What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[William Wallace]

Some great reading again Parky. Your on point every time 

Pity he's wrong and can't see the wood for the trees.

[mrswah]

The search party were out looking for Jodi? Funny why they walked right past a house she had been found in recently when she had failed to come back on time without even knocking on the door and also failed to phone around other relatives and friends, before they opted to walk up a pitch black path. NOBODY would do that. You would knock on that door first and be phoning other people, even if it was on the way to the path. There is absolutely no explanation for that because nobody would do it.

Your attack on the tone of the call is pointless. None of us heard it or witnessed it. One of the "search party" said LM looked shocked and his eyes were wide, then changed it in Court to he looked normal. There's a surprise, another changed statement.

I've asked you and others who keep saying Mitchell did it to explain numerous known facts like the one's above which don't make any sense and nobody has yet given a credible answer.

I've asked people why AO was never cited as a witness given he was a crucial one. Nobody has given a credible reason why he was not. Don't you think it's rather bizarre that AO did not accompany his female partner to search up the path? She went with 2 young people while he stayed in the house and watched TV? Would you send your wife (assuming you're male) up a creepy dark path at 11pm with 2 people who were about 18 if your daughter was missing? No man would do that through choice. Why do you think AO didn't go?  As I said in the other thread......"the Police were too stupid to fathom this out". I can't say any more because it would just get deleted and I'd receive another yellow card. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be working out the likely answers. It's not that difficult if you piece together all the things that just don't make any sense. I might post them all, but it would probably be deleted.

Not sure that JuJ went out looking for Jodi either. I thought the  "search party" consisted of Jodi's grandmother, AW, her sister JaJ, and JaJ's boyfriend , SK.  ??  They later met up with LM.

[Nicholas]

Not sure that JuJ went out looking for Jodi either. I thought the  "search party" consisted of Jodi's grandmother, AW, her s They later met up with LM.

...who’s mother Corrine had sent him out looking for Jodi

Although she made out to James English it didn’t happen like this

[Holly Goodhead]

In what could be described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice ever Stefan Kiszko was convicted at a time when if there was DNA profiling it was in its infancy.  New evidence of DNA introduced at his appeal proved his innocence.
Neil Wilby writes about Stefan here  https://neilwilby.com/2016/03/20/the-case-of-stefan-kiszko-and-a-police-force-enamoured-by-its-own-sense-of-invincibility/

In my opinion there is not the remotest connection between Stefan's case and Mitchell's - in particular that no new evidence has ever been produced which justifies Mitchell's failed appeals or to justify a new one.
Just another red herring being introduced to Mitchell's case to join a shoal of them.

I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'.  I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec. 

SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:

In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.

The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.   

[faithlilly]

I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'.  I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec. 

SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:

In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.

The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.

The Birmingham Six weren’t given leave to appeal on their first attempt to have their case looked at again, lost their first full appeal after a six-week hearing (at that time the longest criminal appeal hearing ever held) and only succeeded in overturning their convictions on their second full appeal.

[Brietta]

I was responding to your comment that LM was represented by an advocate that you described as 'one of Scotland's foremost'.  I responded by highlighting SK's QC had a stellar reputation and went on to become Home Sec. 

SK's case was eventually overturned on evidence that was available at trial:

In fact, his innocence could have been demonstrated at the trial. The pathologist who examined Molseed's clothes found traces of sperm, whereas the sample taken from Kiszko by the police contained no sperm.

The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn LM's conviction is hardly surprising when you consider all the high profile miscarriage of justice cases go to and fro the appeal courts at least once bedore they're eventually overturned.

I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."

Therefore no grounds for appeal.

Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.

[Nicholas]

I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."

Therefore no grounds for appeal.

Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.

This is discussed here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&feature=youtu.be

and here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLxg3zSnjA&ab_channel=Foryoureyesonly

[faithlilly]

I think the salient part of your post is "The fact no new evidence has been found yet to overturn Mitchell's conviction is hardly surprising ..."

Therefore no grounds for appeal.

Unfortunately that doesn't deter the denizens of social media rewriting history to suit themselves.

On the other hand, if it was left to those who believe that the justice system should never be questioned no miscarriages of justice would ever be uncovered.

I remember the hoha you and your fellow supporters made when the forensic officer failed to wear gloves in Portugal yet when a young woman’s body is rolled onto a plastic sheet before any forensics are taken then left to lie there, uncovered, in the rain for ten hours you seem not to have a problem with that.

It really is a conundrum.

Mistaken reference removed

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
‘Sunday 25th April, during the live, I specifically invited anyone from mainstream media to come and speak to us directly, since the facts are more sensational than anything they could make up. Monday April 26th - their response? An article about the protest on May 3rd, claiming "The family of murdered teenager Jodi Jones have slammed a planned demo in support of Luke Mitchell as “despicable and delusional”. (A family member who doesn't want to be named, no less).
Make of that as you will!!!



What was it Sandra said about JaF allegedly stepping over Jodi’s body twice? Is this what she means by ‘more sensational than anything you could make up’?

[Nicholas]

Mute  point - perhaps this is one of the most ridiculous points you have made so far, other than the repetitive, move on we have proved this - rubbish. The recordings were played at trial, I, nor anyone else needs to prove this. The onus of proof to show this to be false is on Ms Lean. She has already admitted these recordings were played, that she doesn't physically have them but has the court transcripts around them? - I wonder if she actually does, as it is becoming clearer of how little she factually does have? - Those phone records, the investigation and elimination of others, statements, that of SK's father, now of AO. - the defence papers? How were the rest of the search party in comparison to LM.? When clarification was sought around these "hysterics?"  Who was vomiting? However:

Firstly, and remember here, that anyone who is discussing the evidence led by the Crown does not have the onus of proof to bare. The onus of proof to show that Mitchell is anything other than guilty, lies with the few who campaign on his behalf. They have failed miserably, as they can not even come close to this. - Mainly because there is this blank line of discussion when it comes to the Mitchells. - This consistent avenue of passing the buck. It only works on the few, who instantly jump on these repetitive rabbits getting pulled out the hat.

The repetitive rabbits - Those minute areas of verbatim used to add weight to air. Extracted from statements consisting of 1000's of words. Those missing pre and after areas, those vital areas of context. Or those 'what about?" Let's highlight a couple of areas here.

Jodi had been banned from using this path by her mother - What does JuJ actually say about this? When did she ban her daughter?, why did she ban her daughter?. We are told nothing of this, what we are however shown is a couple of small excerpts to show that she may have walked this path at some point, alone. It proves nothing. It gives absolutely no reason as to why LM made claim to simply idling away for the best part of two hours. It matters not a jot if this girl had walked this path alone before - what does matter and only matters is that - LM knew of this ban, that he knew the isolation of the path in question as being the reason for this ban. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hang around - there is an abundance of evidence to show however that this was made up.  Instead of those couple of tiny excerpts to prove some futile point, where are the other statements of accounts, of Jodi being banned? - her friends? As stated, these predictive rabbits are indictive of everything in the blatant weakness of which they are used. They only highlight more so, of how much evidence there was against LM, that clear cut suspicion, the strength of the prosecution case.

LM idling away for the best part of two hours, over:

Firstly that initial lie, of leaving home to meet with Jodi en-route. Of this being around 5.45pm.The meeting was claimed to be at 6pm.
Jodi walking an isolated path to meet with him.
The ban of using this isolated path.
These clear cut reasons as to why a 14yr old would not simply idle the time away, watching and waiting.
That clear cut proof that LM would know of the ban of walking this path.
Clear cut reason and knowledge of this isolated path, the dangers for a young girl. 
The sighting by  F&W.
Nothing for approx 18mins - we know it takes less that 7mins to get from his house onto the path itself.
That there is an expanse of woodland behind this gate, near to this gate is an entrance into a pathway to these woods.
We know there is a river flowing through here (The Esk)
We know there are openings from these woods onto Newbattle Abbey crescent.
Three sightings in the space of 15 - 20 mins, from 6pm - 6.15pm and just after. Busy road at this time of day? Yet nothing from the sighting by F&W around 17.40pm. And absolutely no sightings of him from just after 6.15pm until he met with the boys at 7.30pm So that is three sightings in a very small time frame. 1 sighting just after 17.40pm.
Where was LM? the rest of the time?
That he did not phone back, more so with the knowledge of this isolated path. She was not late with that first call.
She was however very late, by his claims after it. Claimed to be walking this isolated path on her own.
That there was absolutely nothing to show that his girl would have went elsewhere. His very claims are of this meet at 6pm.
Which only adds more weight into not phoning back. Remember here, by his first account, this is around 17.50pm.
She had not even been late when he phoned. He was told she had left to meet with him.
He did not phone back - we know of course why. As we know he had not left his house at 17.45pm

So you see, the time lapse on the Jones side is irrelevant to all and everything LM claimed to have done. - it is simply a diversion tactic.  Even If/with Jodi having walked this path alone at some point previously to the ban, it is still irrelevant to LM's claims.

And Faithlilly wants to know, minute by minute what AB was doing after the sighting of LM and Jodi around 4.55pm? - one is having a laugh surely?- perhaps explaining the above, with sense would be a better area of discussion before that of irrelevant time lapse with others, whom were clearly busy. Not this claimed rubbish above, which is paramount to twiddling his thumbs for the best part of two hours??  - normal for a 14yr old boy to do?, of course it's not.

Let's add on him telling DH Jodi was not coming out.
Of telling Jodi's mother he thought she had been grounded again.
Of Jodi leaving home prior to 5pm to meet with him and only him.
That Jodi had told her mother that they would be "mucking around up here"
That this girl who had been banned from using this path due to its isolation, would not have wandered into the woodland on her own
That the first place LM looked for Jodi was in this woodland, at the 'Gino spot'
That LM claimed never to have been in this woodland before.
That LM claimed he did not know of the existence of this V break.

The list is endless of course, there is much more - And none of it can be proven to be wrong, it is after all mainly LM's own account. It had massive holes in it from the moment he opened his mouth, those holes only got deeper as this investigation went on - And the police are blamed for this? The Crown, the defence, the Jones', the schoolteachers, the friends, any witness? On that note?

Where were the witness's for the Mitchells? - Character witness's for one? Why was LM's father not on the stand? His family? - anyone?

Don’t forget Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had ‘dumped’ him

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean making claim to her followers on ‘statement analysis’ and saying ‘i’ll be honest’

She’s said she’s going to look into it but don’t think they’ll come up with anything useful


Did you rely on ‘police statements’ to help write your books?

she doesn’t know much about it...

 


Publish Luke and Corrine Mitchell’s statements Sandra and let your followers decide for themselves

The thing is all we have are Sandra Leans interpretation of the statements; they are her version of events.

Sandra Lean continues...

[Nicholas]

Didn’t know where to put this - but well worth a listen - it’s relevant to Luke Mitchell’s campaign (And touches on hypnosis)

‘Is The Wrongful Conviction Movement Unstoppable?’

with Roberta Glass feat: Devon Tracey aka "Atheism is Unstoppable"   

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&ab_channel=RobertaGlassTrueCrimeReport

Meant to add - Some of Devon Tracey’s old videos can be watched https://www.bitchute.com/video/oEEer1m6ZvHK/

[Parky41]

Time to clear up this obtuse line of reasoning of the search party. Why there was no mother, father, brother or police out searching for Jodi Jones. - the simple answer is that of time, of the search trio being led to Jodi by Luke Mitchell and not his dog. I think it's important to highlight here, that power of suggestion/persuasion used by Ms Lean: How easily one can be led away from this very important area of the evidence against LM. By means of distraction on completely irrelevant thoughts. Mainly that of why the search trio were not searching Mayfield when Jodi had told her mother that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here" This knowledge is completely irrelevant to the events that took place from 10.49pm onwards, as is that of Jodi's mother banning Jodi from walking this path alone.
It is irrelevant as Jodi had not met with LM by his claims, that these very same claims were that the meet was to be in Newbattle.  What is however relevant and extremely so is that of time, there was barely time for this girls mother to gather any thoughts on anything. We know this, as she had barely found out her daughter was missing before discovering that her daughter was dead. She had found out she was missing at 10.42pm, reported her missing at 10.59pm and she was found dead at 11.30pm. That is the stark reality here. Not only was her daughter found dead, but she was found dead in an isolated area of woodland, in the dark, in record breaking time, by no other than LM himself. - the boy she had left home to meet with that day. The only person this girls mother thought her to be with. He had been that first person she contacted, she had given her daughter around 40mins of leniency passed her curfew. She had become somewhat upset at this lateness. She contacted LM, she did not ask if Jodi was with him, she texted 'right toad say goodbye to Luke your grounded again'

Why did the four people meet on this path?, again in record breaking time - the simple answer yet again is LM. This is what I meant by means of prompt by him. LM was on/at Roansdyke path at 10.59pm. (claims) He was definitely on the phone with JuJ at this time.The search party, from the very bottom of Mayfield had left just after 11pm. Far from being some ancient arthritic granny (CM and SL) AW was 66 yrs old and the former village post lady. They were heading in one direction only, that of Easthouse's. Remember here this is just after 11pm around 20-25mins since it is known Jodi was missing and only around 15mins after the call to the police. So we have the search party leaving and LM already being on this path around the same time. There is of course communication and the search trio become aware of LM's presence on this path and they head there instead of JuJ's. The plan of a meet to organise a search is diverted directly to this path, diverted by the very person who is on it, LM

We know this search party met around 11.20pm and we also know that JaJ spoke to LM around 11.18pm when heading out the complex ( next to the High school) Again we know the times of these calls from evidence and Ms Lean. And the search party of 4 meet. No-one got time to go to JuJ's, it simply was not possible for any extensive organisation of a search by others, the police inclusive to have even gotten off the ground.

What is again, highly relevant are reasons as to why AW wanted to search this path properly and again that of time. AW stated 'I was worried Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself' They had not long since left Mayfield and arrived at this path. They knew LM could not and by his own admission have actually searched in any detail. AW wanted it done properly. Also what is extremely relevant here, is If this search party of four, had gotten the chance to meet at JuJ's, the search would still have ended up on Roansdyke Path. We still know the search would have been led there by LM, as he had been claiming that Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she had failed to turn up, that the connecting area she would have walked to do so, would be this path. And If and only then, they had managed to meet at JuJ's, would there have been time for thought and discussion, of the "mucking around up here" and of this ban on the path. It simply did not happen though, there was not time. Again though, the search would still have ended up on this very path.

This constant talk of the search party arriving at the path too quickly - indeed, too quickly for LM who had obviously taken more time than required. He did not get the opportunity to get the dog story straight, did he? as he could not access something of Jodi's to scent with. Perhaps he is kicking himself somewhat here, but interestingly do these claims of the search party arriving too quick stem from him - Has he repeatedly being saying to his mother and SL that they arrived too quick?? By asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with? did he hope that the search could be delayed a little until they did? That by this very question it may once again have led the search party to JuJ's to access something of Jodi's - We will never know as AW had the sense to want to search this path thoroughly, to perhaps cancel this path out, whilst they were there and before yet again heading to her daughters house.

But they did meet around 11.20pm and LM did attempt to put his original plan into place, that of the dog. That he did introduce the notion of the woodland at the 'Gino' spot. His dog was doing nothing here. That the search party did not walk passed this V break in the wall-------- will continue this in detail and of Ms Leans fallacy of reasoning, the long route taken to avoid the stark contrast in the search parties statements.

But as above - Those clear precise reasons as to why it was only the four searching, and of why they were on Roansdyke path.

[Nicholas]

Will anyone from this forum be taking part in James English’ live ‘debate’ ?

 "Part four of the Luke Mitchell case will be coming in June and will be shown live.

"A panel of people will be presenting all the evidence and facts before, during and after this court case." (The Sun)

[faithlilly]

Time to clear up this obtuse line of reasoning of the search party. Why there was no mother, father, brother or police out searching for Jodi Jones. - the simple answer is that of time, of the search trio being led to Jodi by Luke Mitchell and not his dog. I think it's important to highlight here, that power of suggestion/persuasion used by Ms Lean: How easily one can be led away from this very important area of the evidence against LM. By means of distraction on completely irrelevant thoughts. Mainly that of why the search trio were not searching Mayfield when Jodi had told her mother that they (LM and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here" This knowledge is completely irrelevant to the events that took place from 10.49pm onwards, as is that of Jodi's mother banning Jodi from walking this path alone.
It is irrelevant as Jodi had not met with LM by his claims, that these very same claims were that the meet was to be in Newbattle.  What is however relevant and extremely so is that of time, there was barely time for this girls mother to gather any thoughts on anything. We know this, as she had barely found out her daughter was missing before discovering that her daughter was dead. She had found out she was missing at 10.42pm, reported her missing at 10.59pm and she was found dead at 11.30pm. That is the stark reality here. Not only was her daughter found dead, but she was found dead in an isolated area of woodland, in the dark, in record breaking time, by no other than LM himself. - the boy she had left home to meet with that day. The only person this girls mother thought her to be with. He had been that first person she contacted, she had given her daughter around 40mins of leniency passed her curfew. She had become somewhat upset at this lateness. She contacted LM, she did not ask if Jodi was with him, she texted 'right toad say goodbye to Luke your grounded again'

Why did the four people meet on this path?, again in record breaking time - the simple answer yet again is LM. This is what I meant by means of prompt by him. LM was on/at Roansdyke path at 10.59pm. (claims) He was definitely on the phone with JuJ at this time.The search party, from the very bottom of Mayfield had left just after 11pm. Far from being some ancient arthritic granny (CM and SL) AW was 66 yrs old and the former village post lady. They were heading in one direction only, that of Easthouse's. Remember here this is just after 11pm around 20-25mins since it is known Jodi was missing and only around 15mins after the call to the police. So we have the search party leaving and LM already being on this path around the same time. There is of course communication and the search trio become aware of LM's presence on this path and they head there instead of JuJ's. The plan of a meet to organise a search is diverted directly to this path, diverted by the very person who is on it, LM

We know this search party met around 11.20pm and we also know that JaJ spoke to LM around 11.18pm when heading out the complex ( next to the High school) Again we know the times of these calls from evidence and Ms Lean. And the search party of 4 meet. No-one got time to go to JuJ's, it simply was not possible for any extensive organisation of a search by others, the police inclusive to have even gotten off the ground.

What is again, highly relevant are reasons as to why AW wanted to search this path properly and again that of time. AW stated 'I was worried Jodi may have fallen and hurt herself' They had not long since left Mayfield and arrived at this path. They knew LM could not and by his own admission have actually searched in any detail. AW wanted it done properly. Also what is extremely relevant here, is If this search party of four, had gotten the chance to meet at JuJ's, the search would still have ended up on Roansdyke Path. We still know the search would have been led there by LM, as he had been claiming that Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she had failed to turn up, that the connecting area she would have walked to do so, would be this path. And If and only then, they had managed to meet at JuJ's, would there have been time for thought and discussion, of the "mucking around up here" and of this ban on the path. It simply did not happen though, there was not time. Again though, the search would still have ended up on this very path.

This constant talk of the search party arriving at the path too quickly - indeed, too quickly for LM who had obviously taken more time than required. He did not get the opportunity to get the dog story straight, did he? as he could not access something of Jodi's to scent with. Perhaps he is kicking himself somewhat here, but interestingly do these claims of the search party arriving too quick stem from him - Has he repeatedly being saying to his mother and SL that they arrived too quick?? By asking if they had anything of Jodi's to scent with? did he hope that the search could be delayed a little until they did? That by this very question it may once again have led the search party to JuJ's to access something of Jodi's - We will never know as AW had the sense to want to search this path thoroughly, to perhaps cancel this path out, whilst they were there and before yet again heading to her daughters house.

But they did meet around 11.20pm and LM did attempt to put his original plan into place, that of the dog. That he did introduce the notion of the woodland at the 'Gino' spot. His dog was doing nothing here. That the search party did not walk passed this V break in the wall-------- will continue this in detail and of Ms Leans fallacy of reasoning, the long route taken to avoid the stark contrast in the search parties statements.

But as above - Those clear precise reasons as to why it was only the four searching, and of why they were on Roansdyke path.

Again and again you attempt to negate understandable questions over the behaviour of Jodi’s family on the evening Jodi was murdered and again and again all you succeed in doing is drawing more attention to it.