Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[Dexter]

mrswah, I want to be really clear here. I have never asked anyone for proof of educational qualifications. I have asked if certain people are allowed to talk for others who, apparently, are unable to speak for themselves for whatever reason. Because the information has been presented as second hand information I asked for proof.  Never once have I asked anyone for proof of qualifications. Others have turned their question into a "joke" question, not a serious  issue and have never been pulled up for BS. Perhaps if, from now on, I say that none of my questions are serious ones,  I'll be allowed too? As for SL showing proof of anything,  of course the author should. If not,, why not? What's to hide? Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. Why doesn't SL wait until she can show the proof before she whips up a crowd? I'll tell you why,  IMO, because she whips up a crowd that needs nothing more than being whipped up.  They don't require proof. This is a cult. IMO.

It's really bad to involve other people in questions isn't it 

Let's see where someone had actually asked a serious question about anyone's qualifications on here other than demand more and more proof about SL

I wouldn't dream of asking anyone a serious question about their qualifications on here. Not only do I not care...how could some have time? Being here is a 24/7 job.

The dedication shines but doesn't leave time for much else does it?

Ps in case you missed it no one asked anyone for their qualifications as was stated at the time. It answers itself

Posting comments on behalf of someone who is under attack interrupts the flow. Yes how awful is that?

People can make up anything and then say oh well they aren't in the forum blah blah so it doesn't matter

You keep mentioning SF and his Twitter. You were encouraged to ask him if you doubt what he says. You didn't so that's another excuse to berate and not believe him

[rulesapply]

It's really bad to involve other people in questions isn't it 

Let's see where someone had actually asked a serious question about anyone's qualifications on here other than demand more and more proof about SL

I wouldn't dream of asking anyone a serious question about their qualifications on here. Not only do I not care...how could some have time? Being here is a 24/7 job.

The dedication shines but doesn't leave time for much else does it?

Ps in case you missed it no one asked anyone for their qualifications as was stated at the time. It answers itself

Posting comments on behalf of someone who is under attack interrupts the flow. Yes how awful is that?

People can make up anything and then say oh well they aren't in the forum blah blah so it doesn't matter

You keep mentioning SF and his Twitter. You were encouraged to ask him if you doubt what he says. You didn't so that's another excuse to berate and not believe him

How do you know I didn't ask him?

[Dexter]

How do you know I didn't ask him?

So am I wrong?

[rulesapply]

So am I wrong?

How do you know I didn't ask him?

[Natterjack]

In regards to the discussion around the judges direction to the jury. Is this something a judge can do/has done?

Also, has there been any further updates from LM and his new legal team?

[Dexter]

How do you know I didn't ask him?

Thought you didn't like riddles and liked answers. Some of your ideas are good just that you do not stick to them yourself.

[rulesapply]

This case is closed. Luke Mitchell is going nowhere. He will be enjoying his prison food for many many years to come. These people can campaign, protest, deface public property, threaten journalists, troll forums all they want, it will not change a thing. It always ends in tears for them. For the simple reason, Mitchell is as guilty as they come.

I agree.

[mrswah]

In regards to the discussion around the judges direction to the jury. Is this something a judge can do/has done?

Also, has there been any further updates from LM and his new legal team?

I, too, would like answers to your questions!

[mrswah]

Good Morning!

Just a reminder:  please keep on topic, and refrain from squabbling.  Many thanks.

[Nicholas]

We know all the usual/prominent areas, and we know it is virtually everyone of them that Ms Lean attempts to apply to this case. Police incompetence, eye witness testimony, unreliable witness testimony, perjury, incompetent defence, circumstantial evidence, media pressure/prejudice, human rights. Wrongful direction by the Judge and on it goes.

I’m still waiting to see a chronological list of all the media articles - which also includes the ones where the Mitchell’s spoke to journalists.

I’d also like to see proof Sky news stated the interview with killer Luke and Corinne Mitchell wouldn’t be aired on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral. Not that it makes any difference to the bigger picture on this.

This ‘memorial’ obviously wasn’t a private affair because if it were the Mitchell’s wouldn’t have invited the press into their home in the first place (Because the media didn’t force their way in).

And I suspect the candle on the table - with the words written on it - was most probably Corinne Mitchell’s idea.

[Nicholas]

The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias.   is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of.

I’m of the view she uses ‘confirmation bias’ as a manipulation tactic

[Nicholas]

She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent,

She most certainly did not in 2014 to me

[Nicholas]

The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias. It is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of. She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent, uninvolved in the death of his girlfriend in that 7 month period of the calm before the storm. At at time when all three believed there would be no arrest. That there was and could not be evidence, the naivety and lack of understanding, around how time consuming the build up of circumstantial cases can be. That those preconceptions she had that were wrong.

Was Sandra Lean involved with the Mitchell’s around the time of the Sky interview?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg458#msg458

And if so what was the level of her communication with them around this time?

What did she think about them inviting James Matthews into their home on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral? And did she think it was a good idea?

[Nicholas]

Of course there were choices but having gone down so many roads, different cases,

Do you mean using various manipulation tactics ?

[Nicholas]

Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm.

 

Excerpts from https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12412528.jodi-murder-trial-told-of-cannabis-sessions/
‘JODI Jones smoked cannabis with the youth accused of murdering her just hours before she died, a court was told yesterday.

‘He said Mr Mitchell, Jodi, and himself were there most lunchtimes and it was Mr Mitchell who had the cannabis ''99.9% of the time'', adding: ''Usually Luke would roll a joint and have some of it himself and pass it round other members of the group.''