Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 765892 times)

0 Members and 28 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3750 on: August 25, 2023, 12:06:19 AM »
Another article at The Guardian stated, "Malkinson’s conviction was overturned when DNA samples from the victim’s clothing, which had been preserved in a forensic archive, were tested and found to contain DNA from someone who was likely to have been the attacker.."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/07/police-withheld-evidence-making-rape-conviction-unsafe-says-uk-court-of-appeal-andrew-malkinson

Mr B was/is almost 10 years younger than violent rapist Andrew Malkinson

Why don’t you ask all these fraudsters what was said during Malkinson’s trial by his victim about the “bright red insect bites, like measles” on his skin
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 12:08:44 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3751 on: August 25, 2023, 12:08:56 AM »
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'

I am not sure how many times that this will have to be posted.

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3752 on: August 25, 2023, 12:10:45 AM »
If all of the evidence had been in the possession of GMP, they might have destroyed it.  The evidence that they did  destroy might have yielded additional clues, but we will never know.

Where’s the concrete proof that violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing was destroyed?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3753 on: August 25, 2023, 12:13:59 AM »
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'

I am not sure how many times that this will have to be posted.

You can post this over and over - it makes no difference to the facts and the truth!

There is no evidence anywhere that sadistic killer Luke Mitchell was ever in “hysterics” - not even in his own evidence!
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 12:40:34 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3754 on: August 25, 2023, 12:17:05 AM »
How about admitting you were telling bare faced lies
You misunderstood and twisted what I wrote.  That there were samples remaining in the archive is a fortunate thing, but from what I can gather, one should not count on the continued existence of this archive.  If the sampled in the archive had been discarded, then the police's destruction of what was in their hands would have utterly prevented this particular miscarriage from being undone. 

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3755 on: August 25, 2023, 12:40:57 AM »
You misunderstood and twisted what I wrote

Lol
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3756 on: August 25, 2023, 12:47:02 AM »
That there were samples remaining in the archive is a fortunate thing

What exactly was tested - do you know?

Were the small, cut out pieces of material re-tested or was this a computer test of some description carried out by someone calling themselves a forensic scientist?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3757 on: August 25, 2023, 12:48:42 AM »
then the police's destruction of what was in their hands

Where’s the concrete proof that violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing was destroyed?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: destruction of evidence
« Reply #3758 on: August 25, 2023, 12:58:43 AM »
this particular miscarriage

 *&^^&

Again, violent rapist and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson’s appeal and public relations spin campaign is yet another example of the innocence fraud phenomenon

The fact that grifter Alex Chalk has said there will be a “non-statutory investigation” by a “senior legal figure” shows how deep innocence fraud goes within the criminal justice system
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 01:04:38 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3759 on: August 25, 2023, 10:39:52 AM »
Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'
Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.
'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'

I am not sure how many times that this will have to be posted.

Janine Jones signed her original statement as a true record of what she said. She also signed subsequent statements in the month following the murder as true. It was only as the police began to focus more heavily on Luke that those ‘recollections’ changed. It would be very interesting to see those original statements and how they began to change.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 11:31:13 AM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3760 on: August 25, 2023, 02:54:23 PM »
Janine Jones signed her original statement as a true record of what she said. She also signed subsequent statements in the month following the murder as true. It was only as the police began to focus more heavily on Luke that those ‘recollections’ changed. It would be very interesting to see those original statements and how they began to change.

The police were focusing on sadistic killer Luke Mitchell by the 3rd of July 2003!

In reality you have no idea what exactly Janine Jones original witness statement said in full

You are only aware of snippets of her statement which have been taken out of context
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 02:58:05 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3761 on: August 25, 2023, 05:48:19 PM »
The police were focusing on sadistic killer Luke Mitchell by the 3rd of July 2003!

In reality you have no idea what exactly Janine Jones original witness statement said in full

You are only aware of snippets of her statement which have been taken out of context

It is interesting that while you constantly ask to have Luke’s initial statement made public we hear no such demand from you for the publication of the search party three’s initial, and subsequent statements. Odd that.

When the BBC, with all the the weight of their legal department behind them,  accuses someone of changing a police statement then you can be pretty sure that they actually did it.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 06:03:40 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3762 on: August 25, 2023, 07:00:59 PM »
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back

ANY investigation into the justice system's handling of the case of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in jail for a rape he did not commit, should be extended to other troubling convictions.
Malkinson would have been freed years earlier, had the Criminal Cases Review Commission sent his case back to the appeal court after it emerged that in 2007 police and prosecutors knew another man's DNA was on the victim's clothing.

But as Eye readers know, his is not the only case where the underfunded and overwhelmed watchdog has refused to act – the most recent being that of Robin Garbutt, who was jailed in 2011 for killing his wife at their village post office (Eyes passim).

Midlothian muddle
In Scotland, meanwhile, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and its justice system are equally reluctant to right wrongs.

The case of Luke Mitchell, now 34, who has spent 20 years protesting his innocence, bears all the hallmarks of a grave miscarriage of justice. They were evident from the moment he was interviewed by police as a vulnerable 14-year-old without an adult present, suspected of killing his girlfriend, Jodi Jones, also 14.

Her mutilated body was found in woodland on the outskirts of Dalkeith in Midlothian. The pair had been due to meet, but Mitchell said Jodi had failed to turn up. The teenager and his dog later joined a search party after Jodi failed to return home, and it was his dog that found her.

That was enough for the police to be convinced he knew exactly where to look. Even though there was no forensic evidence to link Mitchell to the murder, the teenager with no police history had suddenly become a psychopathic killer.

He was convicted by a majority verdict in 2005, after his brother failed to corroborate his alibi that he was at home at the time, and on highly questionable identification evidence.

Manson myth
Newspapers carried lurid reports of detectives' belief he was inspired by Marilyn Manson and a painting by the goth singer depicting supposedly similar injuries to those inflicted on 1940s Hollywood actress Elizabeth Short in the so-called Black Dahlia murder.

That was nonsense, says one of his legal team, Scott Forbes. The reality was that Mitchell was seen near his home about 50 minutes after Jodi was said to have been tied up, assaulted and killed.

As a 2021 Channel 5 documentary illustrated, that would make it all but impossible for him to have been the killer. He could not have returned home in broad daylight, unseen and covered in blood, and disposed of all incriminating evidence.

Dishing the dirt
Two former detectives, who spent a year re-investigating the crime, said that when examined that night he had unwashed hair and mud under his fingernails, which proved he had not showered. Crucially, they identified other "stronger suspects", three of whom were at or near the scene at the time. But they were never treated as such by the police.

After the documentary was screened, Forbes applied for access to exhibits and material gathered in the case in order to carry out new forensic tests, only to learn the police were in the process of destroying it. The destruction was halted by the Lord Advocate's office.

All that remains are 300 scrapings and swabs, including ten taken from Jodi's body containing semen deposits, which incredibly were never tested for DNA at the time.

Wanton destruction
"Over 3,000 items were destroyed," Forbes told the Eye. "You must ask, what did the police so suddenly want to hide? I have no doubt Luke is innocent – failed by the police, a hostile press and a poor defence at the time." Mitchell's hopes of freedom now rest on securing and testing the swab samples. As Andrew Malkinson's case so graphically illustrated, that should be ordered immediately by the SCCRC.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2023, 07:03:43 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Kenmair

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3763 on: August 25, 2023, 07:37:23 PM »
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back

That was nonsense, says one of his legal team, Scott Forbes. The reality was that Mitchell was seen near his home about 50 minutes after Jodi was said to have been tied up, assaulted and killed. (Could have been done in half the time)

As a 2021 Channel 5 documentary illustrated, that would make it all but impossible for him to have been the killer. He could not have returned home in broad daylight, unseen and covered in blood, and disposed of all incriminating evidence. (Was never established there was extensive blood spatter - sensationalist nonsense)

Two former detectives, who spent a year re-investigating the crime, (Say no more)


Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that nonsense? Forbes, Channel 5 plus Jack & Victor. If that is LM's best hope he has no chance.


Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3764 on: August 25, 2023, 08:01:59 PM »
Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that nonsense? Forbes, Channel 5 plus Jack & Victor. If that is LM's best hope he has no chance.

You miss the point. Private Eye is a highly respected and widely read publication. With a miscarriage of justice raising awareness is half the battle and while Forbes may not be everyone’s cup of tea he’s certainly getting the word out there.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?