Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 765900 times)

0 Members and 31 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3795 on: August 28, 2023, 11:18:13 PM »
‘During one army cadet exercise, acquaintances remember the youngster approaching a girl from behind in a balaclava, and warning “it would be so easy to kill you.”
What were the names of the witnesses who told the jury about sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s balaclava?

Another fling ended on a more threatening note, with another West Lothian girl Kimberly Tait, claiming Mitchell once pulled a knife on her after she refused to sleep with him. Mitchell claimed the knife incident was only a joke”


“During one army cadet exercise, acquaintances remember the youngster approaching a girl from behind in a balaclava, and warning “it would be so easy to kill you”

Acquaintances? So not witnesses who gave evidence in court.


Your second quote is from yet another alleged victim of Luke who was never called to give evidence in court. More dynamite apparently unused by Turnbull or simply another less than credible witness looking for her 15 minutes of fame and a healthy payout?


« Last Edit: August 28, 2023, 11:59:22 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 Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3796 on: August 29, 2023, 12:24:14 AM »

Acquaintances? So not witnesses who gave evidence in court.


How so?

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

Con Artist Sandra Lean - On How To Say There Were Reporting Restrictions Without Saying There Were Reporting Restrictions (Part 164)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 12:35:08 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 Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3797 on: August 29, 2023, 01:39:35 AM »
Your second quote is from yet another alleged victim of Luke who was never called to give evidence in court. More dynamite apparently unused by Turnbull or simply another less than credible witness looking for her 15 minutes of fame and a healthy payout?

If what you state were a fact - it’s not - but if it were, why is there only this one paragraph on Kimberly T and no other media articles mention her?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3798 on: August 29, 2023, 02:49:36 AM »
Similarly to how there were and still are dna profiles which link sadistic killer Luke Mitchell to his murder

Can you expand on this, Nicholas? What incriminating DNA from LM was found at the locus? I thought there were only some markers found, from semen on her bra, which matched some of the markers in LM's genetic profile and that it was deemed as innocent transfer because it wasn't fresh semen and because of the fact he and Jodi were in an intimate relationship?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3799 on: August 29, 2023, 09:25:23 AM »
How so?

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

Con Artist Sandra Lean - On How To Say There Were Reporting Restrictions Without Saying There Were Reporting Restrictions (Part 164)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/

Absolutely so where is your proof that the act was used in this case?
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 #3800 on: August 29, 2023, 09:33:17 AM »
If what you state were a fact - it’s not - but if it were, why is there only this one paragraph on Kimberly T and no other media articles mention her?

Indeed you may ask that. Compare her treatment to that of Kimberely Thompson who I believe was younger than Kimberely Tait but whose testimony was reported widely. 

Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that Tait did not give evidence, much like Null, in court? Of course this again raises the question of her credibility as a witness.
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 #3801 on: August 29, 2023, 09:43:08 AM »
Can you expand on this, Nicholas? What incriminating DNA from LM was found at the locus? I thought there were only some markers found, from semen on her bra, which matched some of the markers in LM's genetic profile and that it was deemed as innocent transfer because it wasn't fresh semen and because of the fact he and Jodi were in an intimate relationship?

‘Some markers’ is of absolutely no evidential value whatsoever. I’m sure some of us here share some DNA markers.

There was Jodi’s DNA on a pair of Luke’s trousers and that was deemed innocent transfer. Perhaps that’s what’s mixing you up?

What do you think of Steven Kelly’s full DNA profile on Jodi’s body? How incriminating do you feel that that was?
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 Mr Apples

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3802 on: August 29, 2023, 01:26:21 PM »
[(&^& author=faithlilly link=topic=11976.msg707137#msg707137 date=1693298588]
‘Some markers’ is of absolutely no evidential value whatsoever. I’m sure some of us here share some DNA markers.

There was Jodi’s DNA on a pair of Luke’s trousers and that was deemed innocent transfer. Perhaps that’s what’s mixing you up?

What do you think of Steven Kelly’s full DNA profile on Jodi’s body? How incriminating do you feel that that was?
[/quote]

As far as I'm aware, there was nothing found at the locus which could link LM to the murder. There were 'traces' of his DNA found, from semen, on a bra and all over her body but it was very likely from innocent transfer from their previous meet-ups, and the reason for all of his traces of DNA being there was very likely from rain water diffusion. Likewise, it was accepted that the full DNA profile (from semen) of SK's found on Jodi's t-shirt  -- a t-shirt that, it was accepted, was borrowed from her sister Janine; LM said to police at the start of the investigation that Jodi sometimes borrowed Janine's clothes, even identifying the black baggy cords that she'd worn on the night of the murder were Janine's -- at the locus was innocently transferred, as the t-shirt was freshly laundered (it smelled strongly of washing detergent) and therefore the said full profile was from a degraded semen stain that had survived a washing cycle and had spread to her bra and other parts of her body via rain water diffusion, not to mention that Jodi's clothes were all bundled together by police during the early hours of 01.07.03 and therefore causing more innocent DNA transfer to different clothes, etc. Like I said, Jodi borrowed the black t-shirt she was wearing on the evening she was murdered from Janine, and Janine was in an intimate relationship with SK; the t-shirt smelled strongly of washing powder detergent, which led experts to believe the semen stain from which SK's full profile was obtained was a degraded semen stain that had survived a washing machine cycle (or made contact with other clothes of Janine's or SK's that had semen stains on them prior to the murder). Besides, SK's and Janine's whereabouts between dinner time and 2030 hrs on 30.06.03 were thoroughly checked out and they were both alibied by his father, Robert Kelly, as well as other sources. More crucially, Janine herself alibied SK back in 2003 -- just like she does in the present day even though they stopped dating each other a few years after the murder. Janine and Jodi were close as sisters throughout all their lives right up until the murder, so there was no way she would've tried to cover up Jodi's murder. Likewise, JOSJ was close to his younger sister Jodi. They were always a close and loving family right up until Jodi's death. We've all heard about JOSJ's mental health struggles and temper tantrums throughout his late teens and so on, but that doesn't make him a murderer. They were a close and loving family who had problems like all families do, so the notion that he had something to do with his own sister's horrific death is ridiculous. Besides, do you think he would've visited SL's door like he did years after the murder to vent his frustration at her trying to keep the case open, if he'd had something to do with his younger sister's death? It doesn't make sense. Surely he would've distanced himself as much as possible from the case had he been involved in some way and gotten away with it? Josj was clearly annoyed with SL for all the right reasons: because she was -- and still is -- prolonging their pain and suffering. JUDJ visited CM's place of work years after the murder to confront her. Again, this confrontation was for all the right reasons. It wasn't because she was worried that CM could've exposed the Jones family as possibly having had something to do with Jodi's murder, but, rather, that she was annoyed with the fact that CM was prolonging her family's grief and suffering; annoyed at CM's denial.

Btw, the 'stocky man' myth has been debunked several times now over the years. It wasn't JOSJ who was following Jodi on the Easthouses main road that day.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 05:34:47 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3803 on: August 29, 2023, 02:03:49 PM »
‘Some markers’ is of absolutely no evidential value whatsoever. I’m sure some of us here share some DNA markers.

There was Jodi’s DNA on a pair of Luke’s trousers and that was deemed innocent transfer. Perhaps that’s what’s mixing you up?

What do you think of Steven Kelly’s full DNA profile on Jodi’s body? How incriminating do you feel that that was?

Yes, I agree that those markers could've been from anyone. It's futile discussing the DNA in this case as it takes us no further forward and it looks like it never will. All of it was retested circa 2013 as per the SCCR  and nothing was found.

Yes, I know all about Jodi's DNA on those trousers taken from Luke's house. It was accepted as fact they weren't worn by Luke on the day of the murder and could have been deposited any time, innocently, before the murder.

See my post above re the presence of SK's full DNA profile being found at the locus. It's all been debunked over the years many, many times.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3804 on: August 29, 2023, 05:14:17 PM »
Quote
What do you think of Steven Kelly’s full DNA profile on Jodi’s body? How incriminating do you feel that that was?

Lying again, it really is your trade mark. Full profile from body of SK's?

Quote
"The only full profile identified from any of these samples was 10G - O/S Front, shirt piece 2. ---------"
(SL) = SK.

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3805 on: August 29, 2023, 06:25:22 PM »
[(&^& author=faithlilly link=topic=11976.msg707137#msg707137 date=1693298588]
‘Some markers’ is of absolutely no evidential value whatsoever. I’m sure some of us here share some DNA markers.

There was Jodi’s DNA on a pair of Luke’s trousers and that was deemed innocent transfer. Perhaps that’s what’s mixing you up?

What do you think of Steven Kelly’s full DNA profile on Jodi’s body? How incriminating do you feel that that was?


As far as I'm aware, there was nothing found at the locus which could link LM to the murder. There were 'traces' of his DNA found, from semen, on a bra and all over her body but it was very likely from innocent transfer from their previous meet-ups, and the reason for all of his traces of DNA being there was very likely from rain water diffusion. Likewise, it was accepted that the full DNA profile (from semen) of SK's found on Jodi's t-shirt  -- a t-shirt that, it was accepted, was borrowed from her sister Janine; LM said to police at the start of the investigation that Jodi sometimes borrowed Janine's clothes, even identifying the black baggy cords that she'd worn on the night of the murder were Janine's -- at the locus was innocently transferred, as the t-shirt was freshly laundered (it smelled strongly of washing detergent) and therefore the said full profile was from a degraded semen stain that had survived a washing cycle and had spread to her bra and other parts of her body via rain water diffusion, not to mention that Jodi's clothes were all bundled together by police during the early hours of 01.07.03 and therefore causing more innocent DNA transfer to different clothes, etc. Like I said, Jodi borrowed the black t-shirt she was wearing on the evening she was murdered from Janine, and Janine was in an intimate relationship with SK; the t-shirt smelled strongly of washing powder detergent, which led experts to believe the semen stain from which SK's full profile was obtained was a degraded semen stain that had survived a washing machine cycle (or made contact with other clothes of Janine's or SK's that had semen stains on them prior to the murder). Besides, SK's and Janine's whereabouts between dinner time and 2030 hrs on 30.06.03 were thoroughly checked out and they were both alibied by his father, Robert Kelly, as well as other sources. More crucially, Janine herself alibied SK back in 2003 -- just like she does in the present day even though they stopped dating each other a few years after the murder. Janine and Jodi were close as sisters throughout all their lives right up until the murder, so there was no way she would've tried to cover up Jodi's murder. Likewise, JOSJ was close to his younger sister Jodi. They were always a close and loving family right up until Jodi's death. We've all heard about JOSJ's mental health struggles and temper tantrums throughout his late teens and so on, but that doesn't make him a murderer. They were a close and loving family who had problems like all families do, so the notion that he had something to do with his own sister's horrific death is ridiculous. Besides, do you think he would've visited SL's door like he did years after the murder to vent his frustration at her trying to keep the case open, if he'd had something to do with his younger sister's death? It doesn't make sense. Surely he would've distanced himself as much as possible from the case had he been involved in some way and gotten away with it? Josj was clearly annoyed with SL for all the right reasons: because she was -- and still is -- prolonging their pain and suffering. JUDJ visited CM's place of work years after the murder to confront her. Again, this confrontation was for all the right reasons. It wasn't because she was worried that CM could've exposed the Jones family as possibly having had something to do with Jodi's murder, but, rather, that she was annoyed with the fact that CM was prolonging her family's grief and suffering; annoyed at CM's denial.

Btw, the 'stocky man' myth has been debunked several times now over the years. It wasn't JOSJ who was following Jodi on the Easthouses main road that day.

Be honest Mr Apples you have not a shred of evidence for most of the above. That you condone physical intimidation calls your judgement into doubt right off the bat.

Unless you know the Jones’s personally you have no idea what they were like as a family. You are simply believing what you want to believe.
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 #3806 on: August 29, 2023, 06:30:16 PM »
Yes, I agree that those markers could've been from anyone. It's futile discussing the DNA in this case as it takes us no further forward and it looks like it never will. All of it was retested circa 2013 as per the SCCR  and nothing was found.

Yes, I know all about Jodi's DNA on those trousers taken from Luke's house. It was accepted as fact they weren't worn by Luke on the day of the murder and could have been deposited any time, innocently, before the murder.

See my post above re the presence of SK's full DNA profile being found at the locus. It's all been debunked over the years many, many times.

Were tests ever done to establish whether, in this case, semen could have survived a wash in the domestic washing machine used to wash Janine’s clothes?  Surely until it was Steven Kelly should not have been ruled out as a suspect?
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 #3807 on: August 29, 2023, 06:40:51 PM »
Lying again, it really is your trade mark. Full profile from body of SK's?
 (SL) = SK.

I think we all know who is introducing dishonesty into this debate.

MIAST stated that Kelly’s DNA was found on Jodi’s tshirt. Has Kelly sued them yet?
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 Mr Apples

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3808 on: August 29, 2023, 07:30:55 PM »
Be honest Mr Apples you have not a shred of evidence for most of the above. That you condone physical intimidation calls your judgement into doubt right off the bat.

Unless you know the Jones’s personally you have no idea what they were like as a family. You are simply believing what you want to believe.

No I don't have evidence, but neither do you (perhaps you have more than most, but you don't have 'everything', and I doubt you were at that 42-day trial to hear all the rest of that incriminating circumstantial evidence and get a feel for the case). What I do have is logic and common sense. I never said I condoned physical intimidation, but there are exceptions to most things -- and this might be one of them. Everyone has a breaking point -- some reach theirs quicker than others. If the shoe was on the other foot, and all that (all that incriminating circumstantial evidence). Would you want some jumped-up, mature student mouthbreather with a bogus doctorate continually fomenting activism that is based on misinformation and is deeply fundamentally flawed? And, no, I don't know the Joneses. They had their fair share of problems admittedly, but murdering and protecting a murderer? No way, Jose.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2023, 07:47:04 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline Mr Apples

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #3809 on: August 29, 2023, 07:44:13 PM »
Were tests ever done to establish whether, in this case, semen could have survived a wash in the domestic washing machine used to wash Janine’s clothes?  Surely until it was Steven Kelly should not have been ruled out as a suspect?

Scientific argument would've no doubt been introduced by the Prosecution in court and clearly explained. I believe SK was treated with an element of suspicion, but obviously he was supplanted by LM when all the circumstantial evidence against the latter began to filter through.