"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Rusty]

I’ve always said I’m not sure one way or another which is why I fully support an independent review. There was only a couple of things that could convince either way, One of which is what Luke’s brother had to say. For me his silence is currently damaging Luke’s case. It is now in the public eye more than it has ever been, I understand if he wants to keep his privacy but all he and his father would need to do, in order not to damage Luke’s case any further, would be to have Sandra release a statement on her live chat next week saying they support Luke and the independent review but will not be involved and wish to remain private, no further statements would be made. That would clarify their stance and stop any further questions. But the fact there is currently a wall of silence sadly speaks volumes in a lot of people’s eyes.

Either way I still fully support an independent review.

I'm not sure Sandra would be the ideal candidate for them to release a statement though.

[faithlilly]

I’ve always said I’m not sure one way or another which is why I fully support an independent review. There was only a couple of things that could convince either way, One of which is what Luke’s brother had to say. For me his silence is currently damaging Luke’s case. It is now in the public eye more than it has ever been, I understand if he wants to keep his privacy but all he and his father would need to do, in order not to damage Luke’s case any further, would be to have Sandra release a statement on her live chat next week saying they support Luke and the independent review but will not be involved and wish to remain private, no further statements would be made. That would clarify their stance and stop any further questions. But the fact there is currently a wall of silence sadly speaks volumes in a lot of people’s eyes.

Either way I still fully support an independent review.

People already think that Shane is a liar, do you think a statement now would change people’s entrenched views? I’m afraid rather than silencing sceptics it would still raise questions, just different ones.

I, like you, support an independent review where ALL the evidence collected can be scrutinised.

[faithlilly]

I'm not sure Sandra would be the ideal candidate for them to release a statement though.

I agree. She would simply be disbelieved by those who don’t trust her already.

[Rusty]

I agree. She would simply be disbelieved by those who don’t trust her already.

It has nothing to do with disbelieve. If they do support Luke and wanted to go through Sandra, then they had the perfect opportunity to do so only a matter of weeks ago with the C5 documentary, they could have gone on record then. Preferably the same way Luke spoke by telephone. That way their identity could still have remained private.

There are more outlets they could use, to make their feelings public, using a number of media outlets that have more coverage, and they could do this though a solicitor. Meaning these media outlets could not twist their words.

I also might add, if they did not support Luke and wanted to say this though Sandra, do you think Sandra would promote this though one of her live chats? That would be very messy.

But we are talking 17 years here. And we have heard nothing from them. Silence, tells us all we need to know.

[Paranoid Android]

It seems to be you who are looking for a fight. Perhaps if you focus more on the case and less on me or your opinion of my posting style then we’ll get on better? Deal?

Anyhooo if you look at the case objectively and the shambles that the police made of elements as fundamental as the preservation of the body, gathering of forensics etc, etc etc then the man on the Clapham omnibus can only come to the conclusion that the case was contaminated from the beginning. The morning after he murder, as Dalkeith schoolchildren were arriving at school, Jodi’s body was still lying naked and uncovered yards from them.. How can you have any faith in the result of an investigation that was so shoddily carried out from the very beginning?

Nah, I'm not interested in fighting, but your mind isn't open to all of the possibilities, and your tone isn't conducive to debate.

Folk will be less likely to opine on your posting style if you try to be a wee bit more civil - telling people to make their posts tidier, and saying this isn't the forum for you', etc', is always going to rub people up the wrong way.

I do think that the police made lots of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean Luke Mitchell is innocent - he was he convicted by a jury, and all of the subsequent appeals came to nothing - there could be reasons for that.

[Paranoid Android]

I’ve always said I’m not sure one way or another which is why I fully support an independent review. There was only a couple of things that could convince either way, One of which is what Luke’s brother had to say. For me his silence is currently damaging Luke’s case. It is now in the public eye more than it has ever been, I understand if he wants to keep his privacy but all he and his father would need to do, in order not to damage Luke’s case any further, would be to have Sandra release a statement on her live chat next week saying they support Luke and the independent review but will not be involved and wish to remain private, no further statements would be made. That would clarify their stance and stop any further questions. But the fact there is currently a wall of silence sadly speaks volumes in a lot of people’s eyes.

Either way I still fully support an independent review.

Is an independent review likely if there is no new evidence?

[Bullseye]

Is an independent review likely if there is no new evidence?

I don’t think they need new evidence for an independent review, that just goes over everything to see if anything was missed and if everything was done correct, like the review into hillsborough.

New evidence would be needed for an appeal I think.

[Bullseye]

I'm not sure Sandra would be the ideal candidate for them to release a statement though.

You may be right. But any kind of statements if they do indeed support Luke. If they don’t, staying silent says everything IMO.

[faithlilly]

Nah, I'm not interested in fighting, but your mind isn't open to all of the possibilities, and your tone isn't conducive to debate.

Folk will be less likely to opine on your posting style if you try to be a wee bit more civil - telling people to make their posts tidier, and saying this isn't the forum for you', etc', is always going to rub people up the wrong way.

I do think that the police made lots of mistakes, but that doesn't necessarily mean Luke Mitchell is innocent - he was he convicted by a jury, and all of the subsequent appeals came to nothing - there could be reasons for that.

I’m afraid it’s you who decided to personalise things, even though the ‘tidier’ post wasn’t directed at you ( btw it was a bit of a joke to a poster who finishes most sentences with ‘messy’).

Further I am absolutely civil when I am treated in the same fashion. Unfortunately those occasions are very much in the minority since I first posted on the forum. Perhaps you haven’t noticed.

Anyhoo if you look at any individual who has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice the likelihood is that they’ve gone through several appeals before they are freed and their conviction quashed. The number of appeals rejected therefore cannot and should not be regarded as indicator of guilt or innocence.

As you yourself admit, the police made lots of mistakes and it is possible that any one of those mistakes, had they been carried out properly, could have completely exonerated Luke. Can you really say that with such a shoddy investigation Luke has been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[faithlilly]

It has nothing to do with disbelieve. If they do support Luke and wanted to go through Sandra, then they had the perfect opportunity to do so only a matter of weeks ago with the C5 documentary, they could have gone on record then. Preferably the same way Luke spoke by telephone. That way their identity could still have remained private.

There are more outlets they could use, to make their feelings public, using a number of media outlets that have more coverage, and they could do this though a solicitor. Meaning these media outlets could not twist their words.

I also might add, if they did not support Luke and wanted to say this though Sandra, do you think Sandra would promote this though one of her live chats? That would be very messy.

But we are talking 17 years here. And we have heard nothing from them. Silence, tells us all we need to know.

It really doesn’t. Imagine tomorrow Shane said, say through a solicitor, I support my brother’s campaign to have his conviction overturned. Would it change anything? Would it replace his integrity in the eyes of those who doubt him? Would it make people who doubt Luke believe him?

There is nothing to be gained by Shane coming forward...not for Luke and definitely not for him and those who think there is are, with the greatest respect, being a tad naive.

[faithlilly]

You may be right. But any kind of statements if they do indeed support Luke. If they don’t, staying silent says everything IMO.

And speaking up would damn him too.

[Paranoid Android]

I’m afraid it’s you who decided to personalise things


Further I am absolutely civil when I am treated in the same fashion. Unfortunately those occasions are very much in the minority since I first posted on the forum. Perhaps you haven’t noticed.

Can you really say that with such a shoddy investigation Luke has been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

1 - Nope - I just see you charging around being rude to people.

2 - I hadn't noticed - probably because you're so rude to people.

3 - There was always reasonable doubt, and it was never a safe conviction, but the jury thought otherwise, and LM may well have committed the murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalence

[Parky41]

No investigation is ever perfect, more so where there is no concrete proof of liable.

Rather than trying to concentrate solely on the main points of evidence used at trial, I sought to understand why suspicion fell upon LM.
Why him and not these 'other'  males that Ms Lean pushes out as being similar/lessor or greater candidates to LM?
Why were these males not in the dock - why LM?

The simplest, easiest answer is - the unfolding of the evidence itself.
Common sense would tell us that - other males closely linked were not simply ignored. 

The very evidence LM gave, the narrative - was so full of holes, it ultimately raised red flags time after time.
Time the one area in itself that proved to be fatal against LM.
A narrative told - that really did not stand the test of time.
10 mins: around the dinner time.
10 mins: to find Jodi Jones.
7 mins: to get from his house onto Roansdyke Path.
These are but three areas - It is these very timings that held no water in the narrative told. 

The crown took on the case to prosecute - they did so as they believed there was a case to answer to.

If all had been as flimsy as some believe - the verdict would have been different.

Isn't it just a little ironic that someone, based on their own narrative, who states there was no evidence to convict LM feels that others with less
evidence by far, should have been in his place - Really?
Not only that, this person does not just stop at that but actually attempts to hang them out to dry - repeatedly.
By lying, manipulating, theorizing - Because they can not disprove the evidence held against LM.
The very evidence that ultimately - stemmed from LM himself.

[WakeyWakey]

People already think that Shane is a liar, do you think a statement now would change people’s entrenched views? I’m afraid rather than silencing sceptics it would still raise questions, just different ones.

I, like you, support an independent review where ALL the evidence collected can be scrutinised.

Cant speak for everyone but I cannot stress enough as someone who doubts lukes innocence, how devastating it would be to my position if shane spoke publicly of his support for luke and his attempts at independent review and retrial. It's one of a very few potential pieces of new information that would force me to re-evaluate my whole stance.

he has proven himself as a capable, trustworthy and hardworking individual and worthwhile member of society since the events of the mid 2000s

similarly think a lot of those who currently support retrial / review would reconsider if shane gave an account publicly of his sincere belief in his brothers guilt (and detailed the reasons why)

[faithlilly]

1 - Nope - I just see you charging around being rude to people.

2 - I hadn't noticed - probably because you're so rude to people.

3 - There was always reasonable doubt, and it was never a safe conviction, but the jury thought otherwise, and LM may well have committed the murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalence

He may well have done but at least 7 of the jury could possibly have disagreed and I can understand why. On the first day of the deliberations I believe that the jury were irreconcilably split. They were not sequestered as they should have been but sent home to talk to there families, read the papers...who knows. That they came back the next day and still some could not agree that the evidence was enough to convict speaks volumes to me.