"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Maybe but this was what the reported Turnbull said to Luke’s mum during the trial. He would definitely have mentioned any photos, cctv or the fact that one of the witnesses was Luke’s dad as he was trying to prove she was a liar but all he said was friends. I really don’t think any photos of Luke were used, that doesn’t mean to say one doesn’t exist now that’s  been found over the years.

’First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.

Secondly, there are various legal rules to protect the privacy of children who are caught up in legal proceedings.

Thirdly, the judge has authority to protect the integrity of his courtroom.

‘The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.

The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial

Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.

Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packages. The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

[Nicholas]

’First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.

Secondly, there are various legal rules to protect the privacy of children who are caught up in legal proceedings.

Thirdly, the judge has authority to protect the integrity of his courtroom.

‘The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.

The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial

Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.

Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packages. The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

And psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell, his mother Corinne Mitchell and innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean have been exploiting this ever since

[Mr Apples]

Maybe but this was what the reported Turnbull said to Luke’s mum during the trial. He would definitely have mentioned any photos, cctv or the fact that one of the witnesses was Luke’s dad as he was trying to prove she was a liar but all he said was friends. I really don’t think any photos of Luke were used, that doesn’t mean to say one doesn’t exist now that’s  been found over the years.

A quote from Craig Dobbie, verbatim:

"But friends and family were adamant that he owned one. We also had the information about the wood burner and we started to paint a picture."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

[Nicholas]

“MURDER accused Luke Mitchell was two-timing Jodi Jones with a girl who looked 'almost identical' to her, a court was told yesterday.

One of Mitchell's friends had met the other girl. Mitchell spoke very highly of her, it was claimed.

But when the pal, Robert Gilhooly, 17, was later shown a picture of the girl, he thought it was Jodi.

The jury at the High Court in Edinburgh were shown pictures of the two girls.

They also heard that Mitchell, 16, who denies murdering Jodi, was once caught with a knife which, it was claimed, was made for one purpose - killing.

Robert, 17, of Livingston, West Lothian, said Mitchell used to visit his father in the town at weekends and he became friendly with him.

He was then shown two knives which he recalled having seen in Mitchell's possession.

Suspect Kimberly Thomson also saw sadistic killer Luke Mitchell with the two knives also and gave evidence as having seen them


‘Robert said: 'Personally, I have a dislike for knives because my brother was attacked with one. I just expressed my opinion I didn't appreciate it.'

He explained that around Christmas 2002 he had met Mitchell with a girl called Kim.

In the spring of last year, Mitchell started going out with Jodi and Robert believed he was seeing both girls at the same time.

He added: 'He (Mitchell) mentioned they looked alike and he just said they were almost identical.'

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, then put up pictures of Jodi and Kim on a screen and asked: 'The very first time you looked at the photo of Kim,who did you think it was?'

Robert said: 'I though it was Jodi.' Mr Turnbull asked: 'After the killing of Jodi, did Luke say anything to you about hearing from Kim?'

Robert said: 'I think I asked Luke what Kim had said and I'm sure he said Kim had texted or phoned him and said he had a lot of explaining to do.'

[Bullseye]

A quote from Craig Dobbie, verbatim:

"But friends and family were adamant that he owned one. We also had the information about the wood burner and we started to paint a picture."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

Sorry but going by past quotes I don’t have much faith in what Craig Dobbie has to say to a news paper but again I’m sure if he had a photo he would be shouting it from the rooftops. On the other hand I do have more faith on what the herald reported Turnbull said during the trial to Luke’s mum.

But that’s just my opinion.

[Nicholas]

A quote from Craig Dobbie, verbatim:

"But friends and family were adamant that he owned one. We also had the information about the wood burner and we started to paint a picture."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

The full context of Craig Dobbie’s above statement appears to be referring to around the 4th July 2003 - following door to door enquiries and information received into the investigation by the 4th July

This would have been before thorough investigations into the minutiae of the information coming into the enquiry were fully investigated and all the i’s were dotted and T’s crossed

Craig Dovie doesn’t disclose the minutiae of the investigation

[Mr Apples]

I don't think the photo would've been allowed to have been published as they were children when it was taken (I know LM at 15 years old was pictured in newspapers, but he was a suspect since 14.08.03). Also, I think the owner of the photo, or the parents of the owner of the photo, could prevent it from being published.  Regardless, I was reliably informed that the photo was never returned to the owner, so that means it is still in a secure storage vault with all the other evidence. I think evidence in a case like this is not destroyed or returned until the accused completes their sentence or dies. I'm not sure they'd want the photo returned to them, anyway.

[Nicholas]

I don't think the photo would've been allowed to have been published as they were children when it was taken (I know LM at 15 years old was pictured in newspapers, but he was a suspect since 14.08.03). Also, I think the owner of the photo, or the parents of the owner of the photo, could prevent it from being published.  Regardless, I was reliably informed that the photo was never returned to the owner, so that means it is still in a secure storage vault with all the other evidence. I think evidence in a case like this is not destroyed or returned until the accused completes their sentence or dies. I'm not sure they'd want the photo returned to them, anyway.

It’s not clear if the jury got to see the footage or a still of the footage or a photograph taken separate from the footage or a combination 

That gig on the 13th of June, and as has been confirmed, not one but two people who actually recorded it - Front of stage far right in front. LM with [Name removed] by his side, he is wearing that army style, khaki jacket! - Perhaps now with all falling flat yet again, that footage may very well make its way into the public domain, fully!

It is however been spoken of more and more, only this morning posted on Twitter - I had said before, whilst many people fall under the spell of the hype, here are many more who doubt the whole lot because of that jacket alone, the many people who knew it existed pre-murder. If one is denying all knowledge of that then it stands to reason no trust can be placed anywhere else -

[Nicholas]

That gig on the 13th of June, and as has been confirmed, not one but two people who actually recorded it - Front of stage far right in front. LM with [Name removed] by his side, he is wearing that army style, khaki jacket! - Perhaps now with all falling flat yet again, that footage may very well make its way into the public domain, fully!

It was Friday the 13th of June btw

What did psycho killer Luke Mitchell tell the police he wore to the gig when they interviewed him over this?

And what did Philip Mitchell tell police?

Would be interesting to see a list of items seized from Philip Mitchell’s Livingston address

[Nicholas]

Question Time For [moderated] Sandra Lean (Part 171)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/08/killer-luke-mitchell-question-time-for-confidence-trickster-sandra-lean-part-170/

[faithlilly]

Maybe but this was what the reported Turnbull said to Luke’s mum during the trial. He would definitely have mentioned any photos, cctv or the fact that one of the witnesses was Luke’s dad as he was trying to prove she was a liar but all he said was friends. I really don’t think any photos of Luke were used, that doesn’t mean to say one doesn’t exist now that’s  been found over the years.

If any family had mentioned that Luke had a parka before Jodi’s murder that would have been a slam dunk. No one from his family circle made that claim…not parents, not his brother, his father’s partner, his uncle etc etc.

As to any photo which has subsequently appeared don’t you think we would have seen it rather than merely talking about it? The tabloids, especially the Daily Record, would have paid a pretty penny for an incriminating piece of evidence like that but so far nada.

[Bullseye]

I don't think the photo would've been allowed to have been published as they were children when it was taken (I know LM at 15 years old was pictured in newspapers, but he was a suspect since 14.08.03). Also, I think the owner of the photo, or the parents of the owner of the photo, could prevent it from being published.  Regardless, I was reliably informed that the photo was never returned to the owner, so that means it is still in a secure storage vault with all the other evidence. I think evidence in a case like this is not destroyed or returned until the accused completes their sentence or dies. I'm not sure they'd want the photo returned to them, anyway.

Sorry I was not talking about the paper printing the photo but to them reporting what Turnbull said to Luke’s mum. That witnesses saw Luke in the coat not “I refer to the photo showing Luke in a parka”. If they had it they would have used it. Maybe there was a photo that police had but were so incompetent it never made it to the prosecution to be used it court. Might still be in a box somewhere but it does not appear to have been used at the trial. I think your friend is making stuff up, exaggerating or just mistaken it was used in court.

[faithlilly]

I don't think the photo would've been allowed to have been published as they were children when it was taken (I know LM at 15 years old was pictured in newspapers, but he was a suspect since 14.08.03). Also, I think the owner of the photo, or the parents of the owner of the photo, could prevent it from being published.  Regardless, I was reliably informed that the photo was never returned to the owner, so that means it is still in a secure storage vault with all the other evidence. I think evidence in a case like this is not destroyed or returned until the accused completes their sentence or dies. I'm not sure they'd want the photo returned to them, anyway.

Even back in 2003 individuals faces could be pixelated to hide their identities so I’m not sure your reason why the photo wasn’t published actually holds any water.

You’re reliably informed that the photo was never returned to the owner? By whom? The person who claimed to have the photo in the first place? Handy that. Was that straight after you asked to see it?

[Nicholas]

If any family had mentioned that Luke had a parka before Jodi’s murder that would have been a slam dunk. No one from his family circle made that claim…not parents, not his brother, his father’s partner, his uncle etc etc.

As to any photo which has subsequently appeared don’t you think we would have seen it rather than merely talking about it? The tabloids, especially the Daily Record, would have paid a pretty penny for an incriminating piece of evidence like that but so far nada.

I don’t recall the media reporting on any witness claiming sadistic killer Luke Mitchell owned/wore the missing khaki green army parka jacket prior to his murder

The media only appeared to focus on reporting on Alan Turnball questioning Corinne Mitchell and her denying her killer son had owned one prior to his murder - and of Corinne denying she burnt anything in the back garden that night


“She also rejected witness claims that Mitchell had a parka-style jacket before 14-year-old Jodi died.

She said she had bought him one eight days later as it was 'fashionable'.

And Mrs Mitchell denied burning anything in her garden within a couple of hours of Jodi being murdered.


The above article only says ‘witnesses’ it doesn’t name the witnesses or go into any detail of what the witnesses said

Is it because the reporter didn’t know what the witnesses said because they weren’t in court when the witnesses gave evidence or maybe because the reporter ran out of space - as their article could only be 1000 words in length in order to fit in the paper they were reporting for

What were the names of all the witnesses who’s evidence was they saw killer Luke in his khaki green army jacket prior to his murder?

[Nicholas]

Question Time For [moderated] Sandra Lean (Part 171)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/08/killer-luke-mitchell-question-time-for-confidence-trickster-sandra-lean-part-170/

Innocence Fraudsters Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes, Semen/Sperm & Urine Fascination/Fetish (Part 172)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/08/killer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraudsters-sandra-lean-scott-forbes-semen-sperm-urine-fascination-fetish-part-172/