to get there.

So, the police were acting on wrong information and then drawing erroneous conclusions from that wrong information, the assumption, from the off, being that there was something definitely not right about "the boyfriend." Had they not believed Jodi left home "with her boyfriend" at tea-time, had they known he wasn't coming up the path on his bike and he wasn't alone - there were four searchers on the path, all of whom were present when Jodi's body was found - and had they taken statements immediately from all four searchers and discovered the double check of the path was suggested by Alice, would they have jumped to the immediate conclusion that Luke was the killer?

I think it would have been less likely.

If they'd received the call "the search party have found a body," might they have been suspicious about Kelly's comment, "I suppose you've been to my house first?" If they'd been told Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield and the family search trio were leaving from Mayfield to look for her, might they have thought it odd that they didn't look for her in Easthouses/Mayfield but headed straight for the path? Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

Of course, we'll never know, but I do think it helps to understand why they believed what they did in that critical first hour, because it set the direction of the entire investigation


But this in merely Sandra Leans interpretation and a bias account at that. Unless she’s a mind reader she couldn’t possibly know what the police thought.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #286 on: September 28, 2019, 10:47:39 AM »
Sandra Lean states
“It's not difficult to see why the police were instantly suspicious of Luke.
In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."


I suspect the police were suspicious full-stop. And also and by the sounds of it, especially for those officers directly involved in locating Jodi’s body, in shock by the findings.

Sandra Lean doesn’t say what time Judith Jones first statement was taken nor does she mention Luke Mitchell’s first statement and the time it was taken.

The police took Luke Mitchell to the police station to question him as a witness not long after finding the body. What was said about the “bike?” Did the police ask him where his bike was? Didn’t the police take Mia the dog in a police vehicle to the station? (Corrine Mitchell mentions something about this during her interview with James English)

Without the times of when the police interviewed Luke Mitchell, the search party and all other main witnesses; including Judith Jones, Sandra Lean is - as usual - giving a bias account of events.

More importantly without seeing the disclosure material in full Sandra Lean can continue cherry picking parts of the evidence to fit with a version of events until the cows come home. However it still won’t make what she says factual
.

Sandra Lean:
“One police officer noted, after taking the missing person details, that Jodi had left her home at tea time "with her boyfriend." Who was this police officer? Where was s/he when they took the missing person details? Who gave the missing person details to the police? Judith Jones? Alan Ovens? What time were these details given? What did the search party tell police when they met them? What time was a Senior police officer told about the finding of a body and what did they say about the evidence gathered by this point?

Both officers on the ground and the 999 operator were of the impression that Luke, and Luke alone, was (a) out looking for Jodi and (b) somewhere behind Newbattle High School on a path. What about the missing person report? What did that say? Was the 999 operator a police officer? Who mentioned Newbattle High School on a path for Sandra Lean to suggest this is what the police thought?

Then the officers on the ground get a shout - the boyfriend's found a body.
So think about it from their perspective - Jodi left home with her boyfriend at teatime, but now he's saying he hasn't seen her all evening. He's going up a path in darkness on a bike and randomly stops to climb over a wall where he "finds" a body. Suspicious, yes? What police officer said this and when?

How did the police officers on the ground get on the ground in the first place? What info did they have before setting off and heading to the location? Who were they liasing with?

How was the contents of Judith Jones first witness statement being given to the officers on the ground?


Sandra Lean:
In Judith's first statement, she told police Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog."

How does Sandra Lean come to the conclusion it took the police until a month later when Judith told police she’d made a mistake Luke Mitchell was “coming up the path on his bike?”

Doesn’t she think the police figured out it was a dog and not a bike fairly early on?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 11:39:47 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 #287 on: September 28, 2019, 11:49:12 AM »
Sandra Lean:
Even the conclusion that "the boyfriend's found a body" was wrong (in terms of the information being passed to them from control.) Luke told the operator they'd found something - she told the officers on the ground, "He won't say what." It was Kelly who dialled 999 a few minutes later and screamed down the phone, "It's a f*cking body."

It wasn’t wrong though was it. Luke Mitchell found Jodi Jones body. Why did he choose to not tell emergency services what he’d found? At what point did Luke Mitchell tell the other search party members Jodi Jones was dead? What did he say when he got over the wall? What did he tell police? How did he know she wasn’t breathing and couldn’t be saved? How at 14 years old did he know what he quite obviously did?

Did the 999 operator pass on Kelly’s information to the police on the ground a few minutes later?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #288 on: September 28, 2019, 12:23:51 PM »
Sandra Lean:
So, the police were acting on wrong information and then drawing erroneous conclusions from that wrong information,
But according to the 999 operator Luke Mitchell wouldn’t say what it was he’d found! Why did he choose to not tell the operator he found his girlfriends body and was with 3 other people?

the assumption, from the off, being that there was something definitely not right about "the boyfriend." Where is this stated in the disclosure documents? If the assumption Luke Mitchell was the killer from the off why wasn’t he immediately questioned as a suspect as opposed to a witness?
 



Had they not believed Jodi left home "with her boyfriend" at tea-time, had they known he wasn't coming up the path on his bike and he wasn't alone - there were four searchers on the path, all of whom were present when Jodi's body was found - Luke Mitchell found Jodi Jones body - the 3 other search party members were on the other side of the wall when he did so
And didn’t Luke Mitchell tell everyone Jodi was due to meet him at his house, he waited for her, phoned his Mum whilst waiting down the road and she didn’t show up?


and had they taken statements immediately from all four searchers What time were all the statements taken?and discovered the double check of the path was suggested by Alice, Why did Alice allegedly decide the double check of the path? What had Luke Mitchell said to her? What were Alices understanding about where her granddaughter was that night? would they have jumped to the immediate conclusion that Luke was the killer? Is Sandra Lean referring to Jodi Jones family?

I think it would have been less likely. What previous convictions did Luke Mitchell have? What did police records flag up about Luke Mitchell?

If they'd received the call "the search party have found a body," why didn’t Luke Mitchell tell the 999 operator he’d found Jodi Jones body and was with 3 others?might they have been suspicious about Kelly's comment, "I suppose you've been to my house first?" If they'd been told Jodi was supposed to be hanging out in Easthouses/Mayfield Corrine Mitchell said during her JE interview Luke was meeting Jodi and the family search trio were leaving from Mayfield to look for her, might they have thought it odd that they didn't look for her in Easthouses/Mayfield but headed straight for the path? Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

Of course, we'll never know, but I do think it helps to understand why they believed what they did in that critical first hour, because it set the direction of the entire investigation.


Luke Mitchell choosing to not tell emergency services what he’d found and who he was with helped set the direction that night.

What time were the calls made to police that night and how did events really unfold because all we have here are Sandra Leans bias interpretations?


The second plank of evidence were statements from Jodi's family who described Mitchell as having taken them straight to Jodi's body as they searched for her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 03:14:56 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 #289 on: September 28, 2019, 12:43:53 PM »
Sandra Lean:
“But the operator(s) appeared to think the calls they were receiving were from the same person - Luke

Did the operator (s) put this in their statement (s) or is this again Sandra Leans interpretation?

What do the operators statements say exactly? What exactly were the police on the ground told when and by whom? What information was swirling around in their heads? What do their witness statements actually say?
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #290 on: September 28, 2019, 12:58:24 PM »
In response to Sandra Lean here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg455978.html#msg455978 Nugnug aka Billy Middleton states:

its because they have nothing in the way of an argument soo have to resort to personal attacks.


The denial and egos in this case are off the scale.

Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean* couldn’t accept the fact they’d been conned by Simon Hall and when he confessed in 2013 they posted on the WAP forum reasons why they believed the confession was false. They couldn’t have been further from the truth then as they are now.

Billy Middleton/nugnug making claims of “they have nothing in the way of an argument soo have to resort to personal attacks” shows this moron for what he was then and is now.

*Sandra Lean appeared to accept Simon Halls guilt by early 2014, alongside the guilt of Luke Mitchell. She made reference to Corrine Mitchell’s behaviour over the years (She specifically referred to the relationship between Corrine and Luke and alcohol was also mentioned in relation to Corrine) and appeared distressed when relaying said details to me over the phone. This is around the time she claimed she’d wasted 10 years of her life on Luke Mitchell’s case.

Re the relationship between Corrine and Luke Mitchell - I had been discussing the twisted reciprocal relationship I’d witnessed between Simon Hall and his mother.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 01:15:41 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 #291 on: September 28, 2019, 02:56:36 PM »
Sandra Lean:
Might they have thought it strange that, although there were four searchers out in two different areas, they were given only one contact number, for the lone searcher coming from Newbattle, and no contact details for the three searchers coming from Mayfield?

How could the police possibly know this before they were contacted about Jodi’s missing status?

Again, according to Corrine Mitchell via the James English interview Luke was going to Judith Jones house to go through friends phone numbers.

How did the police get given one phone number? Is Sandra Lean referring to Judith Jones number or Luke Mitchell’s?

What time was the first phone call to the police and what were the times of the texts and phone calls between Luke Mitchell and Judith Jones?

What time did Luke Mitchell say he allegedly left his house that night to go to Judith Jones house and what time did he allegedly meet with the search party? What times do Shane and Corrine Mitchell give for Luke’s alleged time of leaving?

Text message from Corrine to Luke Mitchell - 1st July 12.29am


"You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you."

And why at 12.29am did Corrine Mitchell text Luke the above? What previous communication had there been between them both? Where did she plan on going at 12.29am? “I’m on my way up to find you?” Find Luke where exactly? Where did she think he was?

More importantly WHY did she believe something was “wrong?”

And then there was Luke Mitchell's apparent insensitivity and callousness - his reported obsession with Satanism and weird rock music - coupled with the alleged collusion of his mother in covering up his crime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 03:11:08 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 #292 on: October 04, 2019, 12:18:25 PM »
I find Gordo’s comment in response to Parky’s here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452188.html#msg452188 interesting

Parky states:
“Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.
The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment  for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.
All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.

gordo30
It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.


Games to who?

And why choose to use the word games

What about paradoxes?

Sandra Lean featured the Simon Hall case in her first book “No Smoke” alongside Luke Mitchell’s case and 5 others. It turned out after over a decade he was guilty after all.

Rather than publicly accept Simon Halls guilt she chose to mislead others by attempting to create uncertainty and doubt.

From my point of view, by doing so, she created her own paradox. I believe this was intentional.

“Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, writer, playwright and poet of the Renaissance period. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science. Wikipedia

Worth reading up on Mr Machiavelli imo.

”Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.

Another of his famous quotes being:

”Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”[/i]

For me, the latter quote in particular struck a chord with how Sandra Lean chose to publicly respond when I stated her book “No Smoke” should be revised or withdrawn here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html

Sandra Lean today states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.


What I find interesting is Sandra Lean indicates she has allegedly today asked the publisher to withdraw the book as opposed to revise it?


10th January 2017 - Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
“Ah, good, I was hoping this would come around again. Stephanie thinks I was “blatantly avoiding” her questions. In fact, the thread had spiralled off in several different directions – I was just waiting until my response made logical sense. So, not hiding anything either.

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
 
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

When I revise No Smoke, the quote I posted earlier, give or take, will be the revision for Simon's case. Take it or leave it!


Sandra Lean:
Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing.”

A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.

Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.

Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.

Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.

"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."

The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.

Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.

"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."

In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.

"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 12:33:58 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 #293 on: October 04, 2019, 12:39:03 PM »
Sandra Lean today states here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.


What I find interesting is Sandra Lean indicates she has allegedly today asked the publisher to withdraw the book as opposed to revise it?

11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #294 on: October 04, 2019, 12:55:59 PM »
11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.


Will be interesting to learn if the six other families” who “are immediately affected” were contacted “as a matter of courtesy”

Sandra Lean today claims here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456210.html#msg456210
I made a mistake 12 years ago - I've put my hands up to that, I've withdrawn the book and I've publicly apologised.”

Is the “mistake 12 years ago” to which she refers to above in relation to having written Stephen Kelly as opposed to Leonard Kelly?

Excerpt from No Smoke by Sandra Lean
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

Sandra Lean claims here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

“The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time.”


Court transcripts for what case?

Sandra Lean claims today: “l would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage[/i].

How does

the book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time

fit with

the two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage?”


Reminds me of word salad

The term word salad refers to a random words or phrases linked together in an often unintelligible manner. Often, a listener is unable to understand the meaning or purpose of the phrase
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 03:39:34 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 #295 on: October 04, 2019, 03:39:05 PM »

Sandra Lean claims here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199
I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

How many is “many years?”

Having read/referenced Sandra Leans book “No Smoke” a few years ago I publicly suggested the book should be revised or withdrawn.

I stated here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383041.html#msg383041
Will you be reflecting on and revising your methodology in order for your book to reflect what you uncovered following it's publication and the impact of the content of your findings.

For example; the following cases -

William (Billy) Middleton
Luke Mitchell
Adrian Prout
Nick Ward

To name but a few.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 04:46:33 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 #296 on: October 04, 2019, 04:51:04 PM »
11th Jan 2017
Sandra Lean:
claimed here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029
“No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.


Why has Sandra Lean chosen today to allegedly withdraw her book No Smoke after her attention has been drawn to her misuse of Stephen Kelly instead of Leonard Kelly but was not withdrawn following Simon Halls confession?

The Stephen Kelly/Leonard Kelly “mistake” has been known about by several people for years.

2013
iiHEARTy0u wrote: »
The semen was found on her underwear. He was also one of a few people seen walking on the path.[/QUOTE]
D2BD wrote: »
Hi iiHEARTyOu, I havent read this before, are you sure SK was seen walking the path? GD and JoF were on the path, as were other people but I'm sure I haven't read or been told before that Kelly was. :confused:
iiHEARTy0u wrote: » This is an extract from Chapter Six by Sandra Lean

Once again, we are faced with serious anomalies in the prosecution case. Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path
[/i]
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1783648/killer-luke-mitchell-passes-lie-detector-test/p15

Why now?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2019, 05:02:05 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 #297 on: October 12, 2019, 05:51:14 PM »
Quote
Games to who?

And why choose to use the word games

The mention of game playing has been something I'd brought up before Nicholas.
Different roles that each may have - in their individual persona.
Not each an individual person - In some cases one person split into different characters.
Used to put out questions - to be answered by their alter ego - so to speak.
Which in itself of course - limits those who truly are fighting for this laddie - even more so.

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Jigsaw_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Angeline_Morrow_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Bullseye_(Lester)_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Gordo_Brown_(Earth-616)
https:https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Marty_Delarosa_(Earth-616)
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Nug_(Earth-616)




Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #298 on: October 19, 2019, 09:59:29 AM »
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
2h
GoFundMe have taken down the Luke Mitchell fundraiser - I'm still awaiting an explanation from them. I'll update as soon as I can.

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Oct 17
I've been quiet here of necessity - lots of behind the scenes developments in Luke's case. We need your help - can you share this link and help us raise the money we need to help Luke? Thank you

https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5

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

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell Theories
« Reply #299 on: October 19, 2019, 06:04:43 PM »
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Still nothing from GoFundMe - I'm looking for another platform because time is of the essence. I'd be grateful for any suggestions. Thank you all!

https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1185572236205404162
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes