We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
“Those outside prison fighting one another, will only hurt those inside fighting to get out. The present actions of JENGBA are unacceptable to MOJUK and can only damage prisoners and those supporting them!
If you are supporting someone in prison a victim of 'Joint Enterprise' you are now being forced by JENGBA to make a choice. If MOJUK had to make a choice or advise someone inside which organization might best represent the fight against 'Joint Enterprise' cases it would be to seek help from the newly formed National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC).
MOJUK fully supports the posting below from INNOCENT
To members of INNOCENT
This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.
Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.
We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.
We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.
But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.
Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.
We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.
Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT / <innocent@uk2.net>
challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993
End of Bulletin
Source for this message:
INNOCENT
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (& others) also set up the ‘National Joint Enterprise Casework Service (NJEC)’ http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.htm
Good question.
My own reply to this won't, IMO, be a popular one !
I actually admire Sandra Lean for standing up for convicted people whom she believes to be innocent, even if she sometimes gets it wrong (and, after all, she isn't the only person who gets things wrong). She may have been wrong about two of the people whose cases she discusses in her first book, "No Smoke", but she did put forward credible reasons why she thought they might be victims of a MOJ---in my opinion.
Two?
Have you read the Court of Appeal judgement on Gordon Park?
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/r-v-park-judgment-010520.pdf
Para’s 79, 82 and 83 are interesting
Good question.
My own reply to this won't, IMO, be a popular one !
I actually admire Sandra Lean for standing up for convicted people whom she believes to be innocent, even if she sometimes gets it wrong (and, after all, she isn't the only person who gets things wrong). She may have been wrong about two of the people whose cases she discusses in her first book, "No Smoke", but she did put forward credible reasons why she thought they might be victims of a MOJ---in my opinion.
As far as I can see, she is the only person to have written a book on Luke's case, and, IMO, she has researched it well. I can't see why she shouldn't be a reliable source, or why she should have written a book full of lies (as some seem to believe).
I never saw the Wrongly Accused Person's website, which some people on here have referred to. It disappeared long before I had ever heard of Sandra Lean or Luke Mitchell.
She claims not to have known the Mitchell family before Jodi's murder. I tend to believe her---why shouldn't I?
I have come across her on two other forums, and she uses her real name on both. I don't know whether she sometimes uses a pseudonym-----but then, I use one ! As far as I have seen, she takes time to answer people's questions, and she isn't rude to anyone.
I don't know much about her dealings with Billy Middleton (and yes, I do know who he is). It doesn't bother me that they ran a website together, or even whether they were "partners" (if they were).
However, SL has studied Luke's case in a lot more detail than she had the others.
edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
What about the Jones family (& others)
What do you think they make of the case papers?
Not sure what you're asking re the Jones family.
Would they have seen the case papers?
As far as I can see, she is the only person to have written a book on Luke's case
How much detail do you think the Jones/Walker family and their extended family are aware of?
I have no idea, apart from the fact that some of them would have been at the trial.
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
She’s an Anti-Vaxxer as well?! Then she just lost any remaining vestiges of credibility with me, those people are a menace IMO
She’s an Anti-Vaxxer as well?! Then she just lost any remaining vestiges of credibility with me, those people are a menace IMO
Good question.
My own reply to this won't, IMO, be a popular one !
I actually admire Sandra Lean for standing up for convicted people whom she believes to be innocent, even if she sometimes gets it wrong (and, after all, she isn't the only person who gets things wrong). She may have been wrong about two of the people whose cases she discusses in her first book, "No Smoke", but she did put forward credible reasons why she thought they might be victims of a MOJ---in my opinion.
As far as I can see, she is the only person to have written a book on Luke's case, and, IMO, she has researched it well. I can't see why she shouldn't be a reliable source, or why she should have written a book full of lies (as some seem to believe).
I never saw the Wrongly Accused Person's website, which some people on here have referred to. It disappeared long before I had ever heard of Sandra Lean or Luke Mitchell.
She claims not to have known the Mitchell family before Jodi's murder. I tend to believe her---why shouldn't I?
I have come across her on two other forums, and she uses her real name on both. I don't know whether she sometimes uses a pseudonym-----but then, I use one ! As far as I have seen, she takes time to answer people's questions, and she isn't rude to anyone.
I don't know much about her dealings with Billy Middleton (and yes, I do know who he is). It doesn't bother me that they ran a website together, or even whether they were "partners" (if they were).
I'm not so keen on her campaigning-----I'm not keen on "campaigning" in general, to be honest. I don't particularly like support groups either. Nor do I like the fact that she is an anti-vaxxer, but I suppose that's none of my business!
My question is she a credible source?
Do you not think they’ll have received copies of the same case papers as Sandra Lean?
I would imagine she's a credible source.
IMO. She most certainly is not credible. She is an online troll, a master manipulator. A compulsive lier and most of all, is in it for herself. Almost everything she has every came out with, has been discredited, we just have to trust her right? Because she has all notes? All the answers? Sounds like somebody, that wants to be the head of a cult if you ask me. Anybody that uses her as a source, cannot be taken serious. Middleton is also an online troll, scammer. And anyone that thinks he can fool people by using dodgy grammar, need their heads examined. The man cannot be trusted.
I would imagine she's a credible source. She has been looking into the case for long enough. She has her own views, of course, but then so does everyone else!
This case is the beginning, middle and end of her entire career. The conflict of interest is HUGE.
And that's without looking at the various charities, books and money-making schemes over the years.
With any case like this you never rely on one source for information.
I’m not prepared to take anything Sandra Lean says on face value - she’s proven to me (Since around 2010 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537 she’s a liar and a fraud
Does she have more than one LinkedIn page or has it been changed over the years ? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383389.html#msg383389
‘Sandra Lean
author and researcher
2003 – Present (14 years)
"For ten years, I have researched and written about cases of wrongful conviction and factual innocence. I have tried to assist a number of people over the years, and campaign, write articles, etc, wherever I am able to help. I obtained a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law in 2010, via Criminal Law Training and Strathclyde University.
I completed a PhD in 2012, the thesis title being "Hidden in Plain View," which studied the factors which lead to wrongful convictions, and why ordinary people are completely unaware of these factors.
I am currently writing two further books, as follow-ups to my first book, "No Smoke, the Shocking Truth about British Justice" which was published by Checkpoint Press, Ireland in 2008.
In my "other life," I specialise in helping people with issues of low self esteem, confidence, and the effects of bullying.
Beginning with the murder of Jodi Jones in 2003, and the subsequent conviction of her boyfriend Luke Mitchell in 2005, I have studied and written about wrongful convictions of factualy innocent individuals in the UK ever since. I currently support a number of campaigns fighting injustice. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandra-lean-4b499a43
This case is the beginning, middle and end of her entire career. The conflict of interest is HUGE.
And that's without looking at the various charities, books and money-making schemes over the years.
How many times did she quote Michael Naughton in her thesis ?
Worth listening to Dr Michael Naughton’s speech here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P8EVLJNUGQM especially when he refers to ‘ethical behaviour’.
This is taking a liberty *&^^&
Justice campaigner: The Herald 15 Sep 2018ROZLYN LITTLE
“DOCTOR Sandra Lean has dedicated her career to defending those who have been wrongfully convicted.
A mother of two daughters, she had a quiet but content life, running her own business in the town of Dalkeith.
But that all changed when the area was rocked by the brutal murder of 14-year old Jodi Jones in June 2003.
The teenager was discovered in woodland behind Newbattle High School – the same school that her eldest attended. At the heart of the crime was the accusation that 14-year old Luke Mitchell, Jodi’s boyfriend, was the murderer.
The murder would take Lean in an unexpected direction, as she sought to understand the events which were unfolding on her doorstep. After doubts that Mitchell was the killer, she began to investigate, leading to the publication of her first book about miscarriages of justice.
She then gained her PHD in criminal justice, becoming a fully qualified paralegal at the same time as finishing her thesis, all the while campaigning for those wrongfully convicted.
She is currently assisting the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, to launch a new appeal for the release of Mitchell, who was convicted of the murder of Jones.
She said: “My girls went to Newbattle High School and they walked along the path which runs at right angles to the path where Jodi was found. And the more I saw, the more I thought, ‘are my kids safe walking that path to school? Have they gone after the wrong guy?”
“I want to know, I want to be absolutely sure that they’ve got the right guy, so I know my girls are safe and that the person that did this is not still hanging about in those woods.”
Initially, she was surprised at how quickly suspicion fell on Mitchell and decided to turn away from local gossip. She was convinced of his innocence in 2009, when she first gained access to his case files.
She said: “There were at least half a dozen people who were people of interest. For example, people with previous histories of violently attacking women. These people all had a history. They were in the system, and usually when something like that happens, they trawl the system looking for people who have committed similar crimes. That’s just a standard thing. And yet they didn’t do it in this case. And you’re just left thinking, why?”
Dr Lean is back compiling evidence alongside other experts to launch a third appeal for Mitchell.
She says: “It’s wrong and it needs to be put right because it could be any one of us. And to sit where Jodi’s mum is sitting now, 15 years down the line, not knowing the truth. That cannot be acceptable.”
Along the way, she has faced criticism and even death threats from members of the local community. Some call her disrespectful for her work, but she says. “I don’t think it’s disrespectful to seek the truth under any circumstances.”
except that is exactly what the supposed case for Mitchell's innocence repeatedly asks of us
This case is the beginning, middle and end of her entire career. The conflict of interest is HUGE.
And that's without looking at the various charities, books and money-making schemes over the years.
No it doesn’t.
As far as the police would have been aware in those first hours this child had just seen his girlfriend brutally murdered.
Would you like any child of yours to be treated like that?
Just the one kid, ask her what she thought of her mother's relationship with billy, she is on here replying day & night. The other was staying with the father. I'd like to know what they done with the charity money from the old WAP site. Certainly never paid any bills with it.
You can find out what they did with the money, if it was a charity, by contacting the charity commission...if you’re really interested.
You can find out what they did with the money, if it was a charity, by contacting the charity commission...if you’re really interested.
Do you still think that I’m Dr Lean’s daughter or do you have another member in mind this week?
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
May I remind posters that this thread is NOT about Simon Hall, nor is it about Sandra Lean's alleged relationship with Billy Middleton.Is it not a thread about her judgement and if so isn’t her association with these individuals relevsnt?
Please keep on topic, and refrain from goading other members. Thank you.
Is it not a thread about her judgement and if so isn’t her association with these individuals relevsnt?
It is about whether she is a credible source of information on the case of Luke Mitchell.
All that needs to be said re Simon Hall is that he confessed to the crime of which SL thought him innocent, and all that needs to be said about Billy Middleton, is that he worked with SL on the WAP website. We do not need to discuss the personal lives of others and their choices of partners------IMO.
It is about whether she is a credible source of information on the case of Luke Mitchell.
All that needs to be said re Simon Hall is that he confessed to the crime of which SL thought him innocent
It is about whether she is a credible source of information on the case of Luke Mitchell.When I watched the documentary I knew nothing about Sandra Lean or her previous associations or crusades. Now that I know more about her and her past I feel a little bit like I was groomed into supporting Mitchell. I even signed her petition. I would now like to take back my signature, partly because I don't trust her judgement, nor that any information she passes on about the case hasn't been twisted to suit her agenda. That doesn't mean I'm wholly convinced that Mitchell is guilty either btw.
All that needs to be said re Simon Hall is that he confessed to the crime of which SL thought him innocent, and all that needs to be said about Billy Middleton, is that he worked with SL on the WAP website. We do not need to discuss the personal lives of others and their choices of partners------IMO.
When I watched the documentary I knew nothing about Sandra Lean or her previous associations or crusades. Now that I know more about her and her past I feel a little bit like I was groomed into supporting Mitchell. I even signed her petition. I would now like to take back my signature, partly because I don't trust her judgement, nor that any information she passes on about the case hasn't been twisted to suit her agenda. That doesn't mean I'm wholly convinced that Mitchell is guilty either btw.
no you can't
the whole point of bringing up this charity when talking about sandra's credibility is that they never did file any accounts. the money that people contributed to the cause presumably in good faith was unaccounted for.
https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=sc041953 (https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=sc041953)
How does that work then if the pair of them failed to notify the charity of the finances?
Billy Middleton did a sponsored run on a treadmill apparently for convicted killer Darren Martin - what happened to the money he raised for that - where are the receipts?
When I watched the documentary I knew nothing about Sandra Lean or her previous associations or crusades. Now that I know more about her and her past I feel a little bit like I was groomed into supporting Mitchell. I even signed her petition. I would now like to take back my signature, partly because I don't trust her judgement, nor that any information she passes on about the case hasn't been twisted to suit her agenda. That doesn't mean I'm wholly convinced that Mitchell is guilty either btw.
By NICOLA STOW AND CHRIS MOONEY
TO his friends, he looked his usual self, laughing and smiling as he partied in Edinburgh nightclub Studio 24.
What they didnt know was that days before he had brutally murdered his girlfriend Jodi Jones.
The image of Mitchell - smiling and joking and "living life to the full" - at a goth club night is something that will never leave former classmate Ben Sole.
"He looked fine," said Mr Sole, 17, who grew up with Mitchell.
"I saw him in the club and I remember going up to chat to him. I thought he must have been going through a difficult time - his girlfriend had just been murdered. But he was having a great time and he was joking about with me."
The club night at the Calton Road venue was popular with the alternative crowd which both Mitchell and Jodi used to hang around with.
"I remember the conversation I had with him," Mr Sole added.
"I used to have long hair and had just had it all cut off. Luke made some kind of joke to me - something along the lines of youve cut your hair - youre not one of us now. I made some remark and he laughed.
"He just carried on as normal - he seemed like he was having a really good time. He just carried on living life."
The schoolboy killers chilling ability to cut himself off emotionally from what was going on around him surprised Mr Sole.
But it was to become an all-to-familiar trait to those who watched him during the murder investigation and subsequent trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
It was clear when he stood stubbing out cigarettes beside Jodis grave just hours after her funeral in front of the watching media.
Despite her familys wishes, he had turned up, accompanied by another girl and his ever-supportive mother. He swore at photographers and a taxi driver who refused to take him home.
Earlier that day, as Jodis family attended an emotional funeral service, he chose to break his public silence and give a television interview in which he denied his guilt. And in the evening, he complained to police after Jodis grieving mother removed the flowers he left on his victims grave.
Mitchell, who was just 14 when he murdered Jodi, has never publicly shed a tear and did not wince when pictures of Jodis mutilated body were shown in the High Court.
The boy who was capable of carrying out one of the most brutal and grotesque crimes in recent Scottish history grew up in a dysfunctional family.
As he grew up in Newbattle, Dalkeith, he learned he could do exactly as he pleased. His parents Corinne and Philip are thought to have split up in 1999. After that, discipline - or what there was of it - was left to his mother.
Left largely to his own devices, he was free to pursue an unhealthy fascination with knives and the macabre.
Impressed by his older brother Shanes collection of knives, he began to acquire weapons himself, including a vicious lock knife with a six-inch blade, which got him into trouble at an Army Cadets meeting. He also spent hours smoking cannabis.
Friends said even at the age of 14, Mitchell was never without a plentiful supply of the drug. They were also impressed by the amount of cash he had, far more than anyone else his age.
Luke boasted to psychiatrists that he smoked the equivalent of 40 joints a day before doubling his use in the wake of Jodis murder.
The freedom he enjoyed living with his mother impressed his friends.
He was, according to Mr Sole, "allowed to do more or less whatever he wanted".
The indulgence of his mother - who was the one to supply an alibi in an attempt to save him from prison - seemed limitless.
When Luke decided he wanted a tattoo, rather than stop him or try to dissuade him, his mother went with him to Whiplash Trash in Cockburn Street. There, she lied to staff about her sons age so he could get what he wanted.
The lack of any supervision struck detectives who searched his bedroom in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Easthouses.
Under his bed, they found more than 20 bottles of his own urine stored under his bed. No-one had intervened to stop his bizarre habit.
Mr Sole, who met Mitchell at Kings Park Primary School, said signs of his classmates violent personality were evident at an early age.
He recalled one incident when seven-year-old Mitchell "smashed up" his bike following an argument and how, years later, he punched a fellow pupil in the face in the school canteen.
Something of a loner, Mitchell had once also commented how easy it would be to stab someone in the eye with a corkscrew.
Often moody, and an unpredictable companion, fellow Army Cadets in Bonnyrigg found that Mitchell was unwilling to bow to authority.
One former cadet said: "If he was told to do something by anyone he would get really angry and start shouting at people and throwing things about. People found that extremely weird."
Despite this, he was never short of girlfriends, although he had few close male friends.
In the months before he killed Jodi, Luke was seeing at least two other girls, one in Perthshire and another who lived closer to his Midlothian home. None knew about his relationship with the others.
His determination to be individual and stand out from the crowd seemed to be part of the attraction.
With his distinctive goth-influenced style, he was an accepted part of the alternative crowd at St Davids, as well as in Greyfriars Kirkyard when he made regular trips into Edinburgh.
One friend, who recalled his tendency to exaggerate stories in an effort to make himself look better, said: "He did have more girlfriends than boys who were mates, probably because boys were more likely to turn against him. He felt he had a bit more control over the girls.
"I knew at school he was getting into a lot of trouble.
"He said to me once that he was in a fight with a couple of boys and said he won. He said hed taken them on himself, but I didnt believe him. It just wasnt believable."
Another described his ability to be a loner even when part of a crowd.
"He had what you might call friends, but most of them didnt really like him that much. They said he was strange," h
e said.
"When I first met him, someone who had known him before I did said he was a strange guy, the way he acted and the way he dressed."
In the words of one friend, Luke always liked to be "crackpot different", determined to go the extra mile to make his appearance truly original.
A fan of underground and "nu metal" groups such as Slipknot, Lukes favourite bands were goths and punks. He adopted their look, but always with a difference.
"Goths and punks have their own fashion, but they tend to stick to it, so theyre pretty much all the same - not Luke," said the friend.
"He liked to be different and to take the goth idea further by wearing things that were even more extreme. He was always wearing dark clothes, headbands, armbands, you name it."
This individualistic style and rebellious nature was ultimately what attracted his victim to him and led to her death.
The full article contains 1308 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Last Updated: 21 January 2005 2:51 PM
Interesting. I had not come across any of this before.
However, is there any reason why I should automatically believe Chris Mooney and Nicola Stow, rather than Sandra Lean?
Ben Sole - who Chris Mooney and Nicola Stow refer to in their article - was a witness at Luke Mitchell’s murder trial
Have you seen the trial transcripts?
The image of Mitchell - smiling and joking and "living life to the full" - at a goth club night is something that will never leave former classmate Ben Sole.
"He looked fine," said Mr Sole, 17, who grew up with Mitchell.
"I saw him in the club and I remember going up to chat to him. I thought he must have been going through a difficult time - his girlfriend had just been murdered. But he was having a great time and he was joking about with me."
The club night at the Calton Road venue was popular with the alternative crowd which both Mitchell and Jodi used to hang around with.
"I remember the conversation I had with him," Mr Sole added.
"I used to have long hair and had just had it all cut off. Luke made some kind of joke to me - something along the lines of youve cut your hair - youre not one of us now. I made some remark and he laughed.
"He just carried on as normal - he seemed like he was having a really good time. He just carried on living life."
Interesting. I had not come across any of this before.
However, is there any reason why I should automatically believe Chris Mooney and Nicola Stow, rather than Sandra Lean?
Or indeed someone who was paid for their story...the more spicy the better.
Does Sandra Lean omit Ben Sole’s evidence from the murder trial from her book?
This seems to have been the sum of Mr Sole’s evidence in court.
‘Another teenager, Ben Sole, said he had witnessed Luke Mitchell cutting up cannabis resin into blocks with a knife.’
No spicy nightclub visits there.
The Scotsman
Sat 13 Nov 2004
BRIAN HORNE
SCHOOLGIRL Jodi Jones smoked cannabis with the youth accused of killing her just hours before her death, a murder trial has heard.
And two days earlier, Luke Mitchell shared a joint with girlfriend Jodi, 14, in a city graveyard, the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh was told.
Mitchell, 16, denies murdering Jodi on June 30 last year in woods between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith, Midlothian.
The charge alleges he constricted her neck, tied her arms and repeatedly struck her with a knife before and after she died.
The trial has also heard that Mitchell frequently carried a knife.
Alistair Leitch, 17, a sixth-year pupil at St David’s High School in Dalkeith - where Jodi and Mitchell were pupils - yesterday told the court of lunchtime cannabis-smoking sessions.
Mr Leitch said he and friends would go to "China Gardens" which he described as an alcove off King’s Park, near the school.
He said he, Mitchell and Jodi were there most lunchtimes and that Mitchell had cannabis "99.9 per cent of the time".
"Usually Luke would roll a joint and have some of it himself and pass it round other members of the group."
Mr Leitch, from Bonnyrigg, said Mitchell sometimes had quite large quantities, more than three ounces, and he told advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting, that an ounce would probably cost £45-£60.
Mitchell only bought cheap cannabis, the court heard.
On June 30 last year, said Mr Leitch, there had been a school trip to Alton Towers but he did not go. He met up with Mitchell and Jodi at China Gardens.
"They were smoking cannabis that day," he said.
Another member of the group, David Suttie, 16, now at Stevenson College in Edinburgh, said Mitchell always seemed to have plenty of money and he thought it was because he worked for his mum.
"Luke seemed to have a lot of money and would show it quite openly, big piles of notes, 20s and 10s," he said.
Student Ben Sole, 17, said he was in Greyfriars Kirkyard on June 28 last year and he saw Mitchell and Jodi smoking cannabis.
Keith Campbell, 14, of Woodburn, Dalkeith, who told the court he did not smoke cannabis, said Mitchell carried a knife "everywhere", even at school.
He was shown a leather pouch which would allow a knife to be carried on a belt and said he had seen Mitchell with the pouch.
He was also shown photos of a Swiss Army-type knife, a lock-knife, which Mitchell was said to use to cut up cannabis, and another thin-bladed penknife - all of which he linked to Mitchell.
This seems the sum total of Luke’s friend’s evidence. Nothing new. He smoked cannabis like most of his friends, owned a knife and had money, which his friends thought he earned through helping his mum.
‘The sum total of Luke’s friends evidence’ was not been published by the media at the time
By CHRIS MOONEY
A FORMER girlfriend of Luke Mitchell has told how he held a knife to her throat and threatened: "Dont move . . . or Ill gut you."
Just months before he stabbed Jodi Jones to death, Mitchell grabbed the girl and pressed his prized Swiss Army knife against the frightened 14-year-olds neck.
The terrifying incident was just one example of Mitchells aggressive and unpredictable behaviour which disturbed his friends.
The pretty 14-year-old, who dated Mitchell for about five months in 2003, told how the teenage killer pounced on her in a community hall in the Dalkeith area.
The girl - who asked to remain anonymous - was walking alone through the hall, where the pair attended a youth club together, when he grabbed her from behind. He held the knife to her throat as he dragged her into a side room.
"I didnt know if he was joking around or not to begin with," she said. "He said: Dont move or Ill gut you. At first I thought he was just mucking about, but then I started to feel threatened.
"I was sore round my neck, it was bright red afterwards. He had grabbed me round the neck with his arm and held the knife at my throat, saying he was going to cut me and stuff like that.
"I was nipping his arm to get him off me and after a couple of minutes he let me go. I went outside and just tried to ignore him, but then he came out as if it was all a laugh and said sorry.
"There was no reason for him to do it. He just pulled the knife from his pocket and grabbed me. I thought it was really strange."
Soon after the incident, in May, 2003, the girl ended the fledgling relationship - just a month before Mitchell killed Jodi.
She broke things off after increasingly seeing a darker side to his personality. The final straw came when a friend told her Mitchell was seeing another girl - who she is now sure was Jodi.
It now appears Mitchell was seeing at least three different girls at the same time. The murder trial jury heard that the teenage killer had also been seeing Kim Thomson, a 15-year-old from Kenmore, Perthshire, who looked strikingly like Jodi.
Mitchell had stayed in touch with Kim, who considered him as her boyfriend, after meeting her on holiday in the summer of 2002.
The ex-girlfriend who Mitchell threatened with a knife told the Evening News she had initially found him charming, attractive and "basically a nice bloke".
The pair were both 14 and went to the same youth club.
"When I first saw him, everybody in the room was chatting and we started talking - asking whats your name? and that sort of thing," she said.
"We got each others phone numbers and started texting each other quite a lot. He was good-looking and I liked talking to him. I thought he was really nice."
The teenager followed the same goth-style fashion as Mitchell at the time, but shrugged it off as a fad and changed her image as she got older. She said they had got on well for a while, but then things had started to change.
"
He sometimes showed a side that wasnt him. He was quite aggressive to me and to other people," she added.
"He was really bad-tempered and he was totally unpredictable. He didnt want to be told what to do. I knew he carried weapons with him and he had a Swiss Army knife. I did wonder why he had it, but I never questioned him at all."
The ex-girlfriend said shed had little contact with Mitchell since they broke up, but that he had threatened her friends when he saw them in the street.
She added: "When I heard he was a suspect I knew he must have been going out with Jodi when he was seeing me.
"I was really upset when I heard what he was supposed to have done.
"At first, I never thought he could have done it. But, as all the stuff started to come together, I started to think it was possible, that he could do this, because of the way he acted and what hed done to me."
The full article contains 759 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Last Updated: 21 January 2005 2:52 PM
Interesting. I had not come across any of this before.
However, is there any reason why I should automatically believe Chris Mooney and Nicola Stow, rather than Sandra Lean?
Sole, who is being interviewed by Mooney and Stow, was there.
Was Ben Sole interviewed or were the quotes taken directly from the trial ?
Does anyone know what case Sandra Lean was involved with in 2002 .- Stephen Manning?
‘Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims who have suffered a major injustice. Without payment, she has spent thousands of hours going through evidence and trial transcripts with a fine toothed comb, helping the legal teams out with her time and expertise. She does this because she is passionate about helping these falsely accused and wrongfully convicted people in any way she can, and because she is appalled that the British Judicial system is as flawed as it is, letting so many people down (P.Hughes)
https://miscarriageofjustice.wordpress.com/about/
Who is P Hughs ?
Could be from the trial.
Either way. Sole was in the club with LM - Dr Lean wasn't.
Any time any young person says anything about LM, whether it's about him enjoying himself in a club days after the murder, cutting up or using cannabis, or about LM having knives at people's throats, they're immediately slapped down by Dr Lean's supporters.
Was he?
Did you think he was paid by the word or recollection?
Did the nightclub have ccrc and did the police seize it?
Faithlilly:
Nothing fits with exactly how LM claimed to have happened - I presume you are jesting here? It does not matter how much you try and squeeze his time to around 45mins - This time was around 90mins. He did not claim to go into the Abbey grounds until after 7pm. You all need to keep up with each other? - Glad to see you do not buy into those ridiculous claims that it could have been MK with the parka on at this gate. Ms Lean and Ms Mitchell will be none too pleased at this? That this 90mins prior to LM meeting with the boys. Of knowing of this ban on the path, of it's isolation. Of not calling back - yes we know, these ridiculous repetitive comparisons - Of this girls parents, knowing they were meeting, up here somewhere, that LM could simply have been running late. Of One household being busy, not keeping track of time, whilst LM is idling around (claimed) And if he had phoned back how different that could have been? That upon the inevitable knowledge, of finding out her daughter had not (claimed) been with Mitchell - The penny dropped? as it may have done, had he phoned back. That Jodi's mother was instantly frantic - she is on the phone to the police in around 10mins - She knew her daughter, and she knew something was seriously wrong? - This girl was not in the habit? of wandering about anywhere else other than where she would say. - on this evening it was with LM. - And we know he knew of this ban - lies upon lies to cover lies. We hear of one other occasion and on this occasion she was with LM.
My post was constructed by credible witnesses giving consistent statements. Why you constantly try to muddy the water with mention of Dr Lean and Corrine Mitchell I’ll let the reader decide. So RW and LF see Luke leaning against a gate with that ‘the right length for a parka but not necessarily a parka’ jacket on...not trying to get over the gate to the anonymity of the lush foliage beyond, not hiding his face with that voluminous hood on his ‘parka’ but simply standing there wearing his incriminating apparel for all the world to see. And who did see him, in this murderer’s mantle? Apart from RW and LF...no one. That busy road at peak time...5.45pm, all those cars speeding by, their occupants looking for something, anything to break the monotony of those joyless journeys...but, for them, unfortunately, nothing appears to spur their interest...not even a boy in a poor man’s parka.
You see that’s the thing, in the end there are numerous witnesses adding tiny grains, one at a time, to the shifting pile of sand that the prosecution’s case was built on....the mother impotently forbidding her daughter from using that isolated path even though she knew that she’d be disobeyed, the sister who saw the reality neither admitted, the eagle-eyed neighbour who sees that lovely Jones girl leave her house at just after five, those two witnesses briefly catching sight of her as she made her way to Morris road minutes later and on the other end of that lonely, treacherous path the young boy waiting, walking, then waiting again...those school friends cycling forward and back down Newbattle Road, recollecting a young lad in a bomber jacket both ways...and again the bomber jacket that catches the eye of the couple, it wasn’t the boy but it was his jacket and the executive..the list goes on.
For many years, on these forums it has been claimed by Ms Lean, that Jodi could no have smoked with LM. That she had cannabis in her system, ingested up to two hours before her death. That LM had none in his. Now we are told that LM had a joint at the Abbey entrance at 7pm. This is around the time of him phoning his mother. Where CM claimed happened prior to him going into the Abbey - Asking If Jodi had been to the house, how would you know, you are in the garden, don't be silly Mia would let me know, but not if she were being burgled? - However. Now it is claimed, that LM had a joint just inside the Abbey entrance, that he came back out to look for Jodi and phoned his mother? Thus why he could have missed seeing Jodi - It gets better. That he may have been wasted, thus reason as to why time may have been distorted. It gets better still. Strong enough for him to be wasted, for time to be distorted yet ?? - Not strong enough to be in his system. And, it still could not have been with Jodi as what she must have had, was super strong stuff, that strong and of type, that your average 14yr old would not have access to. That Jodi may have been given this super strong stuff, strong enough to knock her senseless? - This new line of reasoning given when asked, how could he not have seen Jodi? - But still holding firmly onto Jodi smoking with someone else and not LM. - What a bloody tangled mess - as stated before, the amount of lies told, to cover lies - just keeps on giving more.
The hair fastener - firstly LM is close enough to see. Then it was moved out of sight by "rolling" Jodi about? How many rolls exactly? That we do not know if AW or SK seen it as they simply were not asked. Skip the police, perhaps they were not asked either, of the photographer who took pictures prior to anyone or items being carefully moved, with respect first of all and with preservation in mind. But once we are finished with a multitude of reasoning, as to why it simply could have been moved out of sight - perhaps the rolling about tangled it deeply into her hair?? - Once we are finished with this we are then told it may have been a reporter who let him know, who put the idea and image into his mind? As with the tree, that snip bit from far down in a statement - of the type of tree. "It's not hard to name the tree when one is being handed the name on a plate?" - Seriously. And it is a lovely line to use is it not - for we are now being given the same of AB - perhaps the nice policeman asked her - "did the jkt have a pocket on the sleeve?" to which AB may have thought, oh wait a minute, now you mention it - it did have! - and one is asking if Ms Lean is a credible source ? - very much so, truly incredible?
Why did LM claim to having no knowledge of this V prior to the evening in question? - Ms Lean "it is not easy to see at first!"
An employee said they saw this bike parked at the V with no boys in sight - nope?, however it is more than feasible now to see this V from some distance away, in a car traveling at around 30pmh? - But not LM who walked this path several times a week.
Why was CM enjoying the summer sunshine on her patio when is was miserable weather? - Ms Lean, I too was enjoying the summer sunshine on the patio (who's) When a dirty black cloud appeared and soaked me??
Why was everyone wearing heavy outer clothing, thick padded jackets, parka's and hoodies? If it was warm and sunny!
Why is CM lying repeatedly in her podcast - Ms Lean, she is simply mistaken- Ok?
Told ya! 8(0(*
It never fails to amuse me that those questioning the reliability of Dr Lean as a credible source are willing to gobble up any old bought and paid for nonsense printed in the tabloidsIt’s very unattractive.
Intellectual snobbery? You betcha !
You see that’s the thing, in the end there are numerous witnesses adding tiny grains, one at a time, to the shifting pile of sand that the prosecution’s case was built on.
However, is there any reason why I should automatically believe Chris Mooney and Nicola Stow, rather than Sandra Lean?
It never fails to amuse me that those questioning the reliability of Dr Lean as a credible source are willing to gobble up any old bought and paid for nonsense printed in the tabloids
Intellectual snobbery? You betcha !
It never fails to amuse me that those questioning the reliability of Dr Lean as a credible source are willing to gobble up any old bought and paid for nonsense printed in the tabloids
Intellectual snobbery? You betcha !
Just to sum up for those who are willing to gobble up any old nonsense spouted by Dr Lean who have totally missed the point here...
Sandra Lean's opinion on this doesn't enter into it.
It is not possible to avoid Sandra Lean if one is questioning LM's guilt (and yes, I'm questioning, but I'm not a "supporter"). She is the only person who has thoroughly researched the case and written a book on it.
It is not possible to avoid Sandra Lean if one is questioning LM's guilt (and yes, I'm questioning, but I'm not a "supporter"). She is the only person who has thoroughly researched the case and written a book on it.
She may not get everything right , but I doubt if the newspapers do either.
It is not possible to avoid Sandra Lean if one is questioning LM's guilt (and yes, I'm questioning, but I'm not a "supporter"). She is the only person who has thoroughly researched the case and written a book on it.
She may not get everything right , but I doubt if the newspapers do either.
There's no reason why anyone should believe her just because she wrote a book.
Have you read it? I think she makes a good case.
Have you read it? I think she makes a good case.
I'm not interested in reading any of her books.
She's made up her mind before examining all of the evidence - that makes her a poor academic.
She's not alone in that, mind you.
Then that’s a shame because you are simply displaying the same tunnel vision you accuse Dr Lean of.
This murder has haunted the area since the time of the murder - you can't drive or walk past Roan's Dyke path without being reminded of it - I knew some of the people, and I know a few things.
I stopped debating things like the timeline around the time of the earliest appeals because it's pointless.
There was nothing new in the recent documentary apart from the death of MK, which I was sad to hear.
If there was anything meaningful in Lean's book, we'd know about it, and someone would have acted on it.
Do you think that Luke was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?
Sandra Lean is treating her podcast followers like imbeciles
Blood was not put into a wine glass and knocked over *&^^&
Do you think the CJS/SCCRC are aware of Sandra Leans paltering?
“Paltering increases the odds of not reaching an agreement at the bargaining table and can greatly harm one’s reputation if the counterpart finds out about the deception — as it often happens after the fact.
It’s difficult for negotiators to realize that the world really is small,” Gino says. “When we use deception in negotiations, oftentimes the other side finds out. If that’s the case, the reputation could be harmed to the point that you’re unlikely to engage in negotiations with the same person. We’re so focused on the short term, we don’t think this through enough.”
https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering
What knowledge do you think they gained from the way in which she presented Luke Mitchell’s submissions?
Using the truth to mislead (paltering) feels less bad than lying, but will cost you in the long run
“Paltering then, is a form of deception that’s effective at actively leading other parties to false conclusions, just like straight-out lying. Perpetrators can enjoy a sense of plausible deniability, as the statements are technically true, but the harm they cause to their relationships is no less palpable.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/01/11/paltering-feels-less-bad-than-lying-but-will-cost-you-in-the-long-run/
Make of that what you will indeed?
I've told you this before - hope you pay attention this time - to all of the points.
LM clearly wasn't convicted beyond all reasonable doubt - I've been clear on this many times.
That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime
He was found guilty by majority verdict by a jury of his peers who were privy to all of the evidence presented, and all appeals have failed - there could be reasons for that.
There are things you/we/Dr Lean don't know.
There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.
You won't, though.
I will.
I do recommend the book, however !
What does Luke Mitchell’s 29th October 2004 psychiatric report say in relation to his suicide idealisations ?
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/
‘I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide’
I've told you this before - hope you pay attention this time - to all of the points.
LM clearly wasn't convicted beyond all reasonable doubt - I've been clear on this many times.
That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime
He was found guilty by majority verdict by a jury of his peers who were privy to all of the evidence presented, and all appeals have failed - there could be reasons for that.
There are things you/we/Dr Lean don't know.
There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.
You won't, though.
True, I did ask you the question before and you avoided it in the same way then, hence me having to ask it again.
The judicial standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The jury heard all the Crown’s best evidence and that standard was not met in the opinion of , possibly, seven members of the jury.
That’s not, however what I’m asking. I’m asking do YOU, with the knowledge that you have at your disposal now, think Luke’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
There is always information that both the prosecution and defence have access to that we, and the jury, don’t but as it obviously wasn’t thought of as of sufficient importance to present in court I think, for our purposes, it can be discarded.
We have seen the judgements of the appeal judges and we know why the appeals failed. We have also seen numerous other appeal judgements, in the same vein, of convictions which were eventually overturned.
You can’t deem someone guilty because there’s, possibly, incriminating evidence that we don’t know about.
So, taking the above into consideration, do you, on the evidence available now, think Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt ( no pressure ) ?
Absolute nonsense - I smell (poo) Spilt her 125 mls indeed. Does she buy her wine in those little bottles that she knows it is 125mls. Anyhow, what fools are there that have been saying that LM would not have been blood stained in some way? One did not have to dispose of his clothing for no reason. Furthermore - That lovely white towel, in her office - ready at hand to sop up this red wine, we all do it? - grab a white towel to sop up red wine? - Men might but the bloody missus would be having kittens? Did she use it for the slavers as well?
Now children, I am going to give you a lesson today on what not to do if you spill red wine? - Don't use a white towel.
So we know that there was not 5 1/2 litres of blood on Jodi's clothing. We don't need any lessons for that. And we know, without a shadow of a doubt that there would be blood upon LM. His jacket, trouser even - on his shoes/soles and of course hands. That is of course if he did not have gloves with him. See, we do not know. What we do know is that LM did not in the slightest have to be covered from head to foot - literally. Ms Leans white towel set up - proves absolutely nothing, other than how much red wine would show up on a white towel. - blood in itself being a substance that is of course much denser. Thus why it congeals. So it is nothing like her explanation in the slightest. - common sense and intelligence do not go hand in hand it would seem. - I am actually quite taken aback at this nonsense - does not however surprise one in the slightest. - She knows her audience, those who gobble up any nonsense readily.
Make of that what you will indeed?
I’ve not seen the Mitchell’s - or Sandra Lean - explain the lies they (the Mitchell’s) told
How did Luke know what Jodi was wearing on Monday night if he claimed to not have seen her?
a silly stunt
There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.
You won't, though.
True, I did ask you the question before and you avoided it in the same way then, hence me having to ask it again.
There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.
You won't, though.
"I can't imagine what Jodi's family have been through. And for them to have to face the possibility that it wasn't Luke who did this - how betrayed will they feel? How devastating for them.
"But my girls used a path to walk to Newbattle High School - not the path where Jodi died, but one not unlike it. I wanted to know that they were safe," she explains. "The more I looked, the more pieces didn't fit."
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/claiming-killer-innocent-part-search-truth-2453025
, a silly stunt
a silly stunt
Sandra Lean is treating her podcast followers like imbeciles
Absolute nonsense - I smell (poo) Spilt her 125 mls indeed. Does she buy her wine in those little bottles that she knows it is 125mls.
Did anyone else notice Sandra Lean omitted to mention - during her recent podcast - the ‘disrespect’ Jodi’s killer displayed towards his victim
, a silly stunt
Furthermore - That lovely white towel, in her office - ready at hand to sop up this red wine, we all do it? - grab a white towel to sop up red wine? - Men might but the bloody missus would be having kittens? Did she use it for the slavers as well?
Mother of God!
I've clearly answered your question - the problem is that you are unable to discern shades of grey - that's on you.
Let's have no further interaction, thanks.
Someone has posted a photo of Luke and Corrine Mitchell standing at Jodi’s gravesite on the day of her funeral
They’ve stated,
‘Ahh he loved Jodi ,what a lovely pic knowing noone wanted him at the funeral he was her boyfriend why would he kill her him and his mum went when no-one was there how sad just imagine the torture he has gone through all these years he wants the killer caught too bless you Luke your a good guy’
They are lionising a cold blooded narcissistic murderer
Sandra Lean chooses to fail to point out to this person the fact Jodi was one of 3 of Luke’s girlfriends
He and his mother Corrine displayed nothing but contempt and disrespect for the Jones family
And they didn’t have a private memorial for Jodi at home - they invited the entire public via Sky news
What was the date of the interview when the information was given?
She has
There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.
You won't, though.
She has
That's good - SL is obviously a wee bit more open minded than her servants who just can't quite manage to grasp the subtleties.
Someone has posted a photo of Luke and Corrine Mitchell standing at Jodi’s gravesite on the day of her funeral
They’ve stated,
‘Ahh he loved Jodi ,what a lovely pic knowing noone wanted him at the funeral he was her boyfriend why would he kill her him and his mum went when no-one was there how sad just imagine the torture he has gone through all these years he wants the killer caught too bless you Luke your a good guy’
They are lionising a cold blooded narcissistic murderer
Sandra Lean chooses to fail to point out to this person the fact Jodi was one of 3 of Luke’s girlfriends
He and his mother Corrine displayed nothing but contempt and disrespect for the Jones family
And they didn’t have a private memorial for Jodi at home - they invited the entire public via Sky news
LM and CM's behaviour at the grave-side was shameful.
CM - an adult, should have known better.
With regards Jane Hamilton’s latest news article - where Sandra Lean makes the false claim on her Facebook page about the ‘pored’ word
Sandra Lean states in a comment in response to those of her followers who chose to pile in
‘actually, may have been a Freudian slip. As in, they poured their lies and misinterpretations over the truth for years.
*&^^&
Sandra Lean’s statement in full reads:
‘actually, may have been a Freudian slip. As in, they poured their lies and misinterpretations over the truth for years. I can’t believe a journalist with so many years experience would have made such a beginners mistake?’
The Freudian slips are all yours Sandra and it is you who is pouring your lies and misinterpretations on the truth!
And Jane Hamilton didn’t make any such ‘beginners mistake’!
I have to agree, a silly stunt that proved nothing.
If Luke was guilty he would, indeed, have blood on him. That last desperate fight of Jodi’s, evidenced by the blood on the branches. The removal of the clothes and the constraining of her arms...no avoiding blood contamination there.....and yet....and yet...absolutely no mention of blood contamination by RW and LF on the boy they saw standing, in his murderer’s mantle, leaning on the gate without a care in the world. Odd that. No mention of a bloodstained boy bolting across the road, trying to put as much distance between himself and the scene of his horrific crime by any of those occupants of the numerous cars passing by. Most odd.
LA:
I think Jodis sister has found out Jodi was sleeping with sk hence the dna on the tshirt.... Janine has went after Jodi.. Joe J (stalky man) has followed Jodi as he found out Janine now knows and hes came across Janine commiting the murder the clumps of hair being pulled out by the roots is more of a bitchy fight imo moped boys have been phoned by one of them to comes help clean up the mess.
By your reckoning and description "murderer's mantle" - Completely removes this male, whomever you may have thought him to be - as having any connection at all - to this murder. That complete distancing. Just a guy at a gate?
Not LM having just darted across this R'd becoming aware of a car. - stopping in his tracks. Not to be running, not to be hopping over beyond this gate - not to be seen as fleeing from somewhere? For this male wasn't simply leaning on this gate - this male looked up to no good. - attempting to look inconspicuous. He was seen and this sighting can not be taken away. And F&W did not see any other male, hanging around the entrance of Newbattle Abbey crescent on the wall. And of the jogger, and the Esk walkway. which is between the gate and Barondale cottage. It is only when you attempt to make time stand still can you discount the sighting of both the male and jogger together. Of bending what both said completely out of shape. - But of course, you are saying 100% that you have not read the defence papers. That you have not witnessed any of this information first hand. - You are in effect saying, you will take any little snip bits and accept this as concrete proof of anything - It is hardly surprising that you feel this case was wafer thin, and of sifting sand? -
Then of course, if you have actually read all of these defence papers, please say - we all have lots of questions for you?
Are you now saying that SM possibly left home prior to 5.30pm, prior to LM. Where are his 10mins or so waiting on dinner being finished cooked, from his second statement? From saying hello to his mother on her arrival home at 5.05pm, of going upstairs for 10mins or so? of collecting dinner around 5.15pm? But his mother did not get home until after 5.15pm? Taking us to around 5.25pm - then taking his dinner upstairs to eat? Or are we fast forwarding him until around 6pm when LM was around Barondale cottages? - Stand firm, and stand true to what you say. Don't swap it around to suit? - Just stick to the truth, it was a story and LM was not at home.
Why did SM travel into Oxgangs later that evening, after 9pm to get fuel? As this is why he said he travelled there, to fuel up the car? - Are there any scrap merchants near Oxgangs that SM used? A mechanic having access to this place? Why Oxgangs for fuel? there were many other stations to get fuel? Tesco just up the road? Was SM disposing of evidence? Why was CM's car spotted elsewhere? Was SM driving it? When she claimed to be home all evening? What are these new claims that her car was at the West end of this path later that evening? only being heard now? -
Why is SL dismissing these as being wrong or mistaken, or idle gossip? - but asking people to consider every other piece of hearsay? Or unproven claims that the defence sought not to use - why does she feel she is somewhat superior in intelligence to every expert in their field?
Why are we not getting to see these statements from the Mitchells in full? - What is CM and SL hiding?
These questions that have been set - Are they a test from reading her book? Come up with as many answers as possible?
Why was the bike not forensically examined when the question should be - What happened to the bike that LM swapped, that disappeared never to be seen again? -
8((()*/
Was it taken to the above scrapyard, with the knife, and hey presto, gone? Truth much closer to home perhaps? -
8((()*/
multiple conversations on these forums of SM being a mechanic - I asked Ms Lean and she said she was unaware that he was? - is this true or is she shimmying away from this as per?
8((()*/
As with the V in the wall and LM. -Why did LM deny all knowledge of this V, of the woods, of carrying knives, of cannabis - of everything? - Answers to all of these lies should be given. -
8((()*/
A campaign for truth and Justice on what exactly?
8((()*/
One needs first and foremost the truth around the Mitchells.
8((()*/
Mores to the point - why didn’t Sandra Lean get to the truth of the Mitchell’s lies following the exposure of Simon Hall’s guilt and campaign of innocence fraud - as it turned out to be
And one of those very questions is around this bike at the V - complete and utter nonsense, this is nothing more than desperation of need, to draw those claimed rag readers?
8((()*/
Who are openly admitting they tried LM by media - kicking themselves now for being foolish.
8((()*/
One saying that she is watching the documentary for the 10th time? She: And I quote:QuoteLA:
I think Jodis sister has found out Jodi was sleeping with sk hence the dna on the tshirt.... Janine has went after Jodi.. Joe J (stalky man) has followed Jodi as he found out Janine now knows and hes came across Janine commiting the murder the clumps of hair being pulled out by the roots is more of a bitchy fight imo moped boys have been phoned by one of them to comes help clean up the mess.
*&^^& *&^^&
This is the level of intellect required -
*&^^&
very similar to WW who can not say who it was? - Hope admin allows this post. I Just wanted to highlight the reasoning and intellect here - So we have JaJ going after Jodi, then [Name removed] following Jodi then he comes across one sister murdering the other? What the hell happened to JaJ who was also following her? - And this person is an admin?? Another header of this campaign?
*&^^& *&^^&
What happened to the bike that JF saw at the East end of the path? on the school railings? Did LM return for it later that evening?
8((()*/
Did CM or SM collect it?
8((()*/
Did they take it to a scrapyard?
8((()*/
All this mud slinging stemming from Ms Leans very clear and precise details of her anomalies in this case - mainly of these others. Yet again, she is doing a startling job is she not? - I wonder what this LA: above made of the red wine scenario?
*&^^& *&^^&
It was beyond shameful
Their behaviour was despicable and highly narcissistic
Telling in so many ways ...
And the propaganda being printed of them both - by the new fans - at Jodi’s graveside - is sick.
The disrespect these people are displaying to Jodi’s family and loved ones is off the scale
By your reckoning and description "murderer's mantle" - Completely removes this male, whomever you may have thought him to be - as having any connection at all - to this murder. That complete distancing. Just a guy at a gate?
Have we any evidence that he wasn’t just a guy at a gate?
Not LM having just darted across this R'd becoming aware of a car. - stopping in his tracks. Not to be running, not to be hopping over beyond this gate - not to be seen as fleeing from somewhere? For this male wasn't simply leaning on this gate - this male looked up to no good. - attempting to look inconspicuous.
How can you look ‘up to no good’ ? Can you describe to me how that looks...or attempting to look inconspicuous? By doing what? It’s interesting that ‘looking up to no good’ wasn’t one of the things either RW or LF noticed about their sighting in any of their police statements.
He was seen and this sighting can not be taken away. And F&W did not see any other male, hanging around the entrance of Newbattle Abbey crescent on the wall.
There is a difference between not seeing and not noticing..
And of the jogger, and the Esk walkway. which is between the gate and Barondale cottage. It is only when you attempt to make time stand still can you discount the sighting of both the male and jogger together. Of bending what both said completely out of shape. -
I’m sorry I’m not clear what you’re implying. The jogger was identified and at the time of the sighting she said that she had just emerged from Newbattle Abbey crescent and was no where near the small gate where the youth was seen as claimed by RW and LF.
But of course, you are saying 100% that you have not read the defence papers. That you have not witnessed any of this information first hand. - You are in effect saying, you will take any little snip bits and accept this as concrete proof of anything - It is hardly surprising that you feel this case was wafer thin, and of sifting sand? - Then of course, if you have actually read all of these defence papers, please say - we all have lots of questions for you?
I’d bet my house that you have not read any of the trial papers or witnessed any of the information first hand either. As to those little snip bits...I think they’re called witness statements and court testimony.
Are you now saying that SM possibly left home prior to 5.30pm, prior to LM. Where are his 10mins or so waiting on dinner being finished cooked, from his second statement? From saying hello to his mother on her arrival home at 5.05pm, of going upstairs for 10mins or so? of collecting dinner around 5.15pm? But his mother did not get home until after 5.15pm? Taking us to around 5.25pm - then taking his dinner upstairs to eat? Or are we fast forwarding him until around 6pm when LM was around Barondale cottages? - Stand firm, and stand true to what you say. Don't swap it around to suit? - Just stick to the truth, it was a story and LM was not at home.
We weren’t talking about any of the above but a quick look at your source material for the timings above, such as copies of the witness statements, would be greatly appreciated.
Why did SM travel into Oxgangs later that evening, after 9pm to get fuel? As this is why he said he travelled there, to fuel up the car? - Are there any scrap merchants near Oxgangs that SM used? A mechanic having access to this place? Why Oxgangs for fuel? there were many other stations to get fuel? Tesco just up the road? Was SM disposing of evidence? Why was CM's car spotted elsewhere? Was SM driving it? When she claimed to be home all evening? What are these new claims that her car was at the West end of this path later that evening? only being heard now? - Why are we not hearing about these reports from these witness's who came forward? - Why is SL dismissing these as being wrong or mistaken, or idle gossip? - but asking people to consider every other piece of hearsay? Or unproven claims that the defence sought not to use - why does she feel she is somewhat superior in intelligence to every expert in their field?
Why are we not getting to see these statements from the Mitchells in full? - What is CM and SL hiding?
So let’s see now. CM and SM were charged with perverting the course of justice. Now I’m no lawyer but I would have thought that if the police could have proved that there was anything suspicious about any of the above they wouldn’t have dropped the charges.
Has she thought about contacting any of Jodi's family, asking if they can publish their statements in full?
Far too much ambiguity around this excuse - can not publish, can publish what suits though?
These questions that have been set - Are they a test from reading her book? Come up with as many answers as possible?
Why was the bike not forensically examined when the question should be - What happened to the bike that LM swapped, that disappeared never to be seen again?
Did AB, RW or LF’s sighting have a bike?-
Was it taken to the above scrapyard, with the knife, and hey presto, gone? Truth much closer to home perhaps? - multiple conversations on these forums of SM being a mechanic - I asked Ms Lean and she said she was unaware that he was? - is this true or is she shimmying away from this as per? As with the V in the wall and LM. -Why did LM deny all knowledge of this V, of the woods, of carrying knives, of cannabis - of everything? -
Why did JaJ deny knowing where RDP was?
Answers to all of these lies should be given. - A campaign for truth and Justice on what exactly? One needs first and foremost the truth around the Mitchells. And one of those very questions is around this bike at the V - complete and utter nonsense, this is nothing more than desperation of need, to draw those claimed rag readers? Who are openly admitting they tried LM by media - kicking themselves now for being foolish. One saying that she is watching the documentary for the 10th time? She: And I quote:
This is the level of intellect required - very similar to WW who can not say who it was? - Hope admin allows this post. I Just wanted to highlight the reasoning and intellect here - So we have JaJ going after Jodi, then [Name removed] following Jodi then he comes across one sister murdering the other? What the hell happened to JaJ who was also following her? - And this person is an admin?? Another header of this campaign?
What happened to the bike that JF saw at the East end of the path? on the school railings? Did LM return for it later that evening? Did CM or SM collect it? Did they take it to a scrapyard? All this mud slinging stemming from Ms Leans very clear and precise details of her anomalies in this case - mainly of these others. Yet again, she is doing a startling job is she not? - I wonder what this LA: above made of the red wine scenario?
How does that work then if the pair of them failed to notify the charity of the finances?
Billy Middleton did a sponsored run on a treadmill apparently for convicted killer Darren Martin - what happened to the money he raised for that - where are the receipts?
And Sandra Lean was involved in that appeal ⬇️
‘If you send a cheque for £15 made payable to wronglyaccusedperson: Darren Martin Appeal to”
“I'll send you a copy of the book - we can discuss how you'd like me to personalise it when we speak.’
‘Thank you so much, both for helping with Darren's appeal and agreeing to the phd interview ’
So, there we have it in black and white - That remarkable time frame. What is important I think to take on board before this part, is of what Ms Lean may have at hand, the defence case/papers and so forth. That of this massive collection of case notes, statements and so forth - what we actually get to see as way of proof for the varies points that are discussed, is actually around 5% - We are all aware of data protection, of Scottish law and restrictions this brings. What we are also aware of, is there are no restrictions when it suits, in releasing full sentences and so forth. The search party of 4:
A refresher of that remarkable time frame - Of Jodi being reported missing at 10.49pm and of Jodi being found dead by 11.30pm. Not only was she found dead, but she was found in an isolated area of woodland, hidden to an extent behind a large Oak tree. It was the height of summertime when growth was at it's fullest. It was overcast and it was dark, this along with the shelter of trees and overgrowth would have reduced visibility extensively. What we do know with certainty before we move onto the next part, is that LM had been in this woodland mere seconds before he had shouted out he had found something. To highlight that very important factor yet again. That this search party were not in the woodland. There was no dog running free picking up any scent. The dog was not in the woodland, and the dog was on a lead. What we also know with certainty is that there is absolutely no proof of this dog being trained, nothing was produced in court - very good reason for that IMO, as:
The evidence led was mainly around where the search party were when LM went into the woodland. Remember here yet again, as it is extremely relevant to all that happened and of suspicion upon LM - That time factor, reported missing at 10.49pm and found dead by 11.30pm. That after the call to the police, LM offered to search for Jodi, that he would look on this path on his way to her mothers house. This call was at 10.51pm and LM was on/at Roansdyke path by 10.59pm. We have already made it clear why the search party of 4 met on this path and of why there was no time for an extensive search to have gotten off the ground. And we know the search trio from Mayfield headed to the path as LM was on it. And they did meet - and in approx 10mins of this meet - Jodi is found. She is lying in an isolated part of this woodland as above.: Where was everyone?
Let's think first of all, of those areas verbatim from statements - those chosen selective points which amounts to around 5% of their total? Of a trial, and that even playing field when this is done? And of Ms Leans solo defence case. And of those sentences given when it suits? And of those extraordinary lengths of explanation given to make up some futile points? That of the search party - of the change in statements - and of this dog.
LM claimed that - 'we had walked some distance passed a V break in the wall, not even 20yds when Mia alerted me' 'she was on her hind legs air sniffing, I went back to the V to gain access to the woodland'
The search trio - nothing outwith multiple areas to show that they must have walked passed this V - why the long road? We know they walked passed the V, but they walked passed this V after LM went into the woods. We know they used words such as "backtracked to the V" But they did not use those words until after LM had went into the woodland. And after they had continued down this path. Where are the sentences of - We had walked some distance passed this V when the dog reacted? We know the search party used words such as the "the dogs head was level with the V" "the dog was pulling to the V" We also know the following:
That JaJ gave an account of of LM going over the V and of him turning to his left.
That AW gave an account of LM handing her the lead, of him going over and turning to his left.
That AW stayed at the V, that after LM turned left JaJ and SK continued to walk down this path.
That they had barely walked 10ft or more when LM shouted he had found something.
That they then hasted back to this V, that when they got to this V LM was on the other side.
That SK and AW went over the V - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation, they were shown exactly where Jodi was.
And those God awful screams we here of - of those hysterics, AW is screaming, JaJ is screaming and SK is retching and being sick.
LM phoned the emergency services at 11.34pm.
So the dog is actually irrelevant - as the dog was not where LM claimed the dog and the search party were.
Outwith those clear contrasts in those first statements there is that time factor, as with the dinner tale and all else - There was never the time for the events to have taken place. LM did not walk some 20yrds not even 60ft passed this V then backtracked to it. There was no time. Sk, and JaJ could not have continued down a further 10ft or more, there was no time. They were at the V as they stated in that first initial account. - The only account that was completely off, from the Off was LM's. It was in total contrast to that of the other three people present.
And there, yet again is that clear line of extremely valid suspicion. That this girl was found dead within minutes of the missing person report being filled in. That she was found by LM in the dark, in an isolated spot of this woodland. Every single part of these irrelevant accounts of "mucking around up here" of walking this path alone, of the search party arriving too quick - are diversion and distraction - They had nothing to do with those minutes of when Jodi was found. No one else put LM on Roansdyke Path. And it was LM who put the search party on this path, by the mere fact he was on it, those claims of searching en-route.
And this is why DF did not go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts - This is why the Jury were taken to the locus, why the replica wall was built in court. So they could see first hand, how impossible this was in the timescale given. And they were taken in the daytime, the growth was not the same, some branches and so forth cut back - but they did see the pictures taken before this had happened.
'Free Luke Mitchell' graffiti scrawled outside Scots police station by vandals
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/free-luke-mitchell-graffiti-scrawled-24090732
Some or Luke Mitchell/Sandra Lean followers are telling their young children all about [Name removed]’s brutal murder and even filming them climbing through the V-shape of the wall and uploading their videos to the WWW
Others are apparently putting the killers photo in their windows
ICS: ‘love it I think I’ll do it my house faces on primary school could get people seeing itxxx
Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?
What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.
Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?
Then there’s this moron,
Johnnyboy Steel
‘Hi everyone, just a wee update on the latest discussions that myself, Stuart Dempsey, jinxy Mitchell and Darren Carson have been having over the last few weeks on how to further preceed in the fight for justice for Luke Mitchell. We have combed over certain locations that we believe will be of interest to us in our plight. We see ourselves as a dedicated and committed team of MCKENZIE ADVISERS to help the movement to secure Lukes fight for freedom .We have meticulously planned for other events that will disrupt the corupt! Lol. Mind and keep the protest on the 3rd peaceful and respectful. Look forward to seeing you all there.
“Great turnout at George Squre today. We were late in getting there through no fault of our own. I felt a sense of pride to find that all of you were standing your ground whilst battling the torrential rain and soaked to the skin! You should be proud of this achievement. It was a pleasure to have met you today, and thank for waiting till we arrived, and God bless you that had to leave before we got there. We know we have a great team on stand by for future events. YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET FOLKS.
The good news is there are almost 5 000 AMIGOS ON THIS PAGE,and all of us have one thing in common and that is to help get justice for Luke and jodie. Its not fair to suggest that myself, Stuart Dempsey jinxy Mitchell and Darren Carson are the 4 Amigos as that puts us on the radar. We see ourselves as more like MCKENZIE ADVISERS for the campaign and will assist in many ways. If JESUS joined the campaign tomorrow, we would still have an uphill battle on our hands! And it will be a long hard fight to achieve our goal.
Who is he kidding
Johnnyboy Steele
‘I HAVE AN IDEA: LET'S ALL TIE A YELLOW RIBBON AS A TOKEN OF OUR SUPPORT FOR LUKE. WRITE HIS NAME ON THE RIBBON BEFORE TYING IT TO A TREE,LAMPOST, LAWYERS OFFICE DOORS, TRAINS ,WINDOWS,POLICE STATION DOORS, JAIL GATES,ECT. USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOLKS. PLEASE GO TO UTUBE AND TYPE IN THE SONG "TIE A YELLOW RIBBON" AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS SONG IS MEANT FOR THE THOUSANDS OF LUKE SUPPORTERS.
Of course he does - he wants to show [Name removed] and her family as much contempt and disrespect as is possible - he couldn’t careless about justice
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of? Out of those 5k? amigos, a fraction decided to brave the horrendous weather. (less than 50) To hell with LM it would seen, his mother did not attend, not even a video message of support? One may like having their vile rants online (very little yet again) but obviously not strong enough in their support to brave the elements, to have Scotland awash with yellow ribbons. And does he seem to be taken credit for the ribbon? The ribbon idea stemming from the Mitchells, not the amigos. It was his mother (via him) that suggested the ribbon. The song is about a guilty person who is coming to the end of their time in prison? - A yellow ribbon on a Oak Tree? The very type LM gave name to, of where the body of his girlfriend was left beside?
Is LM controlling easily those who wish blindly to be led? - "to not just feel safe but to be safe?" Ms Lean is no fool. I don't believe for one second she understands any of the evidence that came from the Mitchells, that she uses what one see's here - with those gaping holes and shoring? Attempting to turn this around onto the investigation side. To draw away from what she clearly sees, and wishes no others to be drawn to? Has she been given exclusive rights? as part of a deal? Did this falling out, the drift between the Mitchells happen when Ms Leans purpose had failed at this point. Now to be taken over by these Glasgow gangsters. Whom one would doubt, yet again neither care or are interested enough, in the actual evidence that convicted LM. They are out for the police - a lifetime of them fighting the system, of their various crimes. It's not about guilt, it is about avoidance is it not? Of getting away with it?
And it is evident that this support stems now mainly from the west - the Steele supporters who have merrily jumped onto the Mitchell case. How heavily may LM have gotten into drugs on the inside? We hear of JS's fight and addiction of his shame in keeping it from his family. His friendship with LM - The word of an addict is highly reliable, is it not? Of a mind controlled by heavy abuse of class A drugs? new books afloat - let us add some of this high profile killer into the mix? - what better for sales?
This criminologist and reporter from the link just shared - of this serial killer. That need to talk to reveal, fits LM to the letter T. His interview, inadvertently drawing the finger to himself. Of the hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. Of leading this girls family right to her mutilated body---------- Of taking control of those interview - telling the police how to do their job - And of that cool collectiveness, that flat voice, that had nothing to do with his claimed cocktail of prescribed drugs. - LM is controlling still is he not? - each and every one of them?
Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?
What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.
Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?
At the end of Sandra Lean’s speech here https://www.movementinmedia.com/innovation-of-justice.html @ approx 18.03 when she announces she had attended Nick Rose’s funeral the day before; she mentions the alleged witnesses who claim to have seen Charlotte Pinkney alive after it was claimed she was murdered.
Does anyone know what case Sandra Lean was involved with in 2002 .- Stephen Manning?
‘Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims who have suffered a major injustice. Without payment, she has spent thousands of hours going through evidence and trial transcripts with a fine toothed comb, helping the legal teams out with her time and expertise. She does this because she is passionate about helping these falsely accused and wrongfully convicted people in any way she can, and because she is appalled that the British Judicial system is as flawed as it is, letting so many people down (P.Hughes)
https://miscarriageofjustice.wordpress.com/about/
Who is P Hughs ?
Sandra Lean
‘Luke's words about those who believe mainstream and still trust the justice system
‘Murder in a small town’ was ‘mainstream’
Anyone trusting Sandra Lean after the Adrian Prout, Simon Hall and Matthew Hamlen fiascos seriously need to give their heads a wobble
And then there’s Killer Nicholas (Nick) Rose - who’s inquest is yet to be heard
Found death in prison days after ‘Helens Law victory’ announced https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7038437/Killers-wont-say-hid-victims-bodies-set-serve-time-bars.html
Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here.
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of? Out of those 5k? amigos, a fraction decided to brave the horrendous weather. (less than 50) To hell with LM it would seen, his mother did not attend, not even a video message of support? One may like having their vile rants online (very little yet again) but obviously not strong enough in their support to brave the elements, to have Scotland awash with yellow ribbons. And does he seem to be taken credit for the ribbon? The ribbon idea stemming from the Mitchells, not the amigos. It was his mother (via him) that suggested the ribbon. The song is about a guilty person who is coming to the end of their time in prison? - A yellow ribbon on a Oak Tree? The very type LM gave name to, of where the body of his girlfriend was left beside?
Is LM controlling easily those who wish blindly to be led? - "to not just feel safe but to be safe?" Ms Lean is no fool. I don't believe for one second she understands any of the evidence that came from the Mitchells, that she uses what one see's here - with those gaping holes and shoring? Attempting to turn this around onto the investigation side. To draw away from what she clearly sees, and wishes no others to be drawn to? Has she been given exclusive rights? as part of a deal? Did this falling out, the drift between the Mitchells happen when Ms Leans purpose had failed at this point. Now to be taken over by these Glasgow gangsters. Whom one would doubt, yet again neither care or are interested enough, in the actual evidence that convicted LM. They are out for the police - a lifetime of them fighting the system, of their various crimes. It's not about guilt, it is about avoidance is it not? Of getting away with it?
And it is evident that this support stems now mainly from the west - the Steele supporters who have merrily jumped onto the Mitchell case. How heavily may LM have gotten into drugs on the inside? We hear of JS's fight and addiction of his shame in keeping it from his family. His friendship with LM - The word of an addict is highly reliable, is it not? Of a mind controlled by heavy abuse of class A drugs? new books afloat - let us add some of this high profile killer into the mix? - what better for sales?
This criminologist and reporter from the link just shared - of this serial killer. That need to talk to reveal, fits LM to the letter T. His interview, inadvertently drawing the finger to himself. Of the hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. Of leading this girls family right to her mutilated body---------- Of taking control of those interview - telling the police how to do their job - And of that cool collectiveness, that flat voice, that had nothing to do with his claimed cocktail of prescribed drugs. - LM is controlling still is he not? - each and every one of them?
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of? Out of those 5k? amigos, a fraction decided to brave the horrendous weather. (less than 50) To hell with LM it would seen, his mother did not attend, not even a video message of support? One may like having their vile rants online (very little yet again) but obviously not strong enough in their support to brave the elements, to have Scotland awash with yellow ribbons. And does he seem to be taken credit for the ribbon? The ribbon idea stemming from the Mitchells, not the amigos. It was his mother (via him) that suggested the ribbon. The song is about a guilty person who is coming to the end of their time in prison? - A yellow ribbon on a Oak Tree? The very type LM gave name to, of where the body of his girlfriend was left beside?
Is LM controlling easily those who wish blindly to be led? - "to not just feel safe but to be safe?" Ms Lean is no fool. I don't believe for one second she understands any of the evidence that came from the Mitchells, that she uses what one see's here - with those gaping holes and shoring? Attempting to turn this around onto the investigation side. To draw away from what she clearly sees, and wishes no others to be drawn to? Has she been given exclusive rights? as part of a deal? Did this falling out, the drift between the Mitchells happen when Ms Leans purpose had failed at this point. Now to be taken over by these Glasgow gangsters. Whom one would doubt, yet again neither care or are interested enough, in the actual evidence that convicted LM. They are out for the police - a lifetime of them fighting the system, of their various crimes. It's not about guilt, it is about avoidance is it not? Of getting away with it?
And it is evident that this support stems now mainly from the west - the Steele supporters who have merrily jumped onto the Mitchell case. How heavily may LM have gotten into drugs on the inside? We hear of JS's fight and addiction of his shame in keeping it from his family. His friendship with LM - The word of an addict is highly reliable, is it not? Of a mind controlled by heavy abuse of class A drugs? new books afloat - let us add some of this high profile killer into the mix? - what better for sales?
This criminologist and reporter from the link just shared - of this serial killer. That need to talk to reveal, fits LM to the letter T. His interview, inadvertently drawing the finger to himself. Of the hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. Of leading this girls family right to her mutilated body---------- Of taking control of those interview - telling the police how to do their job - And of that cool collectiveness, that flat voice, that had nothing to do with his claimed cocktail of prescribed drugs. - LM is controlling still is he not? - each and every one of them?
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of? Out of those 5k? amigos, a fraction decided to brave the horrendous weather. (less than 50) To hell with LM it would seen, his mother did not attend, not even a video message of support? One may like having their vile rants online (very little yet again) but obviously not strong enough in their support to brave the elements, to have Scotland awash with yellow ribbons. And does he seem to be taken credit for the ribbon? The ribbon idea stemming from the Mitchells, not the amigos. It was his mother (via him) that suggested the ribbon. The song is about a guilty person who is coming to the end of their time in prison? - A yellow ribbon on a Oak Tree? The very type LM gave name to, of where the body of his girlfriend was left beside?
Is LM controlling easily those who wish blindly to be led? - "to not just feel safe but to be safe?" Ms Lean is no fool. I don't believe for one second she understands any of the evidence that came from the Mitchells, that she uses what one see's here - with those gaping holes and shoring? Attempting to turn this around onto the investigation side. To draw away from what she clearly sees, and wishes no others to be drawn to? Has she been given exclusive rights? as part of a deal? Did this falling out, the drift between the Mitchells happen when Ms Leans purpose had failed at this point. Now to be taken over by these Glasgow gangsters. Whom one would doubt, yet again neither care or are interested enough, in the actual evidence that convicted LM. They are out for the police - a lifetime of them fighting the system, of their various crimes. It's not about guilt, it is about avoidance is it not? Of getting away with it?
And it is evident that this support stems now mainly from the west - the Steele supporters who have merrily jumped onto the Mitchell case. How heavily may LM have gotten into drugs on the inside? We hear of JS's fight and addiction of his shame in keeping it from his family. His friendship with LM - The word of an addict is highly reliable, is it not? Of a mind controlled by heavy abuse of class A drugs? new books afloat - let us add some of this high profile killer into the mix? - what better for sales?
This criminologist and reporter from the link just shared - of this serial killer. That need to talk to reveal, fits LM to the letter T. His interview, inadvertently drawing the finger to himself. Of the hair fastener, the tree, the socks and the clothing. Of leading this girls family right to her mutilated body---------- Of taking control of those interview - telling the police how to do their job - And of that cool collectiveness, that flat voice, that had nothing to do with his claimed cocktail of prescribed drugs. - LM is controlling still is he not? - each and every one of them?
⬇️
LT: Why is there inhouse arguing between the different groups? I thought we were all on the same page and fighting for the same cause?
JT: We r all one other group blocked me I cannot think why but they still use my stuff so hey ho all in this together to promote Sandra and get Luke out
HM: no wonder you wer blocked have you or any of the other admins and moderators read what you are posting You are going to cause damage to this group we are here to fight for Luke no to promote sandra and I’m sure sandra will understand what I’m talking about and another thing the press are in here watching what’s getting posted so if your no going to post anything concerning Luke’s fight in a positive way then don’t post at all .. getting sick of it
JT: who rattled your wee cage this morning checking in on my mental health before attacking me folk like you getting us all sacked and giving us more mental health probs than we have already there u go you wanted to come get me here I am I promot groups and businesses making my connections through algorithms and platforms would you like some
⬆️ ⬇️ This women - JT - is the individual seemingly promoting the vandals and their graffiti
JT: Still so devastating saw him every day going to school or trying to get a bus and live his life as normal as he could after the trauma he had just been through and his loss mental health shattered at 14 who cares what he was didn’t make him slane his gf in a 2 sec attack 1000 folk it could have been or more but never checked don’t worry police 👮♀️ when you come to arrest me for protest 🪧 the way I want too my list is so long you will be sending me home soz joke 👍👍
#keeptalkingtillukeiswalking
Mental health awareness week you better keep an eye on me soz another joke 😆🎗🦋 MA hope you enjoyed your we jolly at the caravan sorry I couldn’t visit still waiting for S to arrive x LDA you too xx 😘 will catch up with you all when she is finally here XX 💋
P.131
The Role of Victims
’The existence of such apparently clear safeguards not only feeds public perceptions that the CJS is fair and properly regulated, but, in more recent times, has become a supporting feature in claims that criminals have more rights than victims.
Public perceptions and government policy have continued to shift in a more punitive, retributive direction, with concepts of the rights of „victims‟ and „offenders‟ increasingly portrayed as being in direct opposition – victims should have more rights, offenders should have less, victims‟ rights should come first before any consideration (if at all) should be given to offenders rights. The centrality of the role of the victim was first specifically included in public policy in the Government‟s White Paper „Justice for All‟ in 2002, with a claim that reform would put victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system, and re-balance the system in favour of victims of crime. Eight years later, Helen Newlove, the widow of Gary Newlove, a murder victim, was given a peerage after almost three years of campaigning against binge drinking and “gangs,‟ a high profile „cementing‟ of the role of victims „at the heart of the justice system.‟
The definition of “victims,‟ however, remains reserved for a particular type of „victim‟: one of the youths convicted for Mr Newlove‟s murder is 16 year old Jordan Cunliffe, who suffers degenerative eye condition „Keratoconus‟ which renders him virtually blind41. The prosecution, under Joint Enterprise doctrine, holds that Jordan should have „known or reasonably anticipated‟ that the boys he was with that evening were likely to kick Mr Newlove to death (it is agreed that Jordan took no part in the attack) and he should have done something to stop them. The campaign to highlight the conviction of an innocent, disabled youth has received virtually no mainstream media coverage, and for almost two years, from before trial to after the first appeal, the media were banned from reporting on Jordan‟s disability.
Agreed by who?
Para 55.
“Mr Weatherby submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to show that Jordan Cunliffe was a participant at the time of the fatal blow. This submission is untenable. The witnesses Domville and Bate placed him with the group at the outset. Tracey Cassidy and Zoe Newlove described the actions of the group of which Jordan Cunliffe was a part. The evidence as a whole showed that he was participating throughout the incident involving Mr Newlove.[/b]
https://prisons.org.uk/cunliffevCCRC.pdf
I’d be interested to hear from Gordon Graham on Sandra Lean’s lack of credibility - does he still post here?
To hell with LM it would seen, his mother did not attend, not even a video message of support?
his entire family were conspicuous in their absence.
will consider sandra lean a credible source if or when she has the spine to name who allegedly confessed, and who her informant of the alleged confession was. think i'll be waiting for a while
PN: ‘Puzzled about something if stocky man was known to jodi, why was he walking behind her and not with her ??? Was he trying to catch up, surely he could have shouted wait for me !!
Gordon Graham: ‘I think he was sent after her either to watch her or to make sure she got to where she was suppose to be going. It would depend on what happened before hand as to whether she wanted that.
*&^^&
And some have sense to ask - as what is being suggested, regardless of which way one may look at in, however many options of nonsense are pushed out. That it is completely ludicrous to tie this stocky man in with someone who knew this girl. But we do not have to of course. As there has been nothing in the slightest - to confirm that this was Jodi herself. It matters not, how many times Ms Lean may wish to push DF to the background in all of this - that his team of highly professional bodies looked over every inch of these possible sightings. The excuses - DF could not use any of this as they were not inclusive of the prosecution case. That there was no funding - the usual guff of course: As we know DF included part of a witness statement in respect of the duo on the bike - of a witness that was no inclusive of the trial itself as in being called to give evidence.
We know that DF had asked the boys on the bike - why was your bike up against this wall, close to the V break? - "I dunno?" You see, he did have this statement from the Basically Tool Hire place. The witness was not called of course. He did however attempt to use it, as he had it and he wanted to disperse doubt amongst the Jury. He is the defence after all. He knew this claimed sighting was both impossible and it had not been confirmed for reliability. - But he did not introduce any "possible" sightings of this girl nor that of this Stocky man - for he had seen all of the information on it. He knew these had not been confirmed, that they held no water. There was absolutely nothing to show - that Jodi had left home after 5pm. That she was being "followed" by anyone and most definitely not by her brother, or sisters boyfriend, JF or anyone else. Again we are being asked ("the willfully ignorant") To ignore everything and everyone else to concentrate on Ms Leans slim to nil possibilities of all and everything. Really?
‘The wilfully ignorant’ indeed *&^^&
It takes very little common sense to realise - That there was definitely no confirmed sightings of Jodi walking to this path to meet with Luke. If there had been they would simply have been used. By both sides. First of all, when one wants to talk stitch ups - would it have mattered moving AB a couple of minutes forward - and this possible sighting of Jodi a couple of minutes back to tie together. For that is the reality here. One it was not confirmed as Jodi thus not used. If it had been confirmed as her it would simply have been used. And IF it had been a positive sighting, and there was anything at all of substance - that could have shown the sighting by AB to be wrong - It would have been used - Plain and simple. DF would have done to AO, JuJ and anyone else what he did to the duo on the bike - any means to show that Jodi had not left her house shortly after 4.50pm. There simply was nothing to use. There was absolutely nothing in these claims - That Jodi had left much later, that she was being "followed". Irrespective of the press (they hate).There had been possible sightings of a male, walking along in the direction of Morris Road, possibly at the same time as Jodi. Not following - absolute nonsense. - Makes it sound the part however - doesn't it?
This stocky man is nothing more than a smoke screen - for those willing to soak any piece of nonsense up. We know an appeal was put out when witness's first came forward - and we know once the girl with the buggy came forward all changed - perhaps Ms Lean needs to show her statement? We know one witness had gotten her day/ time and ID of the stocky man completely wrong. And DF knew why all the information, ID and timings of this stocky man were also wrong - Not Ms Lean though. One must ignore every other piece of evidence. It is irrelevant as they do not fit with Ms Leans theories - those ever so accurate fictional pieces of narrative? "those rivers of ink?"
LAWS31062 Miscarriages of Justice Claire McGourlay 2018-2019
By Claire Mcgourlay
an academic
Andrew Green and Fintan Walker also involved in course delivery
Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right - Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck 2003
Book Not essential reading but a good overview of the USA system
Innocents betrayed: a true story of justice abandoned - Sandra Lean 2018
Book Further
Informative Pre-course Reading 2 items
These are not hard books to read and should give you a sense of what the course will be about.
The secret barrister: stories of the law and how it's broken 2018
Book Also available as an eBook via VLE books - follow the 'Online Resource' link
Guilty until proven innocent: the crisis in our justice system - Jon Robbins 2018
Book Also available as an EBSCO eBook - follow the 'Online Resource' link
https://manchester.rl.talis.com/lists/778B24E0-BE72-A647-1228-AC3012287E29.html
*&^^&
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg494098#msg494098
Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1. In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2. As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3. You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?
https://www.thejusticegap.com/open-letter-ccrc-2/
Professor Claire McGourlay
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/claire.mcgourlay.html
And some have sense to ask - as what is being suggested, regardless of which way one may look at in, however many options of nonsense are pushed out. That it is completely ludicrous to tie this stocky man in with someone who knew this girl. But we do not have to of course. As there has been nothing in the slightest - to confirm that this was Jodi herself. It matters not, how many times Ms Lean may wish to push DF to the background in all of this - that his team of highly professional bodies looked over every inch of these possible sightings. The excuses - DF could not use any of this as they were not inclusive of the prosecution case. That there was no funding - the usual guff of course: As we know DF included part of a witness statement in respect of the duo on the bike - of a witness that was no inclusive of the trial itself as in being called to give evidence.
We know that DF had asked the boys on the bike - why was your bike up against this wall, close to the V break? - "I dunno?" You see, he did have this statement from the Basically Tool Hire place. The witness was not called of course. He did however attempt to use it, as he had it and he wanted to disperse doubt amongst the Jury. He is the defence after all. He knew this claimed sighting was both impossible and it had not been confirmed for reliability. - But he did not introduce any "possible" sightings of this girl nor that of this Stocky man - for he had seen all of the information on it. He knew these had not been confirmed, that they held no water. There was absolutely nothing to show - that Jodi had left home after 5pm. That she was being "followed" by anyone and most definitely not by her brother, or sisters boyfriend, JF or anyone else. Again we are being asked ("the willfully ignorant") To ignore everything and everyone else to concentrate on Ms Leans slim to nil possibilities of all and everything. Really?
It takes very little common sense to realise - That there was definitely no confirmed sightings of Jodi walking to this path to meet with Luke. If there had been they would simply have been used. By both sides. First of all, when one wants to talk stitch ups - would it have mattered moving AB a couple of minutes forward - and this possible sighting of Jodi a couple of minutes back to tie together. For that is the reality here. One it was not confirmed as Jodi thus not used. If it had been confirmed as her it would simply have been used. And IF it had been a positive sighting, and there was anything at all of substance - that could have shown the sighting by AB to be wrong - It would have been used - Plain and simple. DF would have done to AO, JuJ and anyone else what he did to the duo on the bike - any means to show that Jodi had not left her house shortly after 4.50pm. There simply was nothing to use. There was absolutely nothing in these claims - That Jodi had left much later, that she was being "followed". Irrespective of the press (they hate).There had been possible sightings of a male, walking along in the direction of Morris Road, possibly at the same time as Jodi. Not following - absolute nonsense. - Makes it sound the part however - doesn't it?
This stocky man is nothing more than a smoke screen - for those willing to soak any piece of nonsense up. We know an appeal was put out when witness's first came forward - and we know once the girl with the buggy came forward all changed - perhaps Ms Lean needs to show her statement? We know one witness had gotten her day/ time and ID of the stocky man completely wrong. And DF knew why all the information, ID and timings of this stocky man were also wrong - Not Ms Lean though. One must ignore every other piece of evidence. It is irrelevant as they do not fit with Ms Leans theories - those ever so accurate fictional pieces of narrative? "those rivers of ink?"
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of?
Killer groupies
Killers seem to have a charisma for some. Think of the number of women who marry them behind bars ~ the most recent I know of >
Scots gran hoping to marry US death row triple murderer branded 'crazy b***h' by victim's mother 13 MAY 2020
Michele German, 46, has told of her “obsession” with John Lotter, saying she would marry him “in a heartbeat”, though “he’ll kill me for saying that”.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-gran-hoping-marry-death-22017020
Think of the number of women who marry them behind bars
What a turn out indeed - from the wannabe and has been gangsters. Shocking is it not that some did not wait around for the infamous Steele? Do they all repent to the almighty God for their very shady pasts----------that they speak of?
Killer groupies
Killers seem to have a charisma for some.
Do you think prisons should ban marriages behind bars?
If people want to be idiots who am I to try to stop them?
Do you think these men find killer Luke Mitchell charismatic ?
Do you mean people who marry are ‘idiots’ or only those who marry someone in prison ?
He must have had something going for him to attract the following he did before and after Jodi's murder. Whether he still has the same charisma I've no idea.
That's cheeky! and I couldn't possibly say 😁
I think marrying a proven murderer in prison or out isn't a good idea. But I don't think a blanket ban on prison marriages is a good idea either.
Mind you, I am ignorant of if or how many prison marriages do occur in Britain.
Killers seem to have a charisma for some. Think of the number of women who marry them behind bars ~ the most recent I know of >
Scots gran hoping to marry US death row triple murderer branded 'crazy b***h' by victim's mother 13 MAY 2020
Michele German, 46, has told of her “obsession” with John Lotter, saying she would marry him “in a heartbeat”, though “he’ll kill me for saying that”.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-gran-hoping-marry-death-22017020
Mind you, I am ignorant of if or how many prison marriages do occur in Britain.
I think marrying a proven murderer in prison or out isn't a good idea.
Are you referring to prison marriages in Britain or prison marriages in the Us ?
What’s a ‘proven murderer’ ?
I know there are a few in America but I don't know anything at all about Britain; the most high profile one being Jimmy Boyle but that was after him turning his life around in prison and his release.
Yes but do you think these men: ‘the wanna be and has been gangsters’ find him charismatic ?
Yes but do you think these men: ‘the wanna be and has been gangsters’ find him charismatic ?
At the risk of setting the 'woke' brigade on me I wouldn't know what these guys find charismatic. I think his bad boy persona certainly attracted women of his age group prior to his incarceration.
.
But if 'the wanna be and has been gangsters' think him charismatic knowing what he did - they must really be filth.
I think marrying a proven murderer in prison or out isn't a good idea.
Some ‘proven’ murderers are innocent don’t you know
‘As a former prison governor, I am acutely aware there are prisoners who are innocent of the crimes for which they have been convicted.
I learned that a long time ago – in 1988, to be precise – when I was responsible for managing Stefan Kiszko, who was wrongly convicted of the murder of schoolgirl Lesley Molseed in 1976.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/crime-scene-murder-margaret-mclaughlin-24072995
I think marrying a proven murderer in prison or out isn't a good idea.
And some ‘proven’ murderers overturn their murder convictions (Although aren’t ‘proven’ innocent) and marry when they get out - Raphael Rowe is one such person
What are your thoughts on this?
The ‘killer groupies’
I’m referring to these men not the women
I believe Sandra Lean is a credible source, and I would recommend her book ("Innocents Betrayed").
Who has read it, as a matter of interest ????
I think Sandra Lean is an incredible source. I would not recommend her book to anyone as I have been singularly unimpressed with quotations from it which I know to be false when compared with other available information.
I have not read her book. I do not need to. I have read and watched much of her narrative via internet sources - right from the horse's mouth you might say - and I am incredulous that any one would give her the time of day.
Ah, but you haven't read the book!
And I expect quite a few people on here haven't !!!
Ah, but you haven't read the book!
And I expect quite a few people on here haven't !!!
I believe Sandra Lean is a credible source, and I would recommend her book ("Innocents Betrayed").
Who has read it, as a matter of interest ????
You seem to be implying that the only way to gain knowledge of the case is from SL's book.
You seem to be implying that the only way to gain knowledge of the case is from SL's book.
Why would I read her book?
What would it tell me that is at variance with what she posts - pods - and videos?
You recommend it. So tell me what new information you think I will glean from it.
And some have sense to ask - as what is being suggested, regardless of which way one may look at in, however many options of nonsense are pushed out. That it is completely ludicrous to tie this stocky man in with someone who knew this girl. But we do not have to of course. As there has been nothing in the slightest - to confirm that this was Jodi herself. It matters not, how many times Ms Lean may wish to push DF to the background in all of this - that his team of highly professional bodies looked over every inch of these possible sightings. The excuses - DF could not use any of this as they were not inclusive of the prosecution case. That there was no funding - the usual guff of course: As we know DF included part of a witness statement in respect of the duo on the bike - of a witness that was no inclusive of the trial itself as in being called to give evidence.
We know that DF had asked the boys on the bike - why was your bike up against this wall, close to the V break? - "I dunno?" You see, he did have this statement from the Basically Tool Hire place. The witness was not called of course. He did however attempt to use it, as he had it and he wanted to disperse doubt amongst the Jury. He is the defence after all. He knew this claimed sighting was both impossible and it had not been confirmed for reliability. - But he did not introduce any "possible" sightings of this girl nor that of this Stocky man - for he had seen all of the information on it. He knew these had not been confirmed, that they held no water. There was absolutely nothing to show - that Jodi had left home after 5pm. That she was being "followed" by anyone and most definitely not by her brother, or sisters boyfriend, JF or anyone else. Again we are being asked ("the willfully ignorant") To ignore everything and everyone else to concentrate on Ms Leans slim to nil possibilities of all and everything. Really?
It takes very little common sense to realise - That there was definitely no confirmed sightings of Jodi walking to this path to meet with Luke. If there had been they would simply have been used. By both sides. First of all, when one wants to talk stitch ups - would it have mattered moving AB a couple of minutes forward - and this possible sighting of Jodi a couple of minutes back to tie together. For that is the reality here. One it was not confirmed as Jodi thus not used. If it had been confirmed as her it would simply have been used. And IF it had been a positive sighting, and there was anything at all of substance - that could have shown the sighting by AB to be wrong - It would have been used - Plain and simple. DF would have done to AO, JuJ and anyone else what he did to the duo on the bike - any means to show that Jodi had not left her house shortly after 4.50pm. There simply was nothing to use. There was absolutely nothing in these claims - That Jodi had left much later, that she was being "followed". Irrespective of the press (they hate).There had been possible sightings of a male, walking along in the direction of Morris Road, possibly at the same time as Jodi. Not following - absolute nonsense. - Makes it sound the part however - doesn't it?
This stocky man is nothing more than a smoke screen - for those willing to soak any piece of nonsense up. We know an appeal was put out when witness's first came forward - and we know once the girl with the buggy came forward all changed - perhaps Ms Lean needs to show her statement? We know one witness had gotten her day/ time and ID of the stocky man completely wrong. And DF knew why all the information, ID and timings of this stocky man were also wrong - Not Ms Lean though. One must ignore every other piece of evidence. It is irrelevant as they do not fit with Ms Leans theories - those ever so accurate fictional pieces of narrative? "those rivers of ink?"
At the end of Sandra Lean’s speech here https://www.movementinmedia.com/innovation-of-justice.html @ approx 18.03 when she announces she had attended Nick Rose’s funeral the day before; she mentions the alleged witnesses who claim to have seen Charlotte Pinkney alive after it was claimed she was murdered.
Lots of well researched detail-------IMO.
Then there’s this moron,
Johnnyboy Steel
‘Hi everyone, just a wee update on the latest discussions that myself, Stuart Dempsey, jinxy Mitchell and Darren Carson have been having over the last few weeks on how to further preceed in the fight for justice for Luke Mitchell. We have combed over certain locations that we believe will be of interest to us in our plight. We see ourselves as a dedicated and committed team of MCKENZIE ADVISERS to help the movement to secure Lukes fight for freedom .We have meticulously planned for other events that will disrupt the corupt! Lol. Mind and keep the protest on the 3rd peaceful and respectful. Look forward to seeing you all there.
“Great turnout at George Squre today. We were late in getting there through no fault of our own. I felt a sense of pride to find that all of you were standing your ground whilst battling the torrential rain and soaked to the skin! You should be proud of this achievement. It was a pleasure to have met you today, and thank for waiting till we arrived, and God bless you that had to leave before we got there. We know we have a great team on stand by for future events. YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET FOLKS.
The good news is there are almost 5 000 AMIGOS ON THIS PAGE,and all of us have one thing in common and that is to help get justice for Luke and jodie. Its not fair to suggest that myself, Stuart Dempsey jinxy Mitchell and Darren Carson are the 4 Amigos as that puts us on the radar. We see ourselves as more like MCKENZIE ADVISERS for the campaign and will assist in many ways. If JESUS joined the campaign tomorrow, we would still have an uphill battle on our hands! And it will be a long hard fight to achieve our goal.
Who is he kidding
Johnnyboy Steele
‘I HAVE AN IDEA: LET'S ALL TIE A YELLOW RIBBON AS A TOKEN OF OUR SUPPORT FOR LUKE. WRITE HIS NAME ON THE RIBBON BEFORE TYING IT TO A TREE,LAMPOST, LAWYERS OFFICE DOORS, TRAINS ,WINDOWS,POLICE STATION DOORS, JAIL GATES,ECT. USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOLKS. PLEASE GO TO UTUBE AND TYPE IN THE SONG "TIE A YELLOW RIBBON" AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS SONG IS MEANT FOR THE THOUSANDS OF LUKE SUPPORTERS.
Of course he does - he wants to show [Name removed] and her family as much contempt and disrespect as is possible - he couldn’t careless about justice
Stuart Dempsey McMillan
https://www.scotsman.com/news/two-charged-over-dealing-cocaine-worth-ps2m-1703533
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff84760d03e7f57ebdb0b
I believe Sandra Lean is a credible source, and I would recommend her book ("Innocents Betrayed").
Who has read it, as a matter of interest ????
“Scotland’s drugs deaths tolls is a matter of national grief and shame. This is rightly being treated as a public health emergency.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7117105/bradley-welsh-russell-findlay-msp-threat/amp/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=scottishsuntwitter&utm_source=Twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Credible source? - Of what exactly? For the Mitchells for that is the basis of all is it not? - Ms Lean holds the defence case files, she has never had access to everything. She has simply taken what DF put together and added to it. This has never been the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones, not in the slightest. Where Ms Lean makes claim to "examine the truth buried in those case files" - absolute nonsense. "disclosing for the first time, evidence of manipulating witnesses, forensic failings, crime scene contamination, dishonesty and more" "with reference to all the evidence"
Where to start? - "with reference to all the evidence" - Nope, Ms Lean has never had all of the evidence. As Faithlilly pointed out but in the wrong context. It was 10 mnths before LM was arrested. Not because there was little evidence, but because they were building up a case with an abundance of evidence. We know this trial went on for 9 weeks, it did not do so, on the basis of flimsy evidence. We know this was a circumstantial case - there was no DNA that could connect LM directly to this girls murder. The police were not simply letting a killer walk the streets, they were making sure that they got this right so that this killer did not continue to walk the streets. And not by manipulating witnesses nor this ridiculous suggestion that the wrong forensic tests were requested.
Yes...where to start? Best probably to highlight your silence with regards to your access to witness statements and court testimony. Spoke volumes...of course.
10 months until Luke was arrested and charged...building up a case with an abundance of evidence in that 10 months? Is that really true? How does it fit in with a L&B media spokesman saying at the end of August that they had all the evidence that they were likely to get or that a report detailing that evidence was sent to the PF in September? Of course the PF, strangely, failed to appreciate this ‘abundance of evidence’ the police had and refused permission to charge Luke. However perhaps with the adage ‘God loves a trier’ in mind L&B had another shot at submitting a report to the PF in November. Four and a half months later the PF finally granted permission and Luke was charged. What evidence was gathered from September to April is unclear. We know that several detectives had a jolly over to Quantico to talk to the FBI about constructing a profile of Jodi’s killer...a profile that was not used by the prosecution so I think it is safe to say that it didn’t put Luke in the frame.
So, it could quite rightly be said that the police didn’t simply let a killer walk the streets for 10 months....they had no choice. The report submitted to the PF, twice, had so little merit that permission was refused to charge Luke. It really was out of their hands.
On this basis, of the amount of evidence gathered - we know that the case is led with only a fraction of what had been obtained. How long does one imagine it would have went on for - if every single piece of evidence was used. We know the intricate details alone of this claimed alibi. That there had never been this relaxed dinner event - That is was the gaping holes in this that brought about the evidence led. Of coercion between this mother and son. Ultimately that LM had not been at home. And of CM - that she was capable, quite easily of lying bare faced on this stand. There was never simply the word of the tattoo parlour staff - that booking and confirmation was shown from their records, The name used, clearly written. The mockery brought of this by Ms Lean and co - the ridiculous notion that they would used the ID of a man in his 50's - no mockery however that this man was a family friend. Not some random name plucked out a hat - by the staff in this shop. Something they could not have possibly known, far less enter it into their records, for what reason? - to frame LM for a silly tattoo? The Jury needed to see that this mother would lie easily and readily for her son. Of the knife, of not only allowing her son to have more, but this ridiculous claim she had hidden it from him? this skunting knife, exactly like the one still missing. That she claimed this professional search team had missed it, in a bag beside the dogs dinner. - After running their fingers through this. - Not on your life, they were hoping this purchase in itself would not be noticed where they not? That they would be able to produce - thee missing knife. As with the Jacket. That original army item, too heavy and big to burn in this tiny burner. And she knew this how? - she knew it as it was exactly the jacket he had, and exactly the type replaced by originality was it not? - and it is that very mockery, that play on words that is used to distract away from the reality. That same mockery we see from the innocence campaigners, over and over. Of AB and the span of a gnat - nope, AB had an amazing memory. Of Ms Lean, and her suggestion that the police MAY have put the idea of a pocket in her mind? - surprised they didn't put the idea of the Deftone logo there also, eh?
Professional search team? They always but always find all the evidence, don’t they? Like poor Tia Sharp, left to rot in her own attic when, just feet away, a professional search team, allegedly, searched her house within a inch of it’s life? And the jacket...the one that wasn’t mentioned until August. The jacket that was rained upon on that dreich, overcast day that you constantly insist on. Wet but not wet enough to burn sufficiently that not a microscopic fibre remained to say that the garment had ever existed.
And AB....I believe every word she said in her first statement and second statements. Recollections precise and clear, tied to verifiable events. No need to doubt her attention span.....but you did, or at least that’s the theory you put forward for those crucial but unexplained missing 45 minutes. Memory of a gnat....no quite the opposite.
Of this buried evidence - ridiculous claim. The only thing that is being buried is the Mitchells testimony. The lies in their abundance. And the manipulation of all and everything to shore it over with these far fetched tales. The search party is paramount to what Ms Lean does. That she should blatantly push out that wrongful claim - that they all agreed with LM that his dog led them to Jodi - No they did not. Not once. The evidence has always been clear around this - and if Ms Lean can bend this so far out of shape - then we know what she is capable of across the board, don't we? She has never produced one single area of these witness statements - that could state anything other, than that upon approaching this V, whilst walking down this path - that LM entered this woodland. They have never stated that they had all walked passed this with LM - And what people are left with - that blindly put trust in this woman having all of the evidence - is this search trio lied, therefore they must be covering something up. For these are the very things that people are saying. Exactly what Ms Lean wants them to think. - it does not pay to think of LM, of those ten minutes and so forth. It pays to think only of this dog. Not where they were from any statement claims - just the dog. Which is completely irrelevant to anything.
Did you see the news today? Jenny Johnson, Russell Bishop’s former girlfriend, convicted of perverting the course of justice....she denied a blue sweatshirt belonged to Bishop. Have you ever wondered why, with so much evidence of false testimony thrown at the Mitchells, that the charges of perverting the course of justice were dropped....and out of the earshot of the jury?
Charges are dropped because there is no evidence to sustain them and if there was no evidence to sustain the charges there is no evidence that Luke wasn’t at home at the time Jodi was, allegedly, murdered. That is merely common sense.
All she produces are snip bits from multiple areas of statements - then goes to extraordinary lengths to make claim that they must have been in harmony with LM's, as she does with pretty much everything? - And it can not be any clearer. To where LM said he was, this 40ft passed this V parallel to where Jodi lay. And he needed to be here, to add any validity in the slightest of what he always claimed - that his dog found Jodi. No it did not. This search trio had never once used those words, far less agree or being in harmony with him to where he stated they were. She has taken what this trio said, of every piece of information, solely on this dog as proof they agreed with LM - That is how twisted it is. And as the police do, do - they would ask for clarification on the basis of LM's claims and the contrast in their statements. And, of what exactly it was this dog was doing as they came to this V. Was LM leading his dog or the dog leading LM? - It was LM leading his dog - directly to the V. Not a foot passed it. Every single piece of their account from that very first - always stated clearly - upon coming to this break in the wall. It has never been after passing it, of this dog then reacting some way down. For they do give sound reasoning from those very first accounts. Of the dog pulling - to the V. Of the dog jumping - at the V. And of the lead being handed to AW. And of LM going over. And of him walking down to his left. - Remember the Gino spot here - of LM simply shining his torch around. This search party simply pausing for a moment - to see if he was Just going to do the same? For they had no notion in the slightest that this dog was reacting to Jodi - utter nonsense. They were waiting to see what LM was going to do, waiting on him. That is why they saw which way he went, by height and by torchlight.
You a have absolutely no evidence of any of the above. Your knowledge comes from the media and forums....you have admitted that. You simply cherrypick that which supports you narrative, nothing more, nothing less.
And if people think it is acceptable - to then have to got to these extraordinary lengths to try and add weight to LM's evidence, rather than simply producing, from those very first statements of all - Where exactly it was, they had said, they all walked some distance passed, that LM had returned to this V, that they also returned for them to make any ref of anything of this V . And I have highlighted this with Faithlilly. And we know she added extras on, when attempting to tie the search trio in with LM returning to this V - It did not happen. Four people, only one from the off, made any claim of the dog alerting to Jodi, and that was LM. And we know that everything else has to be tied in with this. The abundance of other evidence that backed to the hilt, of LM going directly to this V break, and directly in the direction Jodi lay. And we know he had only walked a couple of steps and stopped, waiting a few seconds before shouting he had found something - For as JaJ and SK ran back that 10 -15ft - LM was yet again on the other side of this V. To where they had been shouted back to. - And I will ask again Faithlilly - where the members of this search party taken to the path - to go over their account?
And we know why Ms Lean has to do this - we know she has to twist and use all she can - to distract away from LM, but she is being both disrespectful, not only to Jodi's family, to the truth, - but to Jodi herself. Is she not? - For she has never produced anything of any worth in the slightest to back up these wild claims, that the search trio where with LM some 40ft passed this V break. For it does have to be taken in its entirety. What the dog was doing at this V, whilst approaching it, on the way down this path - is completely irrelevant to LM's claims. For he was lying was he not? They had not walked this distance down at all, and they have never stated that they did. And they most definitely had not stated - that the dog led us/them to Jodi. It has only ever been LM who made these claims. - And of Ms Lean repeating them for him. And I know I am repeating this yet again - for I feel it is morally wrong, to use others, to paint them as liars whilst attempting to scrape together some evidence for LM, to cover those gaping holes in his testimony. These futile excuses are running out - of not being able to divulge witness statements - they certainly seem to be getting divulged to a lot of people when suits?
Show us those statements, show us clearly what each and every member of that search party said. All and everything of what LM claimed. Every single piece of his statements - for he can give permission for this. They are his. They should already have been included as should have CM and Shanes.
Yes please do. You allude to knowledge which is not in the public domain. We know Dr Lean has those first statements...you, not so much. Prove me wrong.
As with the recordings, as with Mr Kelly's statement as with those phone records - none of this is buried. Ms Lean is an author writing a book. POA at one point. Unlike the SCCRC - Ms Lean has never been entitled to access everything. The defence team were entitled, they chose what they wanted to use, they did their precognitions - nothing was buried. Ms Lean wants this independent review to have access to everything? - which in itself tells us clearly, that she has written a hell of lot, made a lot of assumptions and damming reports - when never having had access to everything in the first instance.
Of those botched forensics - really. This woman who knows absolutely nothing of forensics. Who we know sought no expert advice. That she wrote this book prior to even discovering the female elements of DNA in semen. And of all those "no reportable results" with this "we will never know" "as we do not know what was being tested for!" The person of interest, the jacket, the knife, the shoes with blood on them. It was a big knife by the way, we must not forget to include that part. - All tested, no reportable results - It was not Jodi Jones blood. It was not connected to this girls murder. There is none of this we will never know. Of RG of his DNA - we will never know, as was his DNA tested against the DNA from this murder! - Well one must wonder therefore how JaF flagged up? - because it is stored in a data base, that is why. - Which tells us yet again that CD was correct, there was nothing, no profiles attributing this murder to being that of a stranger, of An another. Of these hairs cut at either end? - She thinks the killer may have done this accidently - Ms Lean thinks a hell of a lot - she however can not back up most of these thoughts - can she. She consistently speaks for LM and his mother, adding all her explanations and maybe this or maybe that - It should be straight from the horses mouth.
Credible - what can be credible about someone writing a complete defence case for a convicted murderer - whom we know, without a shadow of a doubt, done noting but lie? - Credible to speak for a compulsive liar?
Heroin flooded Edinburgh after Islamic Revolution leaving piles of bodies and sparking crime-spree
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/how-1979-islamic-revolution-brought-24121902
Credible source? - Of what exactly? For the Mitchells for that is the basis of all is it not? - Ms Lean holds the defence case files, she has never had access to everything. She has simply taken what DF put together and added to it. This has never been the true story of the murder of Jodi Jones, not in the slightest. Where Ms Lean makes claim to "examine the truth buried in those case files" - absolute nonsense. "disclosing for the first time, evidence of manipulating witnesses, forensic failings, crime scene contamination, dishonesty and more" "with reference to all the evidence"
Where to start? - "with reference to all the evidence" - Nope, Ms Lean has never had all of the evidence. As Faithlilly pointed out but in the wrong context. It was 10 mnths before LM was arrested. Not because there was little evidence, but because they were building up a case with an abundance of evidence. We know this trial went on for 9 weeks, it did not do so, on the basis of flimsy evidence. We know this was a circumstantial case - there was no DNA that could connect LM directly to this girls murder. The police were not simply letting a killer walk the streets, they were making sure that they got this right so that this killer did not continue to walk the streets. And not by manipulating witnesses nor this ridiculous suggestion that the wrong forensic tests were requested.
On this basis, of the amount of evidence gathered - we know that the case is led with only a fraction of what had been obtained. How long does one imagine it would have went on for - if every single piece of evidence was used. We know the intricate details alone of this claimed alibi. That there had never been this relaxed dinner event - That is was the gaping holes in this that brought about the evidence led. Of coercion between this mother and son. Ultimately that LM had not been at home. And of CM - that she was capable, quite easily of lying bare faced on this stand. There was never simply the word of the tattoo parlour staff - that booking and confirmation was shown from their records, The name used, clearly written. The mockery brought of this by Ms Lean and co - the ridiculous notion that they would used the ID of a man in his 50's - no mockery however that this man was a family friend. Not some random name plucked out a hat - by the staff in this shop. Something they could not have possibly known, far less enter it into their records, for what reason? - to frame LM for a silly tattoo? The Jury needed to see that this mother would lie easily and readily for her son. Of the knife, of not only allowing her son to have more, but this ridiculous claim she had hidden it from him? this skunting knife, exactly like the one still missing. That she claimed this professional search team had missed it, in a bag beside the dogs dinner. - After running their fingers through this. - Not on your life, they were hoping this purchase in itself would not be noticed where they not? That they would be able to produce - thee missing knife. As with the Jacket. That original army item, too heavy and big to burn in this tiny burner. And she knew this how? - she knew it as it was exactly the jacket he had, and exactly the type replaced by originality was it not? - and it is that very mockery, that play on words that is used to distract away from the reality. That same mockery we see from the innocence campaigners, over and over. Of AB and the span of a gnat - nope, AB had an amazing memory. Of Ms Lean, and her suggestion that the police MAY have put the idea of a pocket in her mind? - surprised they didn't put the idea of the Deftone logo there also, eh?
Of this buried evidence - ridiculous claim. The only thing that is being buried is the Mitchells testimony. The lies in their abundance. And the manipulation of all and everything to shore it over with these far fetched tales. The search party is paramount to what Ms Lean does. That she should blatantly push out that wrongful claim - that they all agreed with LM that his dog led them to Jodi - No they did not. Not once. The evidence has always been clear around this - and if Ms Lean can bend this so far out of shape - then we know what she is capable of across the board, don't we? She has never produced one single area of these witness statements - that could state anything other, than that upon approaching this V, whilst walking down this path - that LM entered this woodland. They have never stated that they had all walked passed this with LM - And what people are left with - that blindly put trust in this woman having all of the evidence - is this search trio lied, therefore they must be covering something up. For these are the very things that people are saying. Exactly what Ms Lean wants them to think. - it does not pay to think of LM, of those ten minutes and so forth. It pays to think only of this dog. Not where they were from any statement claims - just the dog. Which is completely irrelevant to anything.
All she produces are snip bits from multiple areas of statements - then goes to extraordinary lengths to make claim that they must have been in harmony with LM's, as she does with pretty much everything? - And it can not be any clearer. To where LM said he was, this 40ft passed this V parallel to where Jodi lay. And he needed to be here, to add any validity in the slightest of what he always claimed - that his dog found Jodi. No it did not. This search trio had never once used those words, far less agree or being in harmony with him to where he stated they were. She has taken what this trio said, of every piece of information, solely on this dog as proof they agreed with LM - That is how twisted it is. And as the police do, do - they would ask for clarification on the basis of LM's claims and the contrast in their statements. And, of what exactly it was this dog was doing as they came to this V. Was LM leading his dog or the dog leading LM? - It was LM leading his dog - directly to the V. Not a foot passed it. Every single piece of their account from that very first - always stated clearly - upon coming to this break in the wall. It has never been after passing it, of this dog then reacting some way down. For they do give sound reasoning from those very first accounts. Of the dog pulling - to the V. Of the dog jumping - at the V. And of the lead being handed to AW. And of LM going over. And of him walking down to his left. - Remember the Gino spot here - of LM simply shining his torch around. This search party simply pausing for a moment - to see if he was Just going to do the same? For they had no notion in the slightest that this dog was reacting to Jodi - utter nonsense. They were waiting to see what LM was going to do, waiting on him. That is why they saw which way he went, by height and by torchlight.
And if people think it is acceptable - to then have to got to these extraordinary lengths to try and add weight to LM's evidence, rather than simply producing, from those very first statements of all - Where exactly it was, they had said, they all walked some distance passed, that LM had returned to this V, that they also returned for them to make any ref of anything of this V . And I have highlighted this with Faithlilly. And we know she added extras on, when attempting to tie the search trio in with LM returning to this V - It did not happen. Four people, only one from the off, made any claim of the dog alerting to Jodi, and that was LM. And we know that everything else has to be tied in with this. The abundance of other evidence that backed to the hilt, of LM going directly to this V break, and directly in the direction Jodi lay. And we know he had only walked a couple of steps and stopped, waiting a few seconds before shouting he had found something - For as JaJ and SK ran back that 10 -15ft - LM was yet again on the other side of this V. To where they had been shouted back to. - And I will ask again Faithlilly - where the members of this search party taken to the path - to go over their account?
And we know why Ms Lean has to do this - we know she has to twist and use all she can - to distract away from LM, but she is being both disrespectful, not only to Jodi's family, to the truth, - but to Jodi herself. Is she not? - For she has never produced anything of any worth in the slightest to back up these wild claims, that the search trio where with LM some 40ft passed this V break. For it does have to be taken in its entirety. What the dog was doing at this V, whilst approaching it, on the way down this path - is completely irrelevant to LM's claims. For he was lying was he not? They had not walked this distance down at all, and they have never stated that they did. And they most definitely had not stated - that the dog led us/them to Jodi. It has only ever been LM who made these claims. - And of Ms Lean repeating them for him. And I know I am repeating this yet again - for I feel it is morally wrong, to use others, to paint them as liars whilst attempting to scrape together some evidence for LM, to cover those gaping holes in his testimony. These futile excuses are running out - of not being able to divulge witness statements - they certainly seem to be getting divulged to a lot of people when suits?
Show us those statements, show us clearly what each and every member of that search party said. All and everything of what LM claimed. Every single piece of his statements - for he can give permission for this. They are his. They should already have been included as should have CM and Shanes.
As with the recordings, as with Mr Kelly's statement as with those phone records - none of this is buried. Ms Lean is an author writing a book. POA at one point. Unlike the SCCRC - Ms Lean has never been entitled to access everything. The defence team were entitled, they chose what they wanted to use, they did their precognitions - nothing was buried. Ms Lean wants this independent review to have access to everything? - which in itself tells us clearly, that she has written a hell of lot, made a lot of assumptions and damming reports - when never having had access to everything in the first instance.
Of those botched forensics - really. This woman who knows absolutely nothing of forensics. Who we know sought no expert advice. That she wrote this book prior to even discovering the female elements of DNA in semen. And of all those "no reportable results" with this "we will never know" "as we do not know what was being tested for!" The person of interest, the jacket, the knife, the shoes with blood on them. It was a big knife by the way, we must not forget to include that part. - All tested, no reportable results - It was not Jodi Jones blood. It was not connected to this girls murder. There is none of this we will never know. Of RG of his DNA - we will never know, as was his DNA tested against the DNA from this murder! - Well one must wonder therefore how JaF flagged up? - because it is stored in a data base, that is why. - Which tells us yet again that CD was correct, there was nothing, no profiles attributing this murder to being that of a stranger, of An another. Of these hairs cut at either end? - She thinks the killer may have done this accidently - Ms Lean thinks a hell of a lot - she however can not back up most of these thoughts - can she. She consistently speaks for LM and his mother, adding all her explanations and maybe this or maybe that - It should be straight from the horses mouth.
Credible - what can be credible about someone writing a complete defence case for a convicted murderer - whom we know, without a shadow of a doubt, done noting but lie? - Credible to speak for a compulsive liar?
Para 154 (from CoA judgement)
‘The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire. Looking at the questioning to which that reply was given, no unfairness strikes us as being involved. Furthermore, evidence of the existence of such a fire had been laid before the jury from Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage
And Yet again - one does not need to show the statements from these witnesses, Ms Lean has no power in them - for she herself does not and can not show them all. Uses disclosure as an excuse when it suits, yet uses full extracts multiple other times. Most definitely uses them as some form of power. I have them but can't use 95% of them?? And of these lies by omission that Nicholas has already clearly stated. The search party is a classic example of this. That lie by omission is leaving out what this search party actually said, in those full sentences, whilst approaching this V. Instead, a fraction of truth is used to completely manipulate them, with extraordinary obtuse reasoning. "The search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" That blatant manipulative twist - Let's expand this. The search party all agreed with Luke, the dog was at the wall, implying they agreed with Luke in everything, that the dog must have led them to Jodi? See the twist, the lie, the manipulation. Let's expand that into the actual truth. That stark difference and why LM was lying. All of the search party made ref to this dog at the wall. One claimed some 40ft down. Three whilst approaching this V and at the V. Only LM made claim to this dog finding Jodi, some 40ft down. All of the search trio, only stated that when they came to this V. the dog was doing X,Y and Z and LM yet again looked into the woodland. The actual truth is on a completely different parallel to the manipulation used. And even with this, it was shown that LM led his dog to this V whilst approaching - on the way down this path.
This completely false premise is used to add weight to some further blatant misrepresentations. We have already showing that this search party had always stated the truth. There was never this "the search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" - Therefore it is completely scrubbed from anything else it may used against. Of these claims of further lies, of this search party claiming they had made calls whilst getting ready and heading to Easthouse's - Ms Lean infers this is lies, as she claims not to have these phone records, thus the implication is, that yet again this search trio were lying. Completely ignores those precognitions and so forth, lies again by omission? Completely ignores why DF did not go down these foolish non sensical routes. DF had absolutely no reason to include calls to Kirsten, attempts to other friends and certainly this ridiculous claim that the aunty must have already been at this path - as again there is no phone record. All this does do is highlight, yet again the massive assumptions made on the most flimsiest of reasoning. - to try and claim that Jodi's family were lying - no they were not.
They stated that clear sequence of events - That they found out Jodi was missing. That they got ready to go look for her, that they were trying friends by way of phoning (which were irrelevant to the defence) That they did head to this path, that JaJ had spoken with LM whilst coming out this complex. That upon reaching this path. That AW wanted to look properly. That LM climbed the wall a the Gino spot, that when they arrived at this V break LM went into the woodland.
What we do know with certainty is the compulsive lies from LM and his mother? That it was not this girls families fault, that LM led them to this path. That it was not their idea nor would have been their intention to search this path - If LM had not claimed Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she failed to turn up there. That whilst they may have hoped she had simply went somewhere else, that the normal thing to do, is to contact friends. That any plans of an extensive search was halted in it's tracks - by the very fact that LM was on that very path. That he is the one that arrived there in an extraordinary short time - Of barely being of this phone with JuJ and he is on this path.
That he did give an account of - speaking with his mother, of going upstairs to ask SM for a torch. Of SM going downstairs to get one for him. And of being on this path less than 7mins later. - And still on this path around 11.20pm. LM led this girls family straight to her body.
And of those calls to the operator - of LM's flat affect speech. 'well I think we have found something, well I think it is a body, well aye it looks like a body'
To the police - 'do you know where erm is, well if you go there, erm we will shine our torch so you can see us'
Of SK - of the operator asking him to stop swearing and to calm down. As he was in a right state, was he not - screaming at the operator.
Not in the public domain Faithlilly? - 18yrs is a long time, for things to make their rounds. From every person that crammed that courtroom. And one has to wonder here - Of Ms Lean not attending this trial for 9 weeks? - Of claiming not to have those recordings, yet again makes all of those assumptions based around the black and white of those transcripts? - One is wondering here, just how much of those actual transcripts she holds - they cost a pretty penny do they not - She mentioned at one point on the blue forum of tens of thousands of pounds, needing funds? Does she actually only have the questions that the defence put to the witnesses from the case DF put together? - how much is actually missing? That we know the SCCRC brought to her attention? We know she only has a fraction of what actually went into that lengthy investigation by the police?
And back to the top - Ms Lean holds no power, by means of having access, to all that she only does actually have. And of using around 5% of which suits. - The more this case gets pushed into the public domain. the more information comes out and spreads around. Of these claims that CM's car was seen elsewhere at two different locations that evening - brought to light by two people asking her of this last week, in her Q&A time?
And Yet again - one does not need to show the statements from these witnesses, Ms Lean has no power in them - for she herself does not and can not show them all. Uses disclosure as an excuse when it suits, yet uses full extracts multiple other times. Most definitely uses them as some form of power. I have them but can't use 95% of them?? And of these lies by omission that Nicholas has already clearly stated. The search party is a classic example of this. That lie by omission is leaving out what this search party actually said, in those full sentences, whilst approaching this V. Instead, a fraction of truth is used to completely manipulate them, with extraordinary obtuse reasoning. "The search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" That blatant manipulative twist - Let's expand this. The search party all agreed with Luke, the dog was at the wall, implying they agreed with Luke in everything, that the dog must have led them to Jodi? See the twist, the lie, the manipulation. Let's expand that into the actual truth. That stark difference and why LM was lying. All of the search party made ref to this dog at the wall. One claimed some 40ft down. Three whilst approaching this V and at the V. Only LM made claim to this dog finding Jodi, some 40ft down. All of the search trio, only stated that when they came to this V. the dog was doing X,Y and Z and LM yet again looked into the woodland. The actual truth is on a completely different parallel to the manipulation used. And even with this, it was shown that LM led his dog to this V whilst approaching - on the way down this path.
This completely false premise is used to add weight to some further blatant misrepresentations. We have already showing that this search party had always stated the truth. There was never this "the search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" - Therefore it is completely scrubbed from anything else it may used against. Of these claims of further lies, of this search party claiming they had made calls whilst getting ready and heading to Easthouse's - Ms Lean infers this is lies, as she claims not to have these phone records, thus the implication is, that yet again this search trio were lying. Completely ignores those precognitions and so forth, lies again by omission? Completely ignores why DF did not go down these foolish non sensical routes. DF had absolutely no reason to include calls to Kirsten, attempts to other friends and certainly this ridiculous claim that the aunty must have already been at this path - as again there is no phone record. All this does do is highlight, yet again the massive assumptions made on the most flimsiest of reasoning. - to try and claim that Jodi's family were lying - no they were not.
They stated that clear sequence of events - That they found out Jodi was missing. That they got ready to go look for her, that they were trying friends by way of phoning (which were irrelevant to the defence) That they did head to this path, that JaJ had spoken with LM whilst coming out this complex. That upon reaching this path. That AW wanted to look properly. That LM climbed the wall a the Gino spot, that when they arrived at this V break LM went into the woodland.
What we do know with certainty is the compulsive lies from LM and his mother? That it was not this girls families fault, that LM led them to this path. That it was not their idea nor would have been their intention to search this path - If LM had not claimed Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she failed to turn up there. That whilst they may have hoped she had simply went somewhere else, that the normal thing to do, is to contact friends. That any plans of an extensive search was halted in it's tracks - by the very fact that LM was on that very path. That he is the one that arrived there in an extraordinary short time - Of barely being of this phone with JuJ and he is on this path.
That he did give an account of - speaking with his mother, of going upstairs to ask SM for a torch. Of SM going downstairs to get one for him. And of being on this path less than 7mins later. - And still on this path around 11.20pm. LM led this girls family straight to her body.
And of those calls to the operator - of LM's flat affect speech. 'well I think we have found something, well I think it is a body, well aye it looks like a body'
To the police - 'do you know where erm is, well if you go there, erm we will shine our torch so you can see us'
Of SK - of the operator asking him to stop swearing and to calm down. As he was in a right state, was he not - screaming at the operator.
Not in the public domain Faithlilly? - 18yrs is a long time, for things to make their rounds. From every person that crammed that courtroom. And one has to wonder here - Of Ms Lean not attending this trial for 9 weeks? - Of claiming not to have those recordings, yet again makes all of those assumptions based around the black and white of those transcripts? - One is wondering here, just how much of those actual transcripts she holds - they cost a pretty penny do they not - She mentioned at one point on the blue forum of tens of thousands of pounds, needing funds? Does she actually only have the questions that the defence put to the witnesses from the case DF put together? - how much is actually missing? That we know the SCCRC brought to her attention? We know she only has a fraction of what actually went into that lengthy investigation by the police?
And back to the top - Ms Lean holds no power, by means of having access, to all that she only does actually have. And of using around 5% of which suits. - The more this case gets pushed into the public domain. the more information comes out and spreads around. Of these claims that CM's car was seen elsewhere at two different locations that evening - brought to light by two people asking her of this last week, in her Q&A time?
Ok, so can you prove to me that the first statements of the "search trio" did NOT agree with Luke's, ie that they NEVER said that the dog played any part in finding Jodi?
Ok, so can you prove to me that the first statements of the "search trio" did NOT agree with Luke's, ie that they NEVER said that the dog played any part in finding Jodi?
Ms Lean has not produced them. She has shown nothing that tallies with LMS claims. Show us where they say the dog led them to Jodi. Show us where they said they were some distance passed this v. Show us where they said they had all walked passed this v prior to LM going over.? Why do you assume she tries to imply rather than show all four statements?
[/quote
Is it good enough to imply? Is it good enough to say at a V and 40ft past is the same? this girls family had to have said the same as LM . What the dog did at the V is irrelevant to LMS claims of 40ft passed.
Ms Lean has not produced them. She has shown nothing that tallies with LMS claims. Show us where they say the dog led them to Jodi. Show us where they said they were some distance passed this v. Show us where they said they had all walked passed this v prior to LM going over.? Why do you assume she tries to imply rather than show all four statements?
And Yet again - one does not need to show the statements from these witnesses, Ms Lean has no power in them - for she herself does not and can not show them all. Uses disclosure as an excuse when it suits, yet uses full extracts multiple other times. Most definitely uses them as some form of power. I have them but can't use 95% of them?? And of these lies by omission that Nicholas has already clearly stated. The search party is a classic example of this. That lie by omission is leaving out what this search party actually said, in those full sentences, whilst approaching this V. Instead, a fraction of truth is used to completely manipulate them, with extraordinary obtuse reasoning. "The search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" That blatant manipulative twist - Let's expand this. The search party all agreed with Luke, the dog was at the wall, implying they agreed with Luke in everything, that the dog must have led them to Jodi? See the twist, the lie, the manipulation. Let's expand that into the actual truth. That stark difference and why LM was lying. All of the search party made ref to this dog at the wall. One claimed some 40ft down. Three whilst approaching this V and at the V. Only LM made claim to this dog finding Jodi, some 40ft down. All of the search trio, only stated that when they came to this V. the dog was doing X,Y and Z and LM yet again looked into the woodland. The actual truth is on a completely different parallel to the manipulation used. And even with this, it was shown that LM led his dog to this V whilst approaching - on the way down this path.
This completely false premise is used to add weight to some further blatant misrepresentations. We have already showing that this search party had always stated the truth. There was never this "the search party all agreed with Luke, that the dog led them to Jodi" - Therefore it is completely scrubbed from anything else it may used against. Of these claims of further lies, of this search party claiming they had made calls whilst getting ready and heading to Easthouse's - Ms Lean infers this is lies, as she claims not to have these phone records, thus the implication is, that yet again this search trio were lying. Completely ignores those precognitions and so forth, lies again by omission? Completely ignores why DF did not go down these foolish non sensical routes. DF had absolutely no reason to include calls to Kirsten, attempts to other friends and certainly this ridiculous claim that the aunty must have already been at this path - as again there is no phone record. All this does do is highlight, yet again the massive assumptions made on the most flimsiest of reasoning. - to try and claim that Jodi's family were lying - no they were not.
They stated that clear sequence of events - That they found out Jodi was missing. That they got ready to go look for her, that they were trying friends by way of phoning (which were irrelevant to the defence) That they did head to this path, that JaJ had spoken with LM whilst coming out this complex. That upon reaching this path. That AW wanted to look properly. That LM climbed the wall a the Gino spot, that when they arrived at this V break LM went into the woodland.
What we do know with certainty is the compulsive lies from LM and his mother? That it was not this girls families fault, that LM led them to this path. That it was not their idea nor would have been their intention to search this path - If LM had not claimed Jodi was going to Newbattle, that she failed to turn up there. That whilst they may have hoped she had simply went somewhere else, that the normal thing to do, is to contact friends. That any plans of an extensive search was halted in it's tracks - by the very fact that LM was on that very path. That he is the one that arrived there in an extraordinary short time - Of barely being of this phone with JuJ and he is on this path.
That he did give an account of - speaking with his mother, of going upstairs to ask SM for a torch. Of SM going downstairs to get one for him. And of being on this path less than 7mins later. - And still on this path around 11.20pm. LM led this girls family straight to her body.
And of those calls to the operator - of LM's flat affect speech. 'well I think we have found something, well I think it is a body, well aye it looks like a body'
To the police - 'do you know where erm is, well if you go there, erm we will shine our torch so you can see us'
Of SK - of the operator asking him to stop swearing and to calm down. As he was in a right state, was he not - screaming at the operator.
Not in the public domain Faithlilly? - 18yrs is a long time, for things to make their rounds. From every person that crammed that courtroom. And one has to wonder here - Of Ms Lean not attending this trial for 9 weeks? - Of claiming not to have those recordings, yet again makes all of those assumptions based around the black and white of those transcripts? - One is wondering here, just how much of those actual transcripts she holds - they cost a pretty penny do they not - She mentioned at one point on the blue forum of tens of thousands of pounds, needing funds? Does she actually only have the questions that the defence put to the witnesses from the case DF put together? - how much is actually missing? That we know the SCCRC brought to her attention? We know she only has a fraction of what actually went into that lengthy investigation by the police?
And back to the top - Ms Lean holds no power, by means of having access, to all that she only does actually have. And of using around 5% of which suits. - The more this case gets pushed into the public domain. the more information comes out and spreads around. Of these claims that CM's car was seen elsewhere at two different locations that evening - brought to light by two people asking her of this last week, in her Q&A time?
BTW the car ‘thing’ is in Dr Lean’s book....no attempt to keep it from the light. The police seem not to have been too concerned about it.
Ok, so can you prove to me that the first statements of the "search trio" did NOT agree with Luke's, ie that they NEVER said that the dog played any part in finding Jodi?
Wow - let this be our new rationale for considering every point, folks - the police weren't concerned, just as they weren't concerned about MK and all the other stuff.
If we can apply this logic to cover CM's ass, we have to apply it in all cases - it has to work both ways.
The way has been shown.
The point lost is that talk of a car similar to CM’s being sighted on the night of the 30th and, similarly talk of SM disposing of a bike is just that, talk. The police had every opportunity to follow up these leads and, if there was any substance to them, proceeding to trial with that evidence.
Aye, the point lost on you is that you're happy to trust the cops when it suits your agenda, but not when it doesn't.
You can't have it both ways.
Do you want me to implicate individuals on the basis of rumour and gossip?
The ‘cops’ handled this case appallingly, in my opinion. They didn’t follow leads that needed to be followed, they followed leads that I think were tenuous to say the least. Who benefited from that alleged incompetence we’ll never know but we are where we are now with the evidence presented.
There you go again slating the cops when its suits your agenda, having posted earlier that it was ok to trust them.
You're all over the place.
I think you need to read AND understand.
I don’t think there’s many here, no matter your opinion of Luke’s guilt or innocence, who believe that the handling of this case by Lothian and Borders police was their finest hour. Did they investigate the moped boys properly....I have no idea. Did they investigate the sighting of a similar car to CM’s properly....again I have no idea. What I do know is that neither scenario resulted in charges in the case of the moped boys or a trial in the case of CM. Now was that down to incompetence or simply that the evidence wasn’t there....we may never know. What, however, we categorically do know is that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the charges against either CM or SM for perverting the course of justice or the police would have.
And we have already discussed those claimed missing phone calls - And all that Ms Lean has assumed from this - Ms Lean should be hanging her head in shame. Trying to implicate this girls family, claiming she is wondering why the aunts arrived at the path?? Of every other area she is implying there are lies. What a bloody nerve - explains not one area of the Mitchells lies, only backs them - claims to be fighting on behalf of Jodi? Whilst trashing her family on the basis of air. For what? To show the world that she FEELS LM was treated unfairly - when we can see clearly it was LM who put himself in the prime spot. And as Nicholas states - she does sit back, and she reads every single comment. Of gang rape, of sexual abuse - those smear campaigns that stem from her and the Mitchells. And Faithlilly you say you are not interested in smear campaigns?? Really? - you like a hell of a lot of what WW spouts?
Yes Ms Lean/Faithlilly? - this "we will never know" - we do know. We know without a shadow of a doubt that Ms Lean has not the foggiest of what went into this investigation - completely tunnelled in on excusing all and everything of the Mitchells.
And again common sense - What did DF say about the charges being dropped, we know Ms Lean is completely OTT with her ?'s around this nonsense. What does the law say about witnesses testifying against each other? Would Corrine Mitchell and Shane Mitchell been able to testify against Luke, for the prosecution whilst charged in connection with the same crime - no?? All these conspiracy theories.
Why? answer why? - With clarity and common sense, why did they pick on your wee boy?
I think you need to read AND understand.
I don’t think there’s many here, no matter your opinion of Luke’s guilt or innocence, who believe that the handling of this case by Lothian and Borders police was their finest hour. Did they investigate the moped boys properly....I have no idea. Did they investigate the sighting of a similar car to CM’s properly....again I have no idea. What I do know is that neither scenario resulted in charges in the case of the moped boys or a trial in the case of CM. Now was that down to incompetence or simply that the evidence wasn’t there....we may never know. What, however, we categorically do know is that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the charges against either CM or SM for perverting the course of justice or the police would have.
There's absolutely no question that the local plods made a mess of the case from the start - there's no need to even debate that - I've said that before.
You seem to be itching for a fight.
Nope.
I think you need to read AND understand.
I don’t think there’s many here, no matter your opinion of Luke’s guilt or innocence, who believe that the handling of this case by Lothian and Borders police was their finest hour. Did they investigate the moped boys properly....I have no idea. Did they investigate the sighting of a similar car to CM’s properly....again I have no idea. What I do know is that neither scenario resulted in charges in the case of the moped boys or a trial in the case of CM. Now was that down to incompetence or simply that the evidence wasn’t there....we may never know. What, however, we categorically do know is that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the charges against either CM or SM for perverting the course of justice or the police would have.
Actually it's pretty clear. Luke was convicted of Jodi's murder so couldn't have been in the family home when he and his mother claimed he was. Consequently, if the verdict is sound then Luke's mother committed perjury. Why the authorities failed to follow up on this is as yet not public information, maybe Sandra Lean knows as she claims to know everything else about this case.
In my opinion it wasn't in the public interest to pursue the mother after Luke was convicted so the CO&PFS decided not to prosecute.
Well Shane told truth on the stand, eventually? I wonder if a deal was made In some way? Would inevitably be Shane over his mother? However DF would have explained it all. No need for any? Over it.
Used as a means, as you do, to imply CM was being truthful - really? Something else where the truth is hidden?
He was told in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be if he lied to protect his brother.
Well Shane told truth on the stand, eventually? I wonder if a deal was made In some way? Would inevitably be Shane over his mother? However DF would have explained it all. No need for any? Over it.
Used as a means, as you do, to imply CM was being truthful - really? Something else where the truth is hidden?
He was told in no uncertain terms what the consequences would be if he lied to protect his brother.
It was the trial of a horrific murder of a young girl. As AT made clear on the severity. Shane seeing exactly what had happened. SK got the same treatment as he also had to relive that night. Much worse.!
It was the trial of a horrific murder of a young girl. As AT made clear on the severity. Shane seeing exactly what had happened. SK got the same treatment as he also had to relive that night. Much worse.!
There is absolutely nothing unusual about witnesses being shown graphic images of the body in a murder trial.
Of course not but they are normally used to illustrate to the jury the victim’s injuries or to clarify that the scene in the photograph is what the witness saw. I have never heard of such horrific photographs being used in the way they were in Luke’s trial. Have you?
Yep - I was a jury member for a murder trial where witnesses and jury members were shown pictures of stab wounds - harrowing for all concerned, but necessary.
Yep - I was a jury member for a murder trial where witnesses and jury members were shown pictures of stab wounds - harrowing for all concerned, but necessary.
Absolutely. There's no point in having a jury who only have half the story.
Sandra Lean
‘King Bear made my day with that post!! He made it just a few days before the film came out, making himself look like a right, royal fool!!! There are too many trolls to delete all their comments and some of them are so ridiculous, they just advertise themselves as trolls anyway - e.g. "She's not a dr" and "got her degree off the internet in a day" - yeah, so I fooled all these experts and professionals with a fake degree, did I?
I'm sure any graphic images were shown to whoever was deemed appropriate in order to illustrate whatever point was being made.
You wouldn't want to share those images unless it was necessary - it was obviously deemed necessary to show these images to SM.
Why? What could he possibly have told the jury about those images? We know SK was shown the images in order to confirm the body’s position etc when found but what knowledge could the jury have gained from SM being shown those images?
Did Shane even know Jodi?
I'm a cynic (!!), so I'm guessing he was shown the images to show him "exactly what his little brother was capable of", and to rid him of any sympathy he might otherwise have felt for him.
Did Shane even know Jodi?
I'm a cynic (!!), so I'm guessing he was shown the images to show him "exactly what his little brother was capable of", and to rid him of any sympathy he might otherwise have felt for him.
This is interesting ⬇️
Sandra Lean
‘King Bear made my day with that post!! He made it just a few days before the film came out, making himself look like a right, royal fool!!! There are too many trolls to delete all their comments and some of them are so ridiculous, they just advertise themselves as trolls anyway - e.g. "She's not a dr" and "got her degree off the internet in a day" - yeah, so I fooled all these experts and professionals with a fake degree, did I?
I wonder if Sandra Lean can produce proof for the above?
‘King Bear’ made comments here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmlWcVBU4f8 in response to ‘unicorn princess’ who is Sandra Leans oldest daughter
The ‘King Bear’ and ‘Unicorn Princess’ comments have now been removed from the you tube video Sandra posted about Chris Bews/Bamber case
Did ‘King Bear’ or someone else make a comment somewhere else allegedly stating ‘got her degree off the internet in a day’
or is Sandra Lean conflating this with what was stated in relation to her publisher Stephen T Manning ?
https://t.co/tIh82S63vs?amp=1
“Dr. Manning, Ph.D.” (STM), the man who has made several innocent people’s lives hell over the last few years by going after them, harassing them and smearing them with false accusations – his latest victim the Christian blogger, Miriam Franklin at Endtimespropheticwords (ETPW) – makes misrepresentations about what his academic qualifications are.
STM is obviously aware that calling himself a Doctor and putting a Ph.D. after his name gives him an air of credibility and intelligence, earning himself respect he wouldn’t otherwise get. It makes it seem he knows what he’s talking about. And it makes people trust him more. But STM is a fake and doesn’t deserve either the public’s trust or respect.
STM is not a real doctor. STM doesn’t have a doctorate from an accredited academic institution. He bought his combined masters degree and doctorate from a notorious American diploma mill in Hawaii so he therefore technically and ethically shouldn’t use the titles ‘Dr’ or ‘Ph.D’ by his name. But STM does use the titles frequently, showing off his alleged Ph.D status in every comment he leaves in his own name on the net. I say “in his own name” as he also posts things without admitting he’s the author
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Sandra Lean is a complete and utter hypocrite
‘Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing’
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382996.html#msg382996
I’ve lost count at the amount of ‘misinformation’ and downright lies Sandra has placed in the public domain re the murder of [Name removed]
And her claims of ‘media wars are not my thing’ is in complete contrast to her actual behaviour
When will her followers come to their senses?
When will her followers come to their senses?
Well going by the comments under her latest YouTube video, sense among her followers is non-existent. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, after reading through some of that madness. I wonder how many of those pop-up accounts are Sandras *&^^&
Well going by the comments under her latest YouTube video, sense among her followers is non-existent. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, after reading through some of that madness. I wonder how many of those pop-up accounts are Sandras *&^^&
Fortunately a lot of the public seem to be sensing, however late, that a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred.
A couple of thousand people isn’t ‘a lot of the public’ 🙄
I think very fortunately that is somewhat delusional - I have just watched a little more of one of these Q&A - even the new people on board are stating that Ms Lean is repeating herself.- And she is. And what couple of thousand people?
And of these (cough) thousands - around 50 turned out for the protest.
And of this graffiti and make shift posters - it is down to two or three individuals. Namely SD and his female side kick
But the nonsense that Nicholas highlighted earlier - of writing to MPs and so forth - about the Jury, Judge, Lothian and Borders, detectives, DF and the pathologist to boot - shows how out of touch with reality - these people really are.
It is not to protect the case - it is to keep the truth hidden?
No what is wrong, is that that they looked at the evidence, the investigation and not Ms Leans version of it, of her "information" to cancel it out.
I think very fortunately that is somewhat delusional - I have just watched a little more of one of these Q&A - even the new people on board are stating that Ms Lean is repeating herself
Yes JT *&^^&
A couple of thousand people isn’t ‘a lot of the public’ 🙄
I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A
I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie
And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.
JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide
On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all
Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?
What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.
Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?
I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A
I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie
And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.
JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide
On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all
Police Scotland arrested and charged a woman last week who wanted Jane Hamilton ‘set on fire’ because she didn’t share her views.
Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?
What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.
Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?
Oh dear - horrendous.
Police Scotland arrested and charged a woman last week who wanted Jane Hamilton ‘set on fire’ because she didn’t share her views.
Sandra Lean still hasn’t bothered to inform her followers she was wrong about Jane Hamilton’s article
Her excerpts read,
‘What's on my mind is Jane Hamilton of the Daily Record. I'm not sharing her article for obvious reasons, but I did want to address a couple of points.
‘Finally, journalists are supposed to have a reasonable grasp of the English language. The new evidence hasn't been "poured over" - nobody upended a jug of liquid over it. She means, of course, pored over.
How many more times
‘Pored’ was used in Jane’s article.
The spelling mistake appears to have occurred when the article was uploaded to the DR website. Maybe spellchecker changed it to ‘poured’?
Regardless, Sandra Lean was wrong again
Who are SD and JT?
A male and a female who appear to be very local to where Ms Lean stays. One of the 'amigos' now with Joe Steeles brother. Very shady ex con - mainly class A drugs. The female has been removed from some of the support groups due to her OTT actions. Openly admits to being somewhat of a "screwball?"
I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A
I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie
And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.
JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide
On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all
Definitely - On reflection, once that initial haze lifted - which on reflection shows us how traumatised this poor girls family were. And rightly so. That once that haze had lifted a little - that reflection showed exactly how LM was. And if fitted in exactly with how the police found him. Unfazed. Cool and collective. Of his time at the station. Happily sitting away, filling them in with every rehearsed lie - No breaks, no tears - nothing. And this was how he remained throughout. This is the LM the Jury saw every day of that trial. The media and every other person who crammed into that court room.
Of his interview on the Friday (4th) with a social worker present - not once did they have to intervene - As LM told the police how to do their Job, taking control - this is the LM that was found guilty. Who came across as exactly the type to carry out such a brutal crime.
This is disgusting, and there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour by "campaigners"------threatening people, defacing property, etc etc.
I have some doubts re the guilt of Luke Mitchell, I don't much like Jane Hamilton's reporting, and I do like Sandra Lean's book (not the podcasts/interviews, which I don't watch), but it is appalling the way some of these campaigners behave.
Did Corinne buy Luke the replacement skunting knife as a Christmas present ?
I heard that he needed it for outdoor activities---camping, etc.
Corinne Mitchell lies
What was the date it was purchased?
Did she wrap it up as a Christmas present?
What do the various statements say regarding this?
And did Philip Mitchell know about Luke and his knives?
I read somewhere that Shane had a collection of knives----is this true? Was Luke in any way influenced by his big brother? (And, no, I'm not blaming Shane for anything, merely pointing out that a teenage boy might look up to, be influenced by his much older brother).
Who knows what his father knew or didn't know.
What was the date it was purchased?
Did she wrap it up as a Christmas present?
What do the various statements say regarding this?
And did Philip Mitchell know about Luke and his knives?
She was wrong. The print copy had the correct spelling. - Ms Lean went on to say "glad to see that Jane Hamilton has corrected the spelling" - implying after she had pointed it out to her.
Whilst it may sound trivial picking Ms Lean up on this - but not as trivial and wrong of Ms Lean in the first instance to use it to mock Jane Hamilton. - And the relevant point of course being - that Ms Lean will not admit to wrong.
I heard that he needed it for outdoor activities---camping, etc.outdoor activities—-camping, murder, etc.
outdoor activities—-camping, murder, etc.
She was wrong. The print copy had the correct spelling. - Ms Lean went on to say "glad to see that Jane Hamilton has corrected the spelling" - implying after she had pointed it out to her.
Whilst it may sound trivial picking Ms Lean up on this - but not as trivial and wrong of Ms Lean in the first instance to use it to mock Jane Hamilton. - And the relevant point of course being - that Ms Lean will not admit to wrong.
And of myself - I have a word blindness at times. It can often take a lot of effort to put things across coherently. Yet one instantly gets picked up on, in the exact same manner as with Ms Lean - of dreek to dreich. poured to pored, pulpit to parapet and of course carnivore to cadaver. Using this a means to mock the poster/speaker. - of somehow being superior in intellect?
I read somewhere that Shane had a collection of knives----is this true? Was Luke in any way influenced by his big brother? (And, no, I'm not blaming Shane for anything, merely pointing out that a teenage boy might look up to, be influenced by his much older brother).
Who knows what his father knew or didn't know.
I too have read that Shane had a collection of knives ... don't ask me where, one reads so much. I think boys who appear to have a fixation on knives should have been a grave concern given the prevalence of youth knife crime around that time.
What Sandra Leans behaviour shows too is she clearly has no idea how the media works
Jane Hamilton doesn’t run the Daily Records website - she’s a journalist - she writes
I think the incidence of knife crime is even worse now, listening to the news every day. I suspect many of these young people are buying them via the internet, without their parents' knowledge.
I'm not sure about that (in Scotland). I've not studied it at all but my impression is that it is not as bad now as it was back in the early nineties when it was of real concern.
I think a 'skunting' knife was specifically designed for skinning and boning. I believe it was ideal for cutting the blocks of cannabis in Mitchell's possession. Chilling to contemplate is that Jodi's eyelids had been slit off and care had been taken that the eyeball had not been touched.
Anyway, whatever its purpose Corrine Mitchell certainly condoned and approved of Mitchell's knife fetish - she bought his replacement.
Stupid thing to do in my opinion given the death and mutilation Jodi suffered - but proof that they arrogantly thought Mitchell had got away with it.
Thought they would get away without them noticing it was a replacement? - which is pretty much the evidence led. They bought the knife hoping to bring it out as the one the police were looking for - which backfired, firstly by tracking the order online, and of the handle being black as opposed to brown. And of course the police knowing this. Then looking for this new one, realising it was missing. Asked about it after the house search. Of CM going home, fetching the replacement, taking it to Beumont claiming it was in a bag beside the dogs dinner bowls? all the time? - As with the jacket. Hoping in vane to purchasing this and morphing it into the clothing he had. They knew the police were looking for this. They tried any means to replace it, desperately. - But they were being watched, and the FLO was waiting to take that receipt off them. - and of CM, of highlighting this "orignial army surplus" of putting it into a tiny burner - knowing the exact make of said jacket.
The fact that Sandra Lean has chosen to perpetuate the lie actually tells us so much more about her and her standards than it does about anything else.
In the first instance it was not worthy of snide comment to begin with - in the second instance, that she did and continued with it says it all about her 😁
Sandra Lean
‘Oh, dear, B, you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?
What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.
The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about “confident ignorance’ - thanks for demonstrating it for people.
I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc
It wasn’t a ‘typo’ though was it ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg642470#msg642470
It is clear from this article https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/ the SK reference was NOT a typo
‘They claim on an internet forum that DNA evidence links the man with the brutal 2003 stabbing.
And the man in question said he was aware of the claims against him.
He said: “I know what these people are saying about me.
“I will deal with this in my own time.”
Luke Mitchell, 22, was convicted of the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend in 2005.
But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.
She wrote: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.
“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?
“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.
“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.
“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).
“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”
And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.
“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”
Sandra and Corinne are clearly referring to SK ⬇️
‘They claim on an internet forum that DNA evidence links the man with the brutal 2003 stabbing.
And the man in question said he was aware of the claims against him.
He said: “I know what these people are saying about me.
“I will deal with this in my own time.”
Luke Mitchell, 22, was convicted of the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend in 2005.
But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.
She wrote: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.
“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?
“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.
“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.
“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).
“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”
And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.
“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”
(https://i.imgur.com/TpsfjaY.png)
So many things Lean claims keep getting contradicted by people who were actually there at the time...
Sandra Lean
‘Oh, dear, B, you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?
What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.
The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about confident ignorance - thanks for demonstrating it for people.
I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc
Mitchell's defence at trial was ALIBI and INCRIMINATION.
The jury did not believe his alibi that he was somewhere else around the time it was deduced that Jodi was slaughtered.
The jury did not believe that the crime had been carried out by anyone else: his conviction stood despite appeals as there was no rebuttal to his failed defence.
It is horrible to see that what was overturned at his trial as a result of rigorous investigation by the police is still rearing its ugly head on pro Mitchell fora and being repeated day and daily.
There has been some talk here of "dignity" for Jodi - in my opinion part and parcel of that would be giving her mother and family the space to grieve which they have never been allowed as the result of the innuendo and downright make believe which has been in circulation from day one of Mitchell's sentence.
Of interest was the discussion about when Sandra Lean took up the cudgels on Mitchell's behalf. According to her it was when Corrine paid her a visit having heard of Lean's interest in the case which prompted her career change.
According to a Mitchell apologist on this forum Lean attended the trial where she was photographed alongside Corrine, one wonders which version of events is the correct one or is there a smattering of truth in either or none.
A condition which seems to accompany everything associated with the meddling which strips everyone of their "dignity" particularly those who have been falsely accused over the years.
Funny how so called "justice campaigners" wouldn't recognise justice if it reared up and bit them on the bum 😑
You are funny Brietta.
What would be hilarious - if it didn’t all stem from the brutal murder of 14 year old Jodi Jones🌻
is the fact Sandra Lean has mentioned the ‘Cadder ruling’ in her latest podcast and referred to ‘the media’
Would that be the very same media who she and the Mitchell’s falsely claim ‘tried’ Luke Mitchell 🙄
“...the media were openly saying, they were speaking to lawyers and solicitors (what’s the difference between the two?) and they were all openly saying, in this case it’s a classic ‘Cadder case’ they would have to overturn Luke’s conviction, they would have to, but we had to first apply to the Scottish courts for permission to include a ‘Cadder’ point or a ‘Cadder ‘ appeal and then if they rejected it we could go direct to the Supreme Court now this is nonsense - we could go direct to the Supreme Court but only after we’d been to the Scottish court and been turned down. So we went to the Scottish court and basically because of that they knew we were going to be relying on the sentence court the sentence appeal as being still live proceedings. They turned us down and we got the application ready to go to the Supreme Court and two days before we were ready to lodge it they made a decision in the sentence appeal and the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept it because there were no longer love proceedings in the case. That I I thought id seen every dirty trick in the book up to that point that one it just it was so transparent it was so transparent these level experts were saying in Luke’s case the ‘Cadder’ point would would definitely mean the conviction had to be overturned and they got us two days two days before in the technicality that there were no longer live proceedings in the case so yeah there is an example of how of how they can manipulate their own rules to suit themselves” (sic)
Were the media saying this or were they repeating what the lawyers were suggesting?
‘JODI JONES’ killer, Luke Mitchell, is set to have his conviction quashed by the Supreme Court in England, three eminent legal experts have told the Scottish Sunday Express.
In a move that will signal an astonishing escalation in the row over the independence of Scots Law, the senior solicitors insist judges in London will have no choice but to recommend freeing him on the grounds his human rights were breached.
Mitchell, now 22, was sentenced to life in 2005 for murdering his girlfriend, Jodi, 14, in Dalkeith, Midlothian, two years before.
But he is claiming his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during interview, which has since been declared a breach of EU human rights under the controversial Cadder ruling.
In April, the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that his conviction should stand as his case pre-dated the law change brought about by teenager Peter Cadder.
His lawyers had successfully argued that his human rights had been breached by an assault conviction based on evidence gained before he spoke to his solicitor
However Mitchell’s legal team is now going directly to the UK Supreme Court – the new institution which First Minister Alex Salmond has accused of undermining Scots Law – to plead “exceptional circumstances”.
Senior lawyers on both sides of the Border say this will result in his conviction being quashed. Nicholas Scullion, who has successfully represented clients using the Cadder ruling, is certain the First Minister knows the likely decision, which could come within weeks.
He said: “I do not think the public of Scotland will be behind any court that releases Luke Mitchell, but the reality is the Supreme Court probably will call this in and if so they have to release him.
“There are three bullet points of Cadder and Luke Mitchell fits every one. If they don’t quash the conviction it really calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
“The only reason for not doing it would be because they are afraid of Alex Salmond, and that would be a breach of European convention.”
Mr Scullion, managing partner of Scotland’s criminal law firm of the year Nicholas Scullion and Co, added: “Alex Salmond knows this and he knows it’s not going to be popular, so it could not have gone better for him. English judges freeing a Scottish child murderer? Imagine if the James Bulger killers had gone to Brussels and been released.
“They haven’t reversed any convictions in England, so I think the court is being tested on Scotland, almost like the Poll Tax.
“The court is not going to pick a fight with David Cameron, so it is testing the waters in Scotland.”
English barrister Jodie Blackstock, who acted as counsel for Peter Cadder in his landmark ruling last October, said Mitchell’s case is very similar and revealed that Mitchell’s conviction could be quashed before the summer recess.
“They need to request a special leave hearing,” she said. “It depends whether they can get that in before the summer recess. If not, then it will be heard after the recess in October.”
Jodi was 14 when her mutilated body was found near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, hours after she had gone to meet Mitchell.
Police spent months building a case against Mitchell, who carried knives, smoked cannabis and confessed to being a Satanist. In January 2005, he was convicted following a 42-day trial and ordered to serve at least 20 years.
He wants that decision overturned on human rights grounds, arguing he was questioned by police without a lawyer.
But two weeks ago, at the Court of Criminal Appeal, Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton and two other judges dismissed his claim, leaving the Supreme Court the next option.
Advocate Niall McCluskey yesterday stressed the Cadder ruling only applied to ‘live’ cases – and Mitchell’s was closed when his appeal failed back in 2008.
However he said: “In Mitchell’s case there is an argument about whether it is entirely concluded because there is an
outstanding sentencing appeal to be resolved.
“The question is do the Supreme Court judges think there are exceptional circumstances to look at his case?”
He added: “I can’t really comment on Luke Mitchell’s chances but in a case where there are categoric
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/253701/Luke-Mitchell-set-to-have-his-conviction-quashed-by-Supreme-Court-in-England
What would be hilarious - if it didn’t all stem from the brutal murder of 14 year old Jodi Jones🌻
is the fact Sandra Lean has mentioned the ‘Cadder ruling’ in her latest podcast and referred to ‘the media’
Would that be the very same media who she and the Mitchell’s falsely claim ‘tried’ Luke Mitchell 🙄
“...the media were openly saying, they were speaking to lawyers and solicitors (what’s the difference between the two?) and they were all openly saying, in this case it’s a classic ‘Cadder case’ they would have to overturn Luke’s conviction, they would have to, but we had to first apply to the Scottish courts for permission to include a ‘Cadder’ point or a ‘Cadder ‘ appeal and then if they rejected it we could go direct to the Supreme Court now this is nonsense - we could go direct to the Supreme Court but only after we’d been to the Scottish court and been turned down. So we went to the Scottish court and basically because of that they knew we were going to be relying on the sentence court the sentence appeal as being still live proceedings. They turned us down and we got the application ready to go to the Supreme Court and two days before we were ready to lodge it they made a decision in the sentence appeal and the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept it because there were no longer love proceedings in the case. That I I thought id seen every dirty trick in the book up to that point that one it just it was so transparent it was so transparent these level experts were saying in Luke’s case the ‘Cadder’ point would would definitely mean the conviction had to be overturned and they got us two days two days before in the technicality that there were no longer live proceedings in the case so yeah there is an example of how of how they can manipulate their own rules to suit themselves” (sic)
What would be hilarious - if it didn’t all stem from the brutal murder of 14 year old Jodi Jones🌻
is the fact Sandra Lean has mentioned the ‘Cadder ruling’ in her latest podcast and referred to ‘the media’
Would that be the very same media who she and the Mitchell’s falsely claim ‘tried’ Luke Mitchell 🙄
“...the media were openly saying, they were speaking to lawyers and solicitors (what’s the difference between the two?) and they were all openly saying, in this case it’s a classic ‘Cadder case’ they would have to overturn Luke’s conviction, they would have to, but we had to first apply to the Scottish courts for permission to include a ‘Cadder’ point or a ‘Cadder ‘ appeal and then if they rejected it we could go direct to the Supreme Court now this is nonsense - we could go direct to the Supreme Court but only after we’d been to the Scottish court and been turned down. So we went to the Scottish court and basically because of that they knew we were going to be relying on the sentence court the sentence appeal as being still live proceedings. They turned us down and we got the application ready to go to the Supreme Court and two days before we were ready to lodge it they made a decision in the sentence appeal and the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept it because there were no longer love proceedings in the case. That I I thought id seen every dirty trick in the book up to that point that one it just it was so transparent it was so transparent these level experts were saying in Luke’s case the ‘Cadder’ point would would definitely mean the conviction had to be overturned and they got us two days two days before in the technicality that there were no longer live proceedings in the case so yeah there is an example of how of how they can manipulate their own rules to suit themselves” (sic)
Evil killer Luke Mitchell loses fifth appeal against Jodi Jones murder conviction
ByGordon Mcilwraith
00:00, 16 APR 2011 updated 2013
Mitchell, now 22, was 14 when he killed Jodi in 2003 in woods near their home town of Dalkeith, Midlothian.
He smothered her, forced her to her knees and cut her throat from behind, almost severing her head. He then stripped Jodi naked and mutilated her body.
“The SCCRC looked at everything - they as with the Crown and the defence - had access to all that went into the investigation. They built up their case from each stance around this.- And of the 'Cadder ruling' - that, had LM's appeal been heard just days earlier - then his conviction would have been overturned - Ah, if only it were that simple. So, with this it is - to hang with all the evidence that convicted him - she is claiming that by the skin of his teeth - he could have been released on some technical area of law? “
Seems Dr Lean was perfectly correct.
From Nicholas.
‘JODI JONES’ killer, Luke Mitchell, is set to have his conviction quashed by the Supreme Court in England, three eminent legal experts have told the Scottish Sunday Express.
In a move that will signal an astonishing escalation in the row over the independence of Scots Law, the senior solicitors insist judges in London will have no choice but to recommend freeing him on the grounds his human rights were breached.
Mitchell, now 22, was sentenced to life in 2005 for murdering his girlfriend, Jodi, 14, in Dalkeith, Midlothian, two years before.
But he is claiming his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during interview, which has since been declared a breach of EU human rights under the controversial Cadder ruling.’
Luke Mitchell's Supreme Court appeal refused
Published23 November 2011
Killer Luke Mitchell will not be allowed to take his appeal against his conviction for murdering his 14-year old girlfriend Jodi Jones to the UK's highest court.
Three UK Supreme Court Justices refused permission for Mitchell, 23, to take his appeal to the London court.
Supreme Court justices said Mitchell's appeal against conviction was "closed".
He has always protested his innocence but his original appeal against conviction was rejected in 2008.
Mitchell had hoped a fresh appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court in light of a high-profile human rights decision it gave last year.
The Cadder ruling put an end to police being able to question suspects without the option of legal representation.
Earlier this year, judges in Scotland refused to grant him leave to take his case further but Mitchell applied directly to the UK Supreme Court.
It is understood that Mitchell's Supreme Court bid was refused because his initial appeal against conviction had been dealt with before the Cadder ruling was issued and it could not therefore be reopened.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15863085
Why on earth are Mitchell's supporters still going on about Cadder when it is perfectly obvious that it is a non-starter legally because it has all been dealt with already.
So English judges are in legal agreement with Scottish judges and I believe that an attempt to take it to Europe also hit a brick wall as well.
What sort of ego trip is Sandra Lean indulging herself with here. She is causing nothing but mischief as far as I can see. I don't think she is helping Mitchell one iota in fact as far as getting some sort of future parole once his twenty years is up I think she has been the kiss of death. Which is as I think it should be - but isn't she actually supposed to be. on his side.
What her obsessive antics must be doing to Jodi's family and material witnesses who probably need to put all the trauma behind them and get on with their lives can only be imagined.
He sacked his lawyers - and he failed to get any others on board - and it his hardly surprising is it not? - That we had the three amigos trying to tell all of those professionals how to do their Job? - and it would not have meant he was simply released. There would have had, to have been a hell of a lot shown which proved beyond reasonable doubt that breach. He did have a responsible adult with him, a social worker. And he was not intimidated in the slightest in the interview, any of them. - It would have started a process, not a simple release from or instant over turning of his conviction. If it were that simple - the jail gates would be open and thousands of people walking free. They are handled by merit, are they not? Cadder was pressured into admitting things without legal guidance. - And at the time of LM's interviews - It was many years before this ruling in 2010. So many variables. And regardless of police tactics - LM still took control. There has never been any denial of the behaviour on behalf of the police - well thought through when allowed to be used at trial. to show clearly that it did no phase LM, that he was pressured into nothing - And the ruling is used by many guilty people, as a means of trying to escape on a technicality. - There are people who due to this breach, were pressured into given evidence that solely brought about their conviction. - Not in LM's case it did not?
‘So, with this it is - to hang with all the evidence that convicted him - she is claiming that by the skin of his teeth - he could have been released on some technical area of law? “
Of course we now know from the experts that that’s exactly what would have happened.
You have no idea if ‘that’s exactly what would have happened’
It’s highly unlikely a dangerous individual like Luke Mitchell would have walked after what he did to [Name removed]
From your own post.
“ In a move that will signal an astonishing escalation in the row over the independence of Scots Law, the senior solicitors insist judges in London will have no choice but to recommend freeing him on the grounds his human rights were breached.
Mitchell, now 22, was sentenced to life in 2005 for murdering his girlfriend, Jodi, 14, in Dalkeith, Midlothian, two years before.
But he is claiming his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during interview, which has since been declared a breach of EU human rights under the controversial Cadder ruling.”
So yes we do know.
When does Sandra Lean say Luke Mitchell confessed?
‘Seven supreme court justices will sit to consider the issue. Their decision will have significant ramifications for thousands of prosecutions pending in Scotland, and indeed many thousands of convictions already secured where confession evidence of this type was used at trial.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/may/23/scottish-law-supreme-court-confession
She has stated that he had no psychological assessments as he wasn't guilty
This is disgusting, and there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour by "campaigners"------threatening people, defacing property, etc etc.
Much as you try you can’t simply airbrush those inconvenient sightings from the narrative. The neighbour who saw Jodi pass her window just after 5 or the girl on the Easthouses road with a stocky man following on behind. The sighting must have been credible as an appeal was made for this individual to come forward. Of course Stocky Man more than likely was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time but what was interesting was that identification of Jodi by someone who knew her, an identification that put her on the Easthouses Road long after she should have been elsewhere.
And then, with investigators still studiously ignoring the sightings of two people, one of whom definitely knew Jodi and the statement of a neighbour who said she saw Jodi walking past her window just after 5 o'clock
That, of course, then opened the other can of worms - when Luke called at 5.38pm to see if Jodi was coming down, Luke claimed Allan Ovens told him Jodi had "just left" and Judith claimed she had no idea almost 50 minutes had elapsed; she'd "lost track of time" and had no idea, at the time, Jodi had been gone so long (supporting Luke's claim that he'd been told Jodi had "just left." Mr Ovens had to know she hadn't "just left" because he said in his later statements that he heard the front door banging when he was in the loo after coming in from work at 4.40pm and assumed that was Jodi leaving. It was he who took the call from Luke almost 50 minutes later and he never, in any of his statements, made mention of losing track of time or not knowing when Jodi left ... so, if Jodi had "just left" at 5.38pm (the original claims being "around 5.30pm) who were the people seen by Andrina Bryson?
The only airbrushing done - is of LM's evidence, this constant shoring it over with nonsense.
What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?
Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”[/color]
I have heard that also but she has also states that he wasn't offered any psychological tests. I am trying to navigate through her conflicting statements.
What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?
1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.”[/color]
The clothing aspect is so frustrating - it's impossible to know whether the moving of any the clothes by the scenes of crime officers took place before they were photographed, there's no way of telling whether AW, in going right up to the body, may have accidentally have kicked things into a new position etc.
“...Enough for them to know, even with the rainfall that evening - that may have washed some trails from more exposed areas - there was nothing found in the East end of this woodland nor heading in the direction of Newbattle Abbey college - this is the information you are not being given...”
What is your source for the info relating to nothing being found in the east end of the woodland and in the direction of N’battle abbey college (I presume you mean north and northwest here?)? What is the inference from this? That all the evidence found during the physical struggle in the woodland strip was westbound? Aren’t the V break and the point where Jodi’s dead body was found more easterly than westerly? Also, wasn’t it agreed that, at one point during the physical struggle, Jodi had managed to extricate herself from it, ran instinctively and naturally east towards the safety of her own home in Easthouses before her killer caught up with her and managed to overpower her and kill her? I’m not too sure what you mean by nothing was found in the east end of the woodland,
Sandra blatantly lying to her followers again:
https://i.imgur.com/oydjYdM.png
“...Enough for them to know, even with the rainfall that evening - that may have washed some trails from more exposed areas - there was nothing found in the East end of this woodland nor heading in the direction of Newbattle Abbey college - this is the information you are not being given...”
What is your source for the info relating to nothing being found in the east end of the woodland and in the direction of N’battle abbey college (I presume you mean north and northwest here?)? What is the inference from this? That all the evidence found during the physical struggle in the woodland strip was westbound? Aren’t the V break and the point where Jodi’s dead body was found more easterly than westerly? Also, wasn’t it agreed that, at one point during the physical struggle, Jodi had managed to extricate herself from it, ran instinctively and naturally east towards the safety of her own home in Easthouses before her killer caught up with her and managed to overpower her and kill her? I’m not too sure what you mean by nothing was found in the east end of the woodland, Parky41.
"There's no way of knowing" - That predictive very telling response given when faced with those clear facts. That the scene was photographed prior to any movement. Which of course it was. And that there is every reason to know that the scene of crime officers moved nothing prior to this point. And of AW - And of course this tells us clearly, that the information that is being pushed out, about the handling of the crime scene - is one of assumption and desperation, to disperse any scrapings of doubt, upon the police.. - one either does not have the reports around this, or one is choosing to ignore them? But it is clear that she can give nothing - to show with clarity that the scene was anything other than handled with care. - And we know that CD was firm in the evidence he gave, of the critique on the non erection of a tent. - Of his statement of it being one of the finest crime scenes.
Sandra blatantly lying to her followers again:
https://i.imgur.com/oydjYdM.png
Sandra blatantly lying to her followers again:
https://i.imgur.com/oydjYdM.png
East and West - The Easthouses end of this path and the West - Newbattle. No I am not inferring there was nothing found in the NW of this woodland, of course there was. - My "inference" is of after this attack, after the murder. Of there being no trails heading North into the Abbey, or NE, E or SE and S. Very much everything was West and NW.
The V break is in the bottom half of this woodland strip - to simplify the area, the Newbattle Road end. So more than the half way point. But you are correct, Jodi was attacked in the lower end of the woodland, lower and NW to the V itself where there was blood found on a branch. Where that first blow is shown to have happened. And you are correct, that basic flight which resulted in a blunt force trauma from behind- And she was still in the lower half of the woodland was she not? Thus why she pretty much ended up some 40ft down from this V break. - West. And it is from here we are talking of trails, of bleaching areas of this woodland. Blood from after this attack. Not the droplets on branches from the happening and of course the wall where she sadly lost her life completely. And it is from here I would like to mention the evidence of AW at court. Where she stated firmly that no one would have gotten Jodi into that woodland against her will, over that V - to which DF remarked, "not even if holding a knife to her" - so from here we are not simply talking about getting her over this V against her will, are we? - For this attack did happen further into the woodland and NW heading to where LM stayed. She was in this woodland, and this far down/across (NW) with someone she knew. - then she was attacked.
.
And of providing a source, what reports you mean? - to show that there was nothing forensically found to the the East, N, NE etc of this V break. Heading in the direction of Easthouse's/Newtongrange or the actual Abbey? out with that carving on the tree of course, or do we mean the condom? - funny old thing that, as yet again not a smidgeon of blood around the ground - nothing forensically at all - to link it to the murder of this girl. - and how do we know this Mr Apples, without being privy to any actual reports - for it would be broadcast from the high heavens, rather than this nonsense of compass reading and having people stepping over bodies through walls and trees of course. - not your compass readings and of maps - Ms Leans. - And of every piece of information we do gleam from Ms Lean. Of those areas of forensics of blood from the actual attack itself. - And that massive gap, that leap to bleaching scene. This is how we know. We know from Ms Lean herself. For they only bleached an area of woodland where nothing was picked up from that forensic equipment. That is why. - For if there had been anything, then there would have been no bleaching of the area at that point. Until those dogs were brought in. And if there had been anything - Ms Lean would not have been shy in telling us - would she?
And not just Ms Lean of course - of given out far more than she knows by that sheer omittance - but of LM's defence teams. There was nothing in that intricate, forensic search of that woodland - that showed this killer escaped anywhere other than West to North West of where Jodi was found. And would one, rather go on this - than these somewhat foolish claims that everything, from the moment Jodi Jones was reported missing - was done on the basis of centering on LM, of this claimed tunnel vision, of those botched forensics and so forth - really? Which again I would like to touch on those fingernail scrapings. Of this claimed wrong type of testing of one hand and not the other? - These are highly professional forensic bodies. A young girl had been murdered - they know exactly the type of testing and of the type of evidence they would be looking for - utter nonsense. There was nothing of her attacker upon her - plain and simple. No MK no, nobody. And of course of those claims of the scratches, of the further possibility incase the forensic botch up does not sink in, of them happening from branches - of CM "you could not step anywhere without branches getting caught in your hair" - Not one iota picked up from those forensic bodies scouring that woodland - who managed to find that tiny droplet of Jodi's blood upon that branch. - These are the areas that tell us clearly - that there were no blood trails, from after this attack - heading anywhere else.
*&^^&
Sandra Lean
CS ‘Lying about what Craig? I'm not lying, and haven't lied, about anything. Please state clearly what it is you think I am lying about and I will give you the information to prove I am not.
LCRP ‘Ask Luke. He knows when Scott first came into the picture, he knows where Scott became involved in his legal battle. Rather than casting aspersions on someone who has done so much to help move Luke's case forward, go get the truth from Luke himself, then come back and share it with everyone.
Who is Sandra referring to when she claims ‘someone who has done so much to help move Luke’s case forward’ -
herself of Scott Forbes?
Who’s ‘Mia’ ?
Fiona Scott
‘Sandra Lean I thought you were Mia from our group. On your instructions??
Apparently ‘Mia’ is
missing in action?
LCRP: ‘Sandra Lean yes Luke knew Scott was involved in some way but certainly not as his lawyer!
CS: ‘Sandra Lean You just said this is a different Scott Forbes. There is only 1 Scott Forbes. The Scott Forbes in the tweet posted by Lisa and the one appearing in documentaries implicating his friend. It's the same guy. You said it isn't.
Are there 2 Scott Forbes? Is MK’s friend and Scott Forbes Legal Trainee on Luke Mitchell case the same man? Or are they 2 different people?
Are there 2 Scott Forbes? Is MK’s friend and Scott Forbes Legal Trainee on Luke Mitchell case the same man? Or are they 2 different people?
I should have been clearer in my previous post. When I said North/NW, I meant generally in that direction from directly behind the V in the wall to where N’battle college is (hope you understand what I mean here). I always though the V break in the wall was nearer to the Easthouses end of the path (and hence why I think N’battle college is N/NW from it). Am I mistaken? I thought the V was about two thirds of the way from the N’battle end of the path and only one third of the way from the Easthouses end. Apologies if wrong. When talking about trails, I am talking about blood trails around the locus during and after the murder. Parky41, I’d be interested in hearing your theory (and anyone else’s, for that matter) as to what happened between 1700 and 1715 on that fateful day (including motive, etc, the murderer’s frame of mind, was it premeditated? was it in a fit of rage? .... and I’d like to hear opinions and theories on all the gory details during and after the heinous act). I’d also be curious to know which way you think Jodi and her killer reached the woodland area behind the V (for example, did they go to it via the path behind the wall? Or did they follow the main path and then turn right and go through the V to it?). Also, do you think the attack happened at the V (behind it, obviously) and the struggle subsequently took them both west towards Newbattle? Or do you think the attack started yards further down west behind the wall? Btw, how do you know the carving in the tree was east of the V?
What happened to the bike that JF saw chained to the railings at the back of the school? What happened to LM's bike? And where is the skunting knife with the brown handle - that contrary to what Ms Lean may claim, was with JF and found, is still missing. One can manipulate around this til the cows come home - the murder weapon and that knife that LM had with the brown handle are still missing. What happened to LM attending cadets that day? It was normally a Monday that he did go was it not? What were the reasons given for this non attendance? That he claimed this Monday was just like any other? - Was he already on his way to cadets when Jodi texted to say she was allowed out?
So work around on what one feels was impossible, but shown not to have been the case before this Jury - who did attend the scene, who saw those crime scene photos, who saw the locus after greenery had been cut back and in winter time, in daytime - whom realised the impossibility of the ease in which LM entered that woodland and mere seconds later - found something. Who had already introduced the woodland prior to even reaching this V break. Ignore everything on the basis of also ignoring LM's testimony - to bring LM to the search trios account - that is the desperation in need, to show these witnesses to be lying - by ignoring the testimony that he himself gave. By ignoring his lies - over and over. And by those desperate measures to introduce what was not possible - of seeing any bike at any V break on this path at 5.15pm. From this witness from BTH - who had already referenced a moped and boys - to then ref a bike and no people - when we know the one bike that was in sight at this time was that of LK.
Who’s ‘Mia’ ?
Fiona Scott
‘Sandra Lean I thought you were Mia from our group. On your instructions??
Suspect Fiona Scott will now have a red mark to her name - but she’ll be okay to keep the money coming in for them all
Suspect Fiona Scott will now have a red mark to her name - but she’ll be okay to keep the money coming in for them all
it is hilarious to see that teh web of lies is inevitably catching up with those who peddle them
https://i.imgur.com/5FOlB6L.png (https://i.imgur.com/5FOlB6L.png)
SF now claims he set up the polygraphs too? news to me
One and the same person.
The real mystery is why Dr Lean claims it's a different guy.
When does Sandra Lean say Luke Mitchell confessed?
‘Seven supreme court justices will sit to consider the issue. Their decision will have significant ramifications for thousands of prosecutions pending in Scotland, and indeed many thousands of convictions already secured where confession evidence of this type was used at trial.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/may/23/scottish-law-supreme-court-confession
The perpetrator of the threat was ‘a professional who wasn’t known to the police’ apparently
They are now *&^^&
Does she say that Luke confessed anywhere?
I’ve been thinking about that alleged sighting of the boys’ moped being propped at the V riderless at approx the same time as the murder. How is it possible to see that from BTH or indeed driving along N’battle rd? Who exactly started this story? Who was this eyewitness? Was it used in evidence? And on the subject of JF, a second cousin of the Jones family, I found a link to an article stating that he said that this moped was propped at the V around the time of the murder and that he and GD were at the locus at the time, too. Said article also mentions that JF said he was ostracised by the Joneses, wasn’t welcome at Alice Walker’s house any more and that JOSJ was going to batter him. I also understand that Shane Mitchell had threatened JF around the time of the trial, as well. Perhaps more significantly, the article also states that he moved away from Dalkeith to Ayrshire around the time of the trial. Can anyone explain all of this? Bearing in mind that this guy was also well known to police (had convictions for drugs, motoring and violence offences), and wasn’t the most punctual or reliable coming forward to facilitate the police in their investigation, repeatedly gave police inaccurate info in regards to timings and his whereabouts on the afternoon of 30.06.03 (fed the police with evasive “I don’t knows” and “I can’t remembers”), cut his own hair only 2 or 3 days after the murder (supposedly because he didn’t like curly hair) and had the aforementioned moped crushed and destroyed not long after the murder. Why JF, GD and the moped all weren’t seized, examined and thoroughly investigated immediately beggars belief (hindsight’s a great thing, though).
https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
So, no direct admission from [Name removed] in statements that the bike was against the wall at 5.15pm
After the boys on the moped passed through the tool hire place, an employee there told police that s/he spotted the bike parked against the V break (with no people in sight) on the witness's drive home.
a witness driving up the Newbattle Road saw them pushing the bike into the entrance of Roan's Dyke path just after 5pm.
there was only time, at the end of that, to ride the bike "a couple of times" up and down the path before getting back to [Name removed]'s house about 5.30pm.
He stated, in this statement, that they were on the path "maybe 20 minutes,"
Is Sandra quiet because of all her lies catching up with her?
“[Name removed] admitted in court that he had only gone to police five days after Jodi died after a TV news report about attempts to trace two youths on a motorbike left him 'shaking'.
Mr Findlay showed the court a selection of newspaper reports describing a potential suspect with curly hair.
He asked [Name removed]: 'Why were you so keen to get rid of your curly hair that you cut it yourself, making such a mess of it you had to get it sorted professionally?'
[Name removed] replied: 'I don't know.'
He also denied his personality had changed in the wake of Jodi's death. “
I wonder who came forward with the information that JF’s personality had changed after Jodi’s murder? Logic tells you that it must have been family or a very close friend.
I wonder who came forward with the information that JF’s personality had changed after Jodi’s murder? Logic tells you that it must have been family or a very close friend.
The finger being pointed at the Jones family.
Was Dr Lean blaming the Jones family when she was blaming MK?
Was Dr Lean blaming the Jones family when she was blaming RG?
Where is the consistency from her?
I genuinely think that, if LM admitted guilt to murder and post mortem mutilation, Dr Lean et all would still want LM released because a few polis men raised their voices without a lawyer present.
If Dr Lean is going to continue to point the finger at the Jones family, it's time she said something direct instead of beating around the bush.
And I think if Luke’s was referred back to the Court of Appeal and his conviction was quashed some would still believe him guilty simply because he won a fight against their pal’s son.
One thought you ( in this role) were not interested in others? That you did not need others to show LM was innocent? However:
It does not change the evidence against LM. It does not change the simple fact that this bike was not up at this V. It does not change the fact of the time these boys were actually on LD and RDP. It does not change every lie that LM told. All it does do, is highlight yet again, that you along with every other variant - are hypocritical to the max. - That they should bleat continuously on about this poor wee boy? Of his treatment brought about by his own hands and mouth. It is not these other males fault that LM is in prison. Whilst speaking ill of every other male. Of these other teenagers. These young males. Who's lives have continuously been put through the wringer by people like you.
This desperation over and over - to sweep away from the massive holes in LM's testimony. He had no alibi. It was concocted. You are not daft either in whatever role here. - That you wish to scrutinize and use logic to tell you about JF's personality change after the murder? Yet not LM's concocted alibi? Going from five past five to 5.45 - and after many changes, after other factors coming to light - it was squeezed into less than 15mins - he was not at home - so where does your amazing logic put him? - He was not at home.
And what family exactly are you referring to below - that you already know of course. You are fooling no one with this "I wonder". We know who's personality did not change - LM's.
And your tabloid story? - Again this boy needs to be put above all and everyone else. He was being deviant plain and simple. What made him special? That he should choose to continually stick the middle finger up to authority. Point blank refusing to wear the school colours. He deserved to be excluded. Plain and simple. He wanted to return to school, this claimed normality? That this teacher and others had difficult choices. That they had to think of everyone, not just LM. - It was his way or no way. Not private education, no other school. - It had to be exactly how he wanted it and dressed as he liked to boot.
All you are doing is highlighting his character here - This adolescent. 15 at this point. Well mature beyond his years. Treated in the same fashion by his mother. Allowed to have sex at home. Allowed to smoke both dope and fags. Allowed to and bought more knives. Allowed to drink.
So dig away at these boys on the bike - You are only digging yourself into a hole.
My pal, who's son was attacked by LM, thinks LM should have been found not guilty, as I've told you before.
You won't remember that, of course, because you only register the info that suits your agenda.
Interesting that you don't deny the fact that you'd be happy to get a brutal murderer released on a technicality.
Also interesting that most people on Dr Lean's side seem to have a beef with the po-liice - possibly because of previous run-ins with the law.
I sometimes think this is just a game for you - it's not a game - a lassie was brutally murdered,
I think the word confession is misleading. Self-incriminating would be a better description.
Where is the source for this? I would like to read it.
I do remember but it wasn’t your friend I was talking about. It was you who told us of Luke having to be pulled off of your friend’s son. Perhaps I got it wrong and you weren’t trying to insinuate by the inclusion of that fight that Luke was a violent thug capable of murder? You tell me?
Is it interesting or merely too ridiculous to respond to?
I have several friends who are or were police officers. What I, and they, have a beef with is the destruction of an innocent person’s life because a SIO is either too lazy, too incompetent or to blinkered to do his job properly.
And I’m sure you’ll go on thinking that even though I tell you otherwise so crack on.
It’s simply an opinion.
With many of the cases being looked at after the Cadder ruling there was no confession but comments were made that could be considered self-incriminating.
So you're admitting that LM was involved in scraps as well as attacking my friend's son. (there's also the cannabis use and the whole knife thing.
It was interesting.
I know many people who have jumped on Lean's bandwagon because they have a beef with the cops - there's also the likes of Johnnie boy Steel and the people who threatened the daily record journo - some classy people in Dr Lean's camp these days.
Crack on.
Thanks. Can I read about this anywhere that involves Luke and the admittance of guilt?
The perpetrator of these threats hasn’t been named and shamed although I suspect many of those within the campaign group will know who she is
Given the involvement of Johnnyboy Steel and the so called ‘ice cream wars’ which culminated in the murders of James Doyle, 53, his daughter Christina Halleron, 25, her 18-month-old son Mark and three of Mr Doyle's sons, James, Andrew (the target of the intimidation), and Tony, aged 23, 18, and 14 respectively - I’m surprised this women wasn’t sent to jail
I’d be surprised if any young boy hadn’t been in a scrap or two and with everything context is important and unless your friend was there we simply don’t know the circumstances in which the fight occurred.
Yes there is the whole knife and cannabis thing but if you’re going to tar one youth with that brush best to tar the rest too…JF who sold cannabis to Luke, [Name removed] who smoked it in his mum’s house and also had to be stopped by his mother attacking a visitor with a knife. Shall I go on? BTW why do you think it is that even though he admitted to the police that he sold cannabis to friends JF was never charged? Head-scratcher isn’t it?
No it’s really not.
I’m sure you’re right and perhaps those individuals have had cause not to trust the police and again threatening anyone is to be condemned no matter what the circumstances. Not sure though how Dr Lean can be held responsible for another adult’s actions though, what with free will and all. Logically she’s no more responsible than JuJ was when her son threatened Dr Lean.
I'm assuming Dr Lean has fed you all this hearsay.
If a certain person who I suspected at the time had been arrested and convicted, it wouldn't have surprised me one bit.
He wasn't, though.
You really are a conundrum PA.
You strike me as someone with quite a strong moral compass but fail to condemn categorically threats of violence against anyone as I have. How do we square that?
Dr Lean has, more than anyone, made public information on the case but it would be naive, and lazy, to think that Dr Lean’s judgement isn’t coloured by her closeness to the Mitchell family, of course it is. However it would also be naive, and lazy, to assume that the police, or the press, were fair and impartial in their treatment of Luke. For me that means cross referencing every piece of information in the public domain to, hopefully, get close to some semblance of the truth.
Please don’t make the lazy assumption that because I think Luke wasn’t convicted beyond reasonable doubt that I automatically believe Dr Lean....I don’t...I do my research. Isn’t that what everyone should do?
I agree, and I do my own research too.
You strike me as someone with quite a strong moral compass but fail to condemn categorically threats of violence against anyone as I have. How do we square that?
it would be naive, and lazy, to think that Dr Lean’s judgement isn’t coloured by her closeness to the Mitchell family, of course it is.
However it would also be naive, and lazy, to assume that the police, or the press, were fair and impartial in their treatment of Luke.
That's very easy to square - I would condemn all threats of violence.
That's an interesting admission re Dr Lean.
As I've said before, the cops made loads of mistakes, and the press are s..m - it's possible to look at the press, and recognise that they can't be trusted or believed - jurors would have been instructed to ignore that, and they should have.
Dr Lean probably 'knows' as much as most people, but you've admitted that she's biased, and there are other people on her side of the case whose motives are questionable - I won't name names.
Tell you one person who knows more than Dr Lean - CM, and I don't think she can be trusted.
SM also knows more than Dr Lean - he wouldn't give his brother an alibi, and he and CM no longer speak - did the recent documentary mention that?
Glad to hear it.
Not interesting, simple logic. For me too many people have a dog in this fight, on both sides.
And yes, Dr Lean has access to more information than most of the public. You might question how she uses that information but that doesn’t change that fact.
You don’t need to trust her. Do your own research.
You complain about Dr Lean posting unsubstantiated gossip yet here you are doing the same. Can’t you see the hypocrisy in that? SM may not talk to CM but it could be due to any number of reasons which have nothing to do with Jodi’s murder. As to SM not giving his brother an alibi we all know that it isn’t quite as simple as that. SM forgot fixing his friend’s car just days after he had done it which proves his memory wasn’t great. Why do with assume that he’d remember whether his brother was home with any greater clarity?
When have I complained about Dr Lean posting unsubstantiated gossip? Do you mean her digs at the Jones family?
Did the recent documentary mention that SM wouldn't give his brother an alibi, and he and CM no longer speak?
You really are a conundrum PA.
You strike me as someone with quite a strong moral compass but fail to condemn categorically threats of violence against anyone as I have. How do we square that?
Dr Lean has, more than anyone, made public information on the case but it would be naive, and lazy, to think that Dr Lean’s judgement isn’t coloured by her closeness to the Mitchell family, of course it is. However it would also be naive, and lazy, to assume that the police, or the press, were fair and impartial in their treatment of Luke. For me that means cross referencing every piece of information in the public domain to, hopefully, get close to some semblance of the truth.
Please don’t make the lazy assumption that because I think Luke wasn’t convicted beyond reasonable doubt that I automatically believe Dr Lean....I don’t...I do my research. Isn’t that what everyone should do?
TBH I’m not sure I would trust the judgement of someone who married a convicted murderer, would you?
TBH I’m not sure I would trust the judgement of someone who married a convicted murderer, would you?
⬇️ and when will Sandra Lean explain what she means by ‘factual innocence’ also referred to in her ‘thesis’ ‘HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW:
The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction.’
TBH I’m not sure I would trust the judgement of someone who married a convicted murderer, would you?
Sandra Lean also states,
‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that...’
Here for context
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10221492945085639&id=1011563515
Sandra I view you as a promoter of innocence fraud.
What happened to your podcast on Matthew Hamlen?
‘Long Road to Justice’ ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448049.html#msg448049
"looking for criminality in everything" - and this lion with the gazelle. How fitting.
‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that’
It’s ‘countered’ as INNOCENCE FRAUD
‘Half truths’ & ‘outright lies’ - like the boys moped being seen propped up against the V
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12080.msg653301#msg653301
What was the name of the person who made these claims and was their evidence ever tested in court?
Whatever role, from whatever ego/person - That strength in numbers? - Does not give strength to the nonsense being pushed out.
And no amount of nonsense ‘pushed out’ by channel 5 TV shows, podcasts, videos or James English interviews will make an iota of difference to Luke Mitchell’s murder conviction
These sticks and stones against others. - The blemishes on their characters. - This constant "what about them" - Does not change the evidence that convicted LM. That compete naivety - Of having to declare LM in theory innocent. To brush him to the side. - To then look for that criminality in all else.
That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'. To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"
That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'. To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"
Sandra Lean
‘I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’
‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that’
As an investigation does - and exactly why LM is in Jail. Where everyone holds a question mark above them in those first days of a murder. Of anyone close to the victim. Bash on with your simple ten minutes lapse in CM memory. - It does not change the truth. And SM did not give his first statement days after, giving time for any memory lapse.
SM gave his first statement on the 3rd of July, some 3 days after Jodi’s murder and claimed that he got home from work at 3.30. Of course evidence from his friend, who’s car he was helping fix, categorically proved that SM had got home much later. So three days after fixing his friend’s car SM had no recollection, when giving his first statement, of actually fixing it. He had to be reminded. This was no different to his mum reminding him of what happened when he did arrive home. If SM couldn’t remember something as labour intensive as fixing his friend’s car what hope did he have remembering categorically if his little brother was cooking in the kitchen?
And when his memory was given to him, he remembered the impossible. Of having a conversation with his mother when she arrived home at her "usual" time. And those exact reasons set upon solid foundations - for that suspicion. - the exact reason why Ms Lean had him (SM) down as suffering from PTSD upon discovering Jodi was dead. - somewhat rich to say the lease
Not interested in Dr Lean’s reasoning. You merely add her to distract, to use member’s dislike of her to your advantage.
. However. Those clear reasons for suspicion, of knowing the whole thing was concocted, of striving to give an alibi. Of every detail of that 40mins from five past five until a qtr to six. Of multiple changes in statements. - Can you remember the TV programme Luke claimed to be watching which went up in smoke also, once he had to have been out the door by 5.30pm. - I'm sure it will come back to you. However:
Multiple changes to statements…indeed there were and those changes were given voice, under oath. An absolutely deplorable exhibition of lies and half-truths.
Just to clarify a couple of things to clear up some misunderstandings being branded out - as always down to that jumble of misinformation from one's leader. There was no bike seen at the V - it is physically impossible.
Then that is odd because the witness who recalled the moped being at the v, a witness who had no prior knowledge of JF’s movements and had no axe to grind, must be psychic because their recollection exactly mirrored the evidence given, under oath by JF himself in court.
“ The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, ”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
How’s that for a coincidence?
There was CCTV footage of both boys, JF and GD. Together. There were other witnesses least not the ones who saw them arriving home at 5.30pm. They were on RDP onto LP for less than 20mins. Every male connected to the deceased or near to the locus had DNA samples taken. Both JF and GD could be eliminated from any partials or otherwise found at the crime scene. There can be no similar DNA - neither JF nor GD were genetically connected to Jodi. They were neither cousin nor second cousins. He could not have cut his hair to look like his cousin. - Not cousins.
What period did the CCTV footage cover and where are the witnesses who saw the boys arrive home at 5.30? Where are their statements? Did they give evidence in court?
That potential sighting of a male walking along Easthouse's Road was a false trail. It did end after the ID of of him and the guy on Morris Road - This man had been on Easthouse's Road but it was not the 30th of June. The person who made claim to further ID this male carrying this girls coffin, was not ignored. He had already been ID and eliminated - it was not that day. Furthermore the people carrying this girls coffin were staff from the funeral directors. - We do not need much common sense to realise people are being led down the garden path - common sense tells us one thing clearly. If there had been a positive sighting of Jodi Jones around 5pm on the 30th of June, heading in the direction of AB's sighting - it would have been used. And to remember one clear fact in all of this - Ms Lean does not hold everything. These are nonsense claims of things being buried and so forth - they simply had no merit in being kept in those defence files. DF knew everything around these possible sightings as did the Crown and onto the SCCRC.
And we know without a shadow of doubt the reasons why JF is highlighted above GD. For that simple basis of the simplicity of him. After DF had questioned him about the possibility of being that potential suspect that AB had witnessed, reasons as to why he had cut his hair - "i dunno". AD asked him "if you were here then you could not have been there, is that correct?" - his reply "I dunno" - which tells us everything we need to know about JF. And as stated, tells us exactly why he is picked on.
The simple, picked upon JF ? Doesn’t quite square with the true picture of him as a rather cunning drug dealer who, it appears, supplied most of the youths in the area, including Luke, with copious amounts of cannabis. The drug dealer who, although he admitted supplying drugs to the local youths avoided charges of any sort. Odd that.
“ He admitted having supplied cannabis to friends and relatives, and said that Mitchell regularly bought the drug from him, and still owed him for his last purchase, on the day before Jodi’s death.”
Reasons as to why he cut his hair-“I dunno”.
“Asked why he had been so desperate to get rid of if, he replied: "I do not like curly hair."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
And of Faithlilly in whichever role suits the moment? - These nonsense claims that there was the same if not more circumstantial evidence against JF - as above. That whilst LM could not be eliminated from those multiple DNA samples, that law of averages - these lads could.
Luke was eliminated and if Luke could commit a brutal murder and erase every vestige of the victim from him then it is entirely possible so could JF and GD.
And these nonsense claims of failing to keep an appointment that evening. - That will be that gazelle and looking for criminality in everything - Where was JF and GD - there were two of them remember.These lads had went about their evening. In the company of different people.
I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove? Luke spent part of his evening with his friends. There was no signs of a guilty conscience with him either.
“ He added that he was supposed to go to Jodi’s home that night to see her brother, Joseph, but decided against it. Mr Findlay described that as "another remarkable coincidence".
Indeed.
Why was LM not at cadets? Why did LM say he had went up to borrow a torch off SM when he was up town. Travelling around 8 miles to fuel up a car when there were multiple stations close at hand? - What did JF say about the bike at the railings, the yellow one? This nonsense yet again that these lads were not investigated? - They were investigated to the max. They had to to be. - Exactly for the purpose of elimination and precisely for any cross reference of evidence upon the stand.
I agree…if the investigation had been a little more competent and a little less tunnel-visioned then they would have to be investigated‘ to the max’ but, unfortunately, we know that this investigation was anything but competent.
And of elimination - Ms Lean does not actually know when they were eliminated, what she does do is go by information gathered. It was the boys whom were telling people they had been eliminated - and it is partly to do with this, that she tells us yet again, reason as to why [Name removed] was not happy with THEM. Not just JF but both of them. - Therefore this touting out that these boys had been eliminated within 12? days of this murder, came from their mouths. Not the police - as we know that the police, do not go around telling people, if they would have been eliminated or not.
So that garden path - No bike at the V and no boys in the woods.
From JF’s own testimony the bike was at the v and the witness did see what they claimed,
On these paths for less than 20mins.
There is no evidence for this. JF failed to keep an appointment with [Name removed] and didn’t contact [Name removed] with an explanation. Why? What was happening at that time?
Witnessed. Yes, we hear continuously about JF - he was with GD, they were part of two people on this path. JF is picked on like that lion with it's gazelle - to claw away at the remains of anything one can try to use - to distract away from LM. - As always, Faithlilly you do a startling job of describing your very actions to a T along with Ms Lean?
As Nicholas pointed out - that vital element of that feel of a witness when taken that information first hand. And of that vital necessity of doing precognitions. For both the Crown and the defence. To go over those very statements with the people who had given them - face to face. And whilst Faithlilly may say - about it being naive, to not realise that Ms Lean would naturally have been influenced by the Mitchells - she was not, for even a second - meaning she was wrong, in anything. - was she? For she puts complete trust and recites it all, and speaks in that remarkable mirror likeness of her?
Dr Lean has been wrong in many things as have you. So where does that get us?
Whatever role, from whatever ego/person - That strength in numbers? - Does not give strength to the nonsense being pushed out. These sticks and stones against others. - The blemishes on their characters. - This constant "what about them" - Does not change the evidence that convicted LM. That compete naivety - Of having to declare LM in theory innocent. To brush him to the side. - To then look for that criminality in all else. That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'. To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"
A majority verdict. Beyond reasonable doubt? Not in any mature, developed judicial system.
And back to this - influenced by the Mitchells - And that New York journalist, the rights he was given to tell the story, exactly how the murderer wanted it told? -When he was professing innocence. - All those crosses to bare? Which one has to ask themselves. - Do the Mitchells hold Jodi responsible for upsetting LM that day? ( A thought not a fact. IMO) Was it her fault that he turned on her? Is it by way of fault of the Jones family, of the truth they told, that complete contradiction to LM's account - Of Jodi getting out earlier. Of this ban on the path. Of this "mucking around up here". Of Jodi getting changed. Of not having something of Jodi's for the dog to scent with. Of LM climbing the wall at the Gino spot. Of LM not going past this V break. Of saying he thought Jodi had been grounded - And onto the "notorious little liar" (CM) for saying Luke had told him "she is not coming out" And onto frequenting this woodland, of knowing of this existence of this V break - Of every single excuse made for LM. That "half a mars bar" situ. Those ridiculous attempt at trying to simplify everything about him - and onto those complete OTT sticks and stones of others.
Of having a knife sharp enough to cut cannabis in the house. Of threatening someone with a knife. Of having large quantities of cannabis. Of selling it on. Of missing appointments. - Every shady dubious nature of these others, these sticks and stones we are being shown - Every one of them completely over taken with that of LM and SM. Of his age that all and sundry want to use as this meek little boy. Of being 14 - Of carrying knives, of using them on others, (Jodi being one, when jabbing her in the leg with it) of describing the best way to kill someone. Of having more than one knife sharp enough to cut cannabis on person as well as his home. A certain type of knife, a skunting knife. A lockblade. Of having large quantities of cannabis. Of selling it on. Of sticking his middle finger up to every type of authority including his mother. Of being allowed to have underage sex at home. Of smoking/drinking at home. Of being the person Jodi was meeting that day. Of being ID not once but twice at both ends of this path. Of being a compulsive liar. Of leading this girls family straight to her, which only the murderer could have done. In that record breaking time of less than 10mins. Of entering this woodland. NO unfamiliarity, no trepidation - straight to her. Of describing those clothes, that hair fastener and that tree. - They passed a lie detector - so did Ted Bundy. on more than one occasion. - He was not at home, that alibi they strived to give - completely dissolved back into the hot air from where it came.
So many experts explaining why they think this conviction is unsound. So many putting their reputation on the line to ask those hard questions. It speaks volumes.
And Ted Bundy might have passed a lie detector test ( did his mother too? ) but that was over 30 years ago. The technology has moved on significantly since then and I believe is now being used to manage sex offenders within the community.
So dig away at these others - try as one might. These others do not even touch the surface of the circumstantial case against LM. We have been shown that DNA does not make a murderer. We have been shown that being close to the scene of crime does not make you responsible for it. - We have been shown without a doubt - that LM was no ordinary 14yr old. From every action that came from himself, his person, his personality - Those who are hidden amongst us?
What we have shown is that JF’s moped was, from his own mouth, at the exact spot at the exact time Jodi was murdered. Not one witness has ever testified to seeing Luke there. That JF failed to come forward in the first days after Jodi’s murder, even though he knew that he was at the wall over which Jodi’s body was found at the time the murder was allegedly taking place. That he lied about the time he was on RDP even though he and GD had discussed that afternoon
. That JF failed to keep an appointment that night with his ‘cousin’ without explanation. That he was threatened by that same ‘cousin’ and ostracised by the rest of the family. That his personality changed after the murder. That he changed his appearance for no rational reason days after the murder. That he admitted to selling drugs to the local youths yet faced not one charge. That he carried knives to cut up his drugs. That he was very familiar with the woodland where Jodi’s body was found.
Of course it is all circumstantial but nonetheless compelling.
Imagine if all the above had been put before a jury?
False accusations are still being levelled at the Jones family - including towards Jodi Jones mother Judith
She’s still being accused of ‘smirking’ in a photo outside court *&^^& - which didn’t happen
Sandra Lean
I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’
‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that
Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not?
From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite.
Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not? From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite. Of those continuous slithers of truth and the mountains made from the molehills they are? The very reason why there are not multiple legal persons taking this case on board on the basis of this nonsense is it not?
Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not? From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite. Of those continuous slithers of truth and the mountains made from the molehills they are? The very reason why there are not multiple legal persons taking this case on board on the basis of this nonsense is it not? Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings.
Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. Exactly the reason these wannabe gangsters and odd ball sleuths are solving the case on crazed up theories.
Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. Exactly the reason these wannabe gangsters and odd ball sleuths are solving the case on crazed up theories.
And of course the bias. and yes we know it is claimed to be on the basis of putting LM's side forward, for the first time? - that blindness in not realising that his side has been getting touted out since day dot. - His truthful side????
Dr Lean was also recently talking about someone in the family allegedly expecting a 'nine-bar' on the night of the murder.
She also does plenty of smirking herself.
The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered,
Dr Lean was also recently talking about someone in the family allegedly expecting a 'nine-bar' on the night of the murder.
She also does plenty of smirking herself.
Jigsawman:
A male member of Jodi's extended family has had a run in with Jodi earlier in the day. He also has a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour. (This scenario, in fact, can be applied to various male members of the extended family.)
Thank you - although I'm not quite buying this making Ms Lean out to be wrong whilst reciting her, yet again to the letter T. None of you of course have to be right - but some harmony in whichever ego should be somewhat steadfast.
Do try to stick to the subject…little clue, it’s not me or Dr Lean ( you really don’t like giving her her proper title, do you ? )
And of course one is much obliged for the repetition and confirmation of showing exactly what I was highlighting to be correct. This scraping at the weakest link - so no TV programme then and one is asking me who witnessed the boys arrival home at GD's? - showing yet again coyness or stuck in the limitations of what you actually do know? - This paying to be ignorant? Or that complete tunnel vision in having to ignore the abundance of evidence that contradicts those somewhat feeble points. - And that futile question of were these witnesses to their arrival home called to testify - they were not on trial.
You have evidence? Then present it. Refute my points with properly sourced information. Evidence your own with cites, as I do. You claim that JF and GD were witnessed arriving home at 5.30…prove it, who were those witnesses? That the boys were seen on CCTV, where is the cite? What I do or do not know is irrelevant. You made the claims, the onus is on you to provide the proof.
Of what could not be clearer - that whilst these boys never admitted to their bike being at this V,
” The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered”,
“ Mr Findlay asked what time Mr [Name removed] had told the police he and his cousin were heading up the path. The witness said: "Around five o’clock." Mr Findlay told him to be careful and asked again. He said: "Before five o’clock... I cannot exactly remember."
The QC read from a statement which said "about half-past four". He suggested that that time was about 45 minutes out, and asked for an explanation.
Mr [Name removed] said he had looked at a clock when he got into Mr [Name removed]’s house, and it said a quarter to five. It had been wrong. Mr Findlay continued: "You and [Name removed] may have been in the area at or about the time that Jodi may have been attacked, yet you saw nothing and heard nothing?" Mr [Name removed] answered: "No."
https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760
Those multiple areas of DNA, with a significant amount of markers.
A full DNA profile linked to SK was found. Not one full DNA profile found anywhere on Jodi’s body came from Luke.
And LM had double the time they had.
Ah, home at 5.30? Care to supply the proof?
And of Ms Lean - already telling people why JF and GD were in disfavour - of telling people they had been eliminated. And whilst Ms Lean may play coy as you do around the rest of this - it will, yet again be in those statements, reasons as to why this girls family were not happy with those boys.
So why were the family unhappy?
And imagine if what had been before this Jury? - What is that exactly? That will be yet again, everything in those statements and defence papers - right down to medical notes - And I will take DF over Ms Lean any day of the week. Reason as to why, he sought not to introduce Jodi's brother to this Jury - for he was not suspicious of him. JF and GD had to be brought to attention as did SK - this ridiculous notion yet again of not being investigated properly - your head is clearly in some faraway fantasy planet - The gloves, the condom, the bike stopped, the transportation to being the boy AB saw, the failing to meet with the brother, the 9 bar and all else. - which part exactly was not investigated? - that will be the bike that CM has away to a scrapyard. That clear notion stemming from truth? and of speculation again "Sandra and I have a theory--------------" SL "she is simply mistaken I have never discussed this with her, we did at one point speak to someone, about the possibilities of disposing evidence that way though?" -- Fed no doubt from CM herself. And of SM being a mechanic. And this nonsense of forgetting he had stopped off at a friends:
Speculation - when someone omits something they have been doing. Clearly omitting it, I do not buy this memory nonsense for one moment. As with the friend and the internet session - And of heavy drug use. One would not be telling the police of stopping anywhere if they were picking up drugs and watching porn, very private? These are the sensible, common sense things to think of - not this rubbish about PTSD, and of anyone not being able to remember what they had been doing. - He omitted not mentioning stopping for a reason, it had nothing to do with memory loss? - And when he did arrive home he was omitting only the porn. He did not see his brother, his brother was not at home.
The friend who reminded SM that he had been fixing his car, who provided receipts etc for car parts. Why would he do that if he himself may be implicated in a criminal enterprise? Occam’s razor again….makes no difference if you buy it.
And again - this utter nonsense of having as strong a case against them - Well that would not be difficult at all for you, for you have him fitted up, which only highlights those crazed up theories even more so - All of this startling evidence against these others, but they picked on that wee boy? - They picked on no one
I have no theories, I merely follow the evidence.
Sandra Lean is a grifter and a fraud
She’s calculated, dishonest and ‘clever’ - or at least she thinks she is (As do her followers)
‘Calculated, dishonest and clever’ were words used to describe convicted murderer Luke Mitchell
[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
We all make errors of judgement and some convicted murderers innocence fraud can be convincing - especially if they’ve been ‘wrongly convicted’ - as Simon Hall was
Sandra Lean’s omissions in particular - especially of her choice to not publish the SCCRC statement of reasons or Corinne and Luke Mitchell’s police witness statements is another example of her dishonesty
She is also a promoter of innocence fraud - Stephanie Hall is not!
Who writes this stuff? ⬇️ and when will Sandra Lean explain what she means by ‘factual innocence’ also referred to in her ‘thesis’ ‘HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW:
The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction.’
About the author (2018)
‘Dr Sandra Lean is an author and criminologist who has worked for 15 years with individuals and families claiming wrongful conviction and factual innocence. As well as writing books about miscarriage of justice, Dr Lean also assists with case reviews aiming to secure applications to the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commissions in the UK and helps produce podcasts, articles and website content highlighting individual cases.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Innocents_Betrayed.html?id=b5AJvQEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
Why was Sandra Lean’s 6 part podcast on killer Matthew Hamlen removed from the WWW?
Sandra Lean
‘I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’
⬆️ another example of her calculated and dishonest character ⬆️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg639580#msg639580
And all been done before - Simon Hall being one example
Sandra Lean is a grifter and a fraud
She’s calculated, dishonest and ‘clever’ - or at least she thinks she is (As do her followers)
‘Calculated, dishonest and clever’ were words used to describe convicted murderer Luke Mitchell
[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
We all make errors of judgement and some convicted murderers innocence fraud can be convincing - especially if they’ve been ‘wrongly convicted’ - as Simon Hall was
Sandra Lean’s omissions in particular - especially of her choice to not publish the SCCRC statement of reasons or Corinne and Luke Mitchell’s police witness statements is another example of her dishonesty
She is also a promoter of innocence fraud - Stephanie Hall is not!
Who writes this stuff? ⬇️ and when will Sandra Lean explain what she means by ‘factual innocence’ also referred to in her ‘thesis’ ‘HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW:
The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction.’
About the author (2018)
‘Dr Sandra Lean is an author and criminologist who has worked for 15 years with individuals and families claiming wrongful conviction and factual innocence. As well as writing books about miscarriage of justice, Dr Lean also assists with case reviews aiming to secure applications to the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commissions in the UK and helps produce podcasts, articles and website content highlighting individual cases.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Innocents_Betrayed.html?id=b5AJvQEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
Why was Sandra Lean’s 6 part podcast on killer Matthew Hamlen removed from the WWW?
Sandra Lean
‘I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’
⬆️ another example of her calculated and dishonest character ⬆️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg639580#msg639580
Proof that her loyal cut members are questionable ↘️
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html
Not only does she offer out her address on social media to the Jones family to come and have a go, she sees UFOs 👽
I’ve got one of these ‘following’ an old blog I posted a few years back
She’s the one who falsely claimed Jane Hamilton set up a ‘honey trap’ for LM https://orkneyfibromyalgiasufferer.com/
To be fair, Sandra’s no exactly recruiting the brightest folks out there. Check out this guy. Sandra is joining his podcast for an interview ↘️↘️↘️Is he out looking for his choppers after a night on the razzle?
https://youtu.be/iiV3BZrTzLY (https://youtu.be/iiV3BZrTzLY)
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Workman+fraud+rap.-a0101752635 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Workman+fraud+rap.-a0101752635)
In Sandra’s words “Make of that what you will”
The way the good Dr behaved after she was shown to be a fraudster after the Simon Hall case speaks volumes. She absoute rinsed them for every penny they had. Her and her boyfriend Billy Middleton also a fraudster who allegedly set his house on fire in Shetland with his family still inside it.
Re Billy Middleton
“Billy spent much of his home time on the computer. Kareen was sure he was in contact with other women. She looked up the history on their computer one day Billy was at work and found that he had googled "rape", "torture" and "p***y fisting". Billy had been visiting hardcore BDSM sites and Kareen was scared - is this what he had in mind for her?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712
And there was the sexual assault charges http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712 which Billy Middleton referred to as ‘sexual abuse’ - as Marina said a Freudian slip perhaps
The man sounds like a sadist
I’m of the view it’s highly probable Billy Middleton’s ex wife Kareen suffered from coercive control at Middleton’s hands https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-record/20090321/281758445209020
And I remain of the firm view he set the fires deliberately and is responsible for the death of Annalise - which amounts to murder
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40
Lolly also states - referring to John Sallens and Michael Neill,
“so as I see it, if these two highly experienced investigators truly believe that, having spent more than a year re-investigating this tragic murder, there is quite a big possibility that something is wrong. It suggests that a very real possibility exists that a miscarriage of justice could have taken place and this must be looked into with an open mind.”
*&^^&
According to the findings of the private investigators they believe that Jodi was not actually murdered at the location where her body was found, but may actually have been killed then dragged to the site.
Jack and Victor also state:QuoteAccording to the findings of the private investigators they believe that Jodi was not actually murdered at the location where her body was found, but may actually have been killed then dragged to the site.
Completely in line with Ms Lean - poppycock. When anyone makes this type of ridiculous claim then it instantly discredits everything else that is said.
Sandra Lean (today)
‘Well, well, imagine MPs telling lies. Remember all of you who received letters saying they can't possibly interfere with the justice system or talk about individual cases? They just did:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/10/scottish-tory-msp-george-beattie-case-scotland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If they can do it for this case (which absolutely deserves it, obviously), then ....
Completely in line with Ms Lean - poppycock. When anyone makes this type of ridiculous claim then it instantly discredits everything else that is said.
Yet Lolly claims,
“We merely delight in seeing the truth told and justice served”
more ‘poppycock’ *&^^&
Luke still had mud beneath his fingernails when he was examined, he had not taken a shower as he still had greasy hair. He would have needed to have a really good long shower and scrub himself to have removed the massive amount of blood that would have come from such a vicious attack.
Lolly again:
And again - absolute nonsense. And exactly the mirror image of Ms Leans claims since day dot. Luke Mitchell would have to have been naked when he carried out his murder for to be wanting any "good long shower and scrub himself" - hook line and sinker.
Luke Mitchell was wearing a long jacket with a hood. And we have seen the evidence around this. Of exactly where Jodi met her final moments and the clear evidence that supports this. That whilst this killer would have had blood upon his clothing, it is a far cry from having that clothing drenched. From 17.40pm until just short of 6pm for that initial change of clothing and footwear. Of it taken mere minutes at haste through the cover of the woodland next to his house. To be back from where he disappeared from sight. To be seen again with that shiny blouson jacket on. At a point where he was adamant he had not walked as far to.
LM did not have to be drenched in any blood.
LM did not need to have any shower.
LM was surrounded in a woodland he knew intimately - LM was mere minutes from his house
LM had no less than 13mins to change that clothing to be seen again for his alibi.
It took under 7:mins to get from his house onto RDP walking.
It took this 7:mins to get to his house through those woods and back onto Newbattle R'd at haste.
The average person can run more than a mile in less than 13mins.
LM had a fraction of this to cover and back.
LM needed cover through those woods. LM needed through those woods quickly.
Every part of that time had to be at haste.
LM needed to be changed.
This left LM at least 6 mins for that initial change at home.
LM had to go through a river to get to his house.
That parka easily left in the woodland at first (not the woodland strip, but next to his house)
LM knew exactly where any trace of the murder would be upon him.
He had ample means to wash this trace.
LM had up to 80:mins until he met with the boys for any further disposal, of setting that alibi in place.
The boys he met with gave evidence of how LM was not his usual unkempt self.
LM ankles were engrained with dirt, and hair that "appeared" to be greasy - for LM was covered. He had a parka style jacket on with a hood. Trousers, socks, boots, t-shirt - no shower required.
LM needed to be in a woodland - to have trace of anything from it. To be under those nails and so forth - This is why LM met with the boys in the woods of Newbattle Abbey. And to be in company for that alibi.
No one knows exactly what was used for burning that night in the Mitchell garden.
The Mitchells had ample time to dispose of any means, remnants - the lot.
There was a fire going on at different intervals over the course of the evening
SM was out and about that evening, late. - found out to be so, not given freely. He claimed he was going for fuel? Many miles from home.
SM was/is a mechanic - is this were scrapyards come into play?
It is a fallacy to believe that the police could have arrived at the Mitchell home at any point
This girl had been left in a place that LM knew would not be easy to come across.
And he was right - Jodi was not discovered over the course of that evening.
LM knew exactly how much time he had.
If Jodi had been discovered - it would have been a time consuming process for Identity and so forth.
If LM had phoned back it would have raised the alarm.
If Jodi's mother had phoned him back - he would still have had ample time for all he was doing and had to do.
The ball was firmly in LM's court.
By the time LM was in the company of the boys from the Abbey the story of alibi was set and continuing.
The disposal by means of fire and so forth was happening at the same time.
LM stayed long enough with the boys and much shorter than the time he would usually be out.
There is nothing that puts LM home before 10pm when he was witnessed by his neighbour.
LM was prepped and ready for that inevitable contact from Jodi's parents.
Jodi Jones was reported missing around 10.50pm to the police.
LM was on/at RDP by 10.59pm
LM was still on RDP by around 11.20pm.
At around 11.25pm LM introduced the woodland into this search at the Gino spot.
At around 11.30pm LM again introduced the woodland into this search at the V break.
LM at this point physically entered the woodland.
LM turned immediately to his left - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing
LM seconds later, in the time it took SK and JaJ to walk around 10 steps - shouted out he had found something.
Jodi's body was more than 40ft down from this V in the woodland. Hidden behind this large oak he described and by the wall.
Behind the wall where she most definitely died - utter nonsense from Ms Lean and the sidekicks who claim the same.
LM could not have seen what he described - LM did not go near enough.
LM had all he could have covered by the time he was prepped and ready to offer to search. LM at this point did not have to distance himself from anything -
LM distanced himself from this once the police were involved. By leading them a merry dance on how to get to where they were.
By saying no to showing them were Jodi lay - LM had absolutely no problem before this with Jodi's family.
By denying all knowledge of both the V and the woodland prior to that evening.
By denying to having walked any further than he claimed on Newbattle R'd
By denying that Jodi was banned from using this path alone.
These are clear facts: LM nor anyone had to be drenched blood. No one had to be jumping in showers. If this killer was aware enough of DNA implications (LM was, "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA),then they were more than astute enough not to be trailing it into the house, or having showers. LM did not have to enter his house before 6pm - his house was detached. LM had ample time for that alibi story and all else - and what a story that was. Completely disintegrated bit by bit. From 5:05pm until 5:45pm - down to less than 15mins. - LM was not at home.
And we add on those sightings. And we add on that missing knife and Jacket. And every detail of that clothing right down to the red hair fastener and those DC shoes. And of a boy who was the complete opposite of being effected in the slightest. And we add on buying and viewing that dvd of that horrible depiction of that girl in the woods. We add on the incredulous tales of waiting around all that time, on an off chance of meeting in the first place. Then we add on this "not coming out" and this "I thought you had grounded her" - We add on the best way to kill someone, the skunting knives, the replacement, the parka.
And so much more - then we go to trial. And this Jury who heard those smokescreens around others. Of being in the area, of presence of DNA - And we show the Jury those crime scene photos, and we take them to the locus. - And they go over this timescale. That woodland - and they see first hand - the impossibility of Jodi being discovered in less than 10:mins. And they watch this wee boy through this whole process - they do not see someone who was advised not to shout out - they see someone the complete opposite of his brother, of SK of this girls family. Telling someone not to shout out in court - is the complete opposite of suppressing natural emotion.
And this beyond a reasonable doubt - From this amazing discovery in less than 10:mins- to the other end of this evening and no alibi. And for every single thing in between - And every other single piece of damming evidence heaped on top of this. - Dam right it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
And this is why the garden path is needed, this is why those smokescreens and pawns are required. To sway one's attention onto ludicrous thoughts - of not searching Mayfield. Of being drenched and toddling down a busy road. Of bleaching crime scenes, of claiming Jodi was murdered elsewhere, of every test being the wrong one. From the pathologist right down to the testing of that massive knife, clothing, boots of this claimed person of interest - Mr D. With those "no reportable results" - Not Jodi's blood. To continuously say "well we will never know,will we? as we do not know what they were being asked to test for?"
Does this "we do not know what they were being asked to test for", apply to the pathologist also now? Was he not asked to test for a TOD? - hook line and sinker.
Is he out looking for his choppers after a night on the razzle?
Lolly again:
And again - absolute nonsense. And exactly the mirror image of Ms Leans claims since day dot.
TOD was not established through the usual methods….that was widely reported.
Lolly again:
And again - absolute nonsense. And exactly the mirror image of Ms Leans claims since day dot. Luke Mitchell would have to have been naked when he carried out his murder for to be wanting any "good long shower and scrub himself" - hook line and sinker.
Luke Mitchell was wearing a long jacket with a hood. And we have seen the evidence around this. Of exactly where Jodi met her final moments and the clear evidence that supports this. That whilst this killer would have had blood upon his clothing, it is a far cry from having that clothing drenched.
That parka easily left in the woodland at first (not the woodland strip, but next to his house)
LM knew exactly where any trace of the murder would be upon him.
He had ample means to wash this trace.
LM had up to 80:mins until he met with the boys for any further disposal, of setting that alibi in place.
The boys he met with gave evidence of how LM was not his usual unkempt self.
LM ankles were engrained with dirt, and hair that "appeared" to be greasy - for LM was covered. He had a parka style jacket on with a hood. Trousers, socks, boots, t-shirt - no shower required.
LM needed to be in a woodland - to have trace of anything from it. To be under those nails and so forth - This is why LM met with the boys in the woods of Newbattle Abbey. And to be in company for that alibi.
No one knows exactly what was used for burning that night in the Mitchell garden.
The Mitchells had ample time to dispose of any means, remnants - the lot.
LM had up to 80:mins until he met with the boys for any further disposal, of setting that alibi in place.
Lolly again:
t for", apply to the pathologist also now? Was he not asked to test for a TOD? - hook line and sinker.
Re Lolly ⬇️
‘Hello my name is Lolly Adams, I am a true crime researcher, writer and blogger. I work with a team to provide a range of services relating to true crime, particularly cold & unsolved cases and matters of cult & occult crime
My team and I are always keen to take a long hard look at cases that we become involved in and will pursue answers and justice wherever we can, no matter how long that takes.
The work of a true-crime researcher/investigator is not simple, by any means. We have to look at every possible piece of evidence and try, wherever possible to remain objective.
Of course, we must form an opinion about the case and build a hypothesis to work to as we research, but we must always remain open to change as evidence is gathered.
When a case comes to the desk, we will look at the basic evidence that we are presented with in the first instance then begin to ask questions in order to progress the case. The way that an investigation progresses depends very much on each individual case.
If you have a case that is unsolved, a cold case or something that is still very much active for you but, progress doesn't seem to be being made then get in touch and we will try to advise the best way forward
If you require the services of specialist writers, researchers, investigators or case reviewers in the field of true crime, then this is the site for you.
We specialise in cold cases, unsolved crime, unusual cases including religious cult crime and indoctrination. Check out our pages and see our wide range of services
https://www.lollytruecrimeworld.co.uk/447504126
Research
‘An in-depth research service where we undertake a full dive into any true crime case and assess it from its very beginning.
We will look at all information available publicly, apply for freedom of information requests and subject access requests from the authorities in order to gather as much data as possible.
Older cases can be more difficult to gain detailed information on but, we are very fortunate to have built a trusted group of contacts that can help us a great deal in putting a case together.
When our research is completed we provide a dossier of our findings, along with our opinion about the case. If the case is unsolved, as many are we will give our professional indications as to whether the case stands a chance of going on to be solved and indications as to any suspects.
https://www.lollytruecrimeworld.co.uk/447780445
*&^^&
Sandra Lean (today)
‘Well, well, imagine MPs telling lies. Remember all of you who received letters saying they can't possibly interfere with the justice system or talk about individual cases? They just did:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/10/scottish-tory-msp-george-beattie-case-scotland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If they can do it for this case (which absolutely deserves it, obviously), then ....
Miscarriages of justice charity stripped of lottery funding
“A charity that fights wrongful convictions has had its National Lottery funding stopped and is being probed by the Scottish Government over concerns about how it is run.
The Miscarriage of Justice Organisation - known as MOJO - was awarded £120,000 by the lottery's community fund but the offer has been withdrawn.
A National Lottery Community Fund spokesperson said: "Due to ongoing governance issues, we are unable to provide MOJO with funding at this time. We welcome a further conversation with them once these issues have been addressed.
"The decision to offer the award of £120,000 was made in April 2019. Our formal withdrawal letter was issued this week."
Glasgow-based MOJO was formed by Paddy Hill, one of six men wrongly convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in 1975.
MOJO is due to receive £105,000 of taxpayers' money from the Scottish Government this year with at least as much agreed for each of the next two years.
The government's criminal justice division has begun an investigation, with a spokesman saying: "The Scottish Government provides funding to MOJO Scotland to provide support to people who may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.
"Concerns have been raised with us about their governance and management structures, which are currently subject to an investigation."
Hill launched the charity in 2001 and it is run by volunteers and two paid employees. One of them, Paul McLaughlin, is on sick leave. He declined to comment.
Management committee member Colin Grant said: "It's got to the stage now where I think MOJO has possibly gone too far, I think it's possibly imploded so much it may well be beyond salvation.
My understanding is that a charity which is receiving public funds needs to have an independent management committee to oversee how these funds are being used to make sure they are being used properly and at the moment there isn't a functioning management committee there."
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie MSP, a MOJO director since 2011, didn't respond to an STV News interview request.
Governance issues arose in April when volunteer and "head of legal" Euan McIlvride attempted to change the charity's constitution.
Management committee members, including company secretary and director Billy McAllister, blocked the move and called for independent legal advice.
McAllister also raised concerns about whether it would be appropriate to offer paid employment to McIlvride due to a previous conviction for embezzlement while working as a solicitor.
Three new directors were appointed - including Hill's partner Tara Babel - and McAllister was voted out while on holiday.
Grant said after the April meeting "all hell broke loose", adding: "Billy, who has been a director of the organisation and secretary, was summarily dismissed without any consultation [and] the co-project manager Paul McLaughlin was effectively demoted.
"The lottery funding which we'd been promised was stopped. The lottery fund decided to not give us any more money because of the problems we were having within the organisation structurally.
"The Scottish Government have now launched an investigation into how MOJO is being run and none of that was communicated to the management committee - we all learned this from outside sources."
McIlvride told STV News McAllister was removed "entirely in compliance with the relevant legislation" and because of "serious failures and misconduct in the exercise of his roles... and for separate misconduct in the form of bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers in the organisation".
He added: "It is entirely untrue to suggest, as you appear to do, that Mr McAllister was removed as a result of his raising concerns about myself. My entire history was disclosed to MOJO... in advance of my volunteering with the organisation."
McAllister, who denies the allegations, said: "I think they saw me as the main instigator to getting the concerns raised and they went after me. I have been forced out without any due process and I feel bitter about that because I've given seven or eight years of my time for nothing.
"As a famous football manager once said, there's no man bigger than the club and I think I said that to them - the organisation was bigger than any one person.
"I would like MOJO to return to how it was... an open, democratic and accountable structure."
Grant added: "One of the most ironic things about MOJO is that it was set up to try and provide victims of miscarriage of justice with a voice and yet the way it's been behaving with regard to Billy McAllister and Paul McLaughlin shows that it doesn't actually practise what it preaches because it's denied them justice."
Hill also declined to be interviewed but in a statement said McIlvride "made no secret" of his conviction and called him "honest and reliable".
He added: "As far as our clients are concerned, many have expressed their gratitude for all of Mr McIlvride's efforts in helping them and have confidence in the work he is undertaking on their behalf."
McIlvride was convicted of fraud and embezzlement but some charges were later overturned on appeal.
He said: "Given that I spent a period of time in prison as a result of miscarriage of justice, I personally think that my experience is one which enhances my suitability for the role that I exercise with this organisation."
'Giving false hope to people'
A campaigner fighting to overturn a high-profile murder conviction has accused MOJO of betraying potential miscarriages of justice victims.
Dr Sandra Lean said it was "really exciting" when MOJO asked to get involved with Luke Mitchell case two years ago.
Mitchell was jailed for the 2003 murder of Jodi Jones, 14, but continues to protest his innocence.
Lean said: "It was really exciting news. It looked like the case was getting picked up again, it looked like there was going to be some real progress here."
However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office.
Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place.
"The idea of having the Luke Mitchell case, this huge case on their books, was good publicity for them."
The campaigners say that the alleged failings may have harmed Mitchell's case.
Lean added: "I was going to say it's a disaster but if they're not doing the work, they're giving false hope to people and that, in the circumstances these people are in, that it shocking, that is dreadful.
"I believe that some real damage has been done. There are a couple of things that should have been acted on very quickly, that were not and in spite of a number of promptings, a number of questions, a number of attempts to get something done, there just didn't seem to be the will to do what needed doing and some of that now means that routes forward that should have been available may no longer be available."
In response, McIlvride said: "We are aware of the criticism recently levelled at us by Mrs Corrine Mitchell.
"We do not consider it justified, but would not propose to rehearse the arguments in the context of what is, essentially, an unwarranted attack on myself, and, worse, the charity, by parties who are motivated to do us harm."
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/
SM was out and about that evening, late. - found out to be so, not given freely. He claimed he was going for fuel? Many miles from home.
SM was/is a mechanic - is this were scrapyards come into play?
Jodi Jones was reported missing around 10.50pm to the police.
LM was on/at RDP by 10.59pm
LM was still on RDP by around 11.20pm..
At around 11.25pm LM introduced the woodland into this search at the Gino spot.
At around 11.30pm LM again introduced the woodland into this search at the V break.
LM at this point physically entered the woodland.
LM turned immediately to his left - no unfamiliarity, no trepidation - nothing
Behind the wall where she most definitely died - utter nonsense from Ms Lean and the sidekicks who claim the same.
LM could not have seen what he described - LM did not go near enough.
LM had all he could have covered by the time he was prepped and ready to offer to search. LM at this point did not have to distance himself from anything -
LM distanced himself from this once the police were involved. By leading them a merry dance on how to get to where they were.
By saying no to showing them were Jodi lay - LM had absolutely no problem before this with Jodi's family.
These are clear facts:
LM nor anyone had to be drenched blood.
No one had to be jumping in showers.
If this killer was aware enough of DNA implications (LM was, "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA),
then they were more than astute enough not to be trailing it into the house, or having showers.
LM did not have to enter his house before 6pm - his house was detached.
LM had ample time for that alibi story and all else - and what a story that was.
Completely disintegrated bit by bit.
From 5:05pm until 5:45pm - down to less than 15mins. - LM was not at home.
And we add on those sightings.
And we add on that missing knife and Jacket.
And every detail of that clothing right down to the red hair fastener and those DC shoes.
And of a boy who was the complete opposite of being effected in the slightest.
And we add on buying and viewing that dvd of that horrible depiction of that girl in the woods.https://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/You%27re_Sure_You_Will_Be_Comfortable%3FWe add on the incredulous tales of waiting around all that time, on an off chance of meeting in the first place.
Then we add on this "not coming out" and this "I thought you had grounded her" -
We add on the best way to kill someone, the skunting knives, the replacement, the parka.
And so much more -
And so much more - then we go to trial
They clearly aren’t aware that sadly real life murders don’t look like they do on TV
Oh, and then there is this. Turns out that Morag isn't one of Sandra's fake profiles after all. She does do her dirty work though. Trying to defend Sandra from the trolls by attacking the Jones family. What she says is both outrageous and disgusting quite frankly ↘️↘️↘️
“ Morag Ritchie”
@King bear
Can none of you Jones lot tell the truth? Oh no yous have all had to lie for the past 18 years!! And if I am a beast lover, I would have married into the Jones family. ONCE A BEAST ALWAYS A BEAST. GET USED TO IT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO TO THE SHOP AND GET YOURSELF SOME LUBE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IT ALOT SOONER THAN YOU THINK!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fiona Scott:
‘ Morag luv, it’s not personal but you keep accusing the Jonses when you know it’s not allowed. We are happy to approve your post as long as they are not accused. Xx
'accusing the Jonses when you know it’s not allowed' - and yet certain people do this all the time.
Yep
And Charlotte Anne Downy has defaced road signs - which is against the law in Scotland and could have potentially devastating consequences ie; cause a road traffic accident *&^^&
‘Edit - I done it but those signs are deceptively large! Luckily you can still make it out when driving past but it's much smaller than I anticipated.
I live in Kincardine. It's a commuter town as we have the Kincardine bridge so most people travelling from north to south will likely have to cross either the Kincardine bridge or the forth. We also get all the other flow traffic coming from Edinburgh.
And we have the police training college here just moments from my home 🤣 so guess what's getting peppered with stickers once they arrive lol.
I'm going to stick this on the bridge a bit later on. Just to note, nothing will be damaged or destroyed. Nothing will be spray painted. Simply putting up a sign that doesn't read "look who's turning 40" 🙄🤣
She’s even uploaded photographs of her ‘handiwork’
And further states in response to Tricia Anderson who thinks it’s ‘fantastic’
‘Tricia Anderson I was gonna do that but I would need to do that on like a sheet or something. This is just a small-ish sign going on the community garden thing right next to the bridge so it can be seen by people driving past.
When I started writing I realized no one would be able to catch the links cause they would be written so small but yeah it's so important to get the information out there x
*&^^&
Hopefully that too will get reported to the police
Where was he between 10:00pm (When he was seen walking outside past his neighbour house) and 10:41pm (When he was outside somewhere) when he received JuJ’s first test message ?
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-the-map-t609-s40.html
According to this time line and CM on the James English podcast, LM was at home. Mr. Frankland seems to be a bit of a nuisance.
Your link is very illuminating in several ways.
CM Sept 2010:
Well we are on our 4th set of legal teams now, we finally have legal teams sussed!!!!! We call the shots.....and we have all our boxes ticked!!!!
If we hadn't been so niave 6years ago we wouldn't be here now.....but 6 years on......we have learnt!!God have we learnt!!
Well heres hoping the SCCRC will read Lukes case and see it for what it is......a true miscarriage of justice.
No DNA belonging to Luke yet DNA belonging to others
witnesses changing their statements
Incorrect description of Jodis clothing
Incorrect times given by witnesses
inadaquate police investigation
disgusting crime scene management
"facts" taken at face value and not corroberated
.........and so the list goes on....................
The SCCRC will have a hell of a lot of reading to do!!!!!!!!!!
The SCCRC's first commitee meeting for Lukes case will be on the 18th October.2010. They hope to reach a decision by 31st May.
Well I think once they start reading Lukes case there will be a lot of ....." WHAT?"being asked!!!!!And certainly a lot of confusion on their part on how L&B could have been so incompetent it beggars belief!From the very first moment of them appearing at the scene, the first policeman left the body unattended then leaving the body uncovered......and that's just the first few hours..................
Until all of the necessary documents have been made available, the latter isn't possible, but moves are afoot!!!
It certainly is - Surely not the first time you have read that forum threads on the case though?
I would like to say - this way of writing certainly is illuminating - it almost "Beggars belief"
However - wishful thinking was it not? - 2014 before the refusal came back - certainly was a lot of reading? And not one thing has changed. From the refusal it has been one false claim after another of startling new evidence.
Of funds needed, of time running out - to now being told to be patient. It will be at least 5 - 10yrs more?
One thinks the "lot of confusion" - would be along the lines of trying to work around the multiple areas of obtuse reasoning? - And that report saying No, here it is (Mr Kellys statements) No, here they are (The phone logs) No, here it is (The ID of the mystery man) Quite an endless list - to show Ms Lean that nothing was buried, it was all disclosed to the defence at the time, as with the Crown - And Ms Lean has always known this as:
SL - 2010.
And those moves have been afoot for a long time. - Of how easy it has been to fool people, who do not take the time for one moment to think - This is exactly what it would be like if only a defence were allowed inside a court room. That ease at cherry picking all and everything they choose - that complete bias that is in itself empty of context and truth.
I read a comment earlier - from KB. "what do you suppose they were doing for 42 days at trial, playing marbles?"
Perhaps they meant - one has lost their marbles somehow, if they believe that LM was convicted on air.
Isn't it just !!
Yep
And Charlotte Anne Downy has defaced road signs - which is against the law in Scotland and could have potentially devastating consequences ie; cause a road traffic accident *&^^&
‘Edit - I done it but those signs are deceptively large! Luckily you can still make it out when driving past but it's much smaller than I anticipated.
I live in Kincardine. It's a commuter town as we have the Kincardine bridge so most people travelling from north to south will likely have to cross either the Kincardine bridge or the forth. We also get all the other flow traffic coming from Edinburgh.
And we have the police training college here just moments from my home 🤣 so guess what's getting peppered with stickers once they arrive lol.
I'm going to stick this on the bridge a bit later on. Just to note, nothing will be damaged or destroyed. Nothing will be spray painted. Simply putting up a sign that doesn't read "look who's turning 40" 🙄🤣
She’s even uploaded photographs of her ‘handiwork’
And further states in response to Tricia Anderson who thinks it’s ‘fantastic’
‘Tricia Anderson I was gonna do that but I would need to do that on like a sheet or something. This is just a small-ish sign going on the community garden thing right next to the bridge so it can be seen by people driving past.
When I started writing I realized no one would be able to catch the links cause they would be written so small but yeah it's so important to get the information out there x
*&^^&
Hopefully that too will get reported to the police
CM Sept 2010:
Well we are on our 4th set of legal teams now, we finally have legal teams sussed!!!!! We call the shots.....and we have all our boxes ticked!!!!
If we hadn't been so niave 6years ago we wouldn't be here now.....but 6 years on......we have learnt!!God have we learnt!!
Well heres hoping the SCCRC will read Lukes case and see it for what it is......a true miscarriage of justice.
No DNA belonging to Luke yet DNA belonging to others
witnesses changing their statements
Incorrect description of Jodis clothing
Incorrect times given by witnesses
inadaquate police investigation
disgusting crime scene management
"facts" taken at face value and not corroberated
.........and so the list goes on....................
The SCCRC will have a hell of a lot of reading to do!!!!!!!!!!
The SCCRC's first commitee meeting for Lukes case will be on the 18th October.2010. They hope to reach a decision by 31st May.
Well I think once they start reading Lukes case there will be a lot of ....." WHAT?"being asked!!!!!And certainly a lot of confusion on their part on how L&B could have been so incompetent it beggars belief!From the very first moment of them appearing at the scene, the first policeman left the body unattended then leaving the body uncovered......and that's just the first few hours..................
Of funds needed, of time running out - to now being told to be patient. It will be at least 5 - 10yrs more?
There are many more where that came from. Sandra’s work on previous mojs like Simon Hall for instance.
&^^&* &^^&* *&^^& *&^^&
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
↘️↘️↘️↘️↘️↘️ A previous case from Sandra’s past↘️↘️↘️↘️
Stephanie said she has never doubted her husband, whom she met when they worked at an electricity company in her home town of Ipswich.
“There was never a shadow of a doubt that they had the wrong guy,” she said.
“He didn't have it in him – he's too sensitive and kind.”
She added: “Of course people have judged me.
“But nobody understands what it's like unless they've been through it themselves.”
Stephanie explained that her relationship with Simon grew into love about five years ago.
“There was always a vibe between us at work,” she said.
“He was a good looking guy but was a bit younger than me and loved the girls!
“I’d always written to him in prison but then we started writing almost every day.
“We realised that the spark was real.”
She added: “At first he was very guarded. Going into prison had broken him and he had to put on a mask to pretend he was coping.
“But we fell in love through our letters and phone calls and he started opening up.”
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
Yep another scam which Sandra Lean chooses to not acknowledge and which makes what she’s attempting to do now all the more deplorable
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
My question is she a credible source?
Reading these forums and other places online:
There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before its claimed
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4715790.capel-st-mary-my-simon-is-innocent/
Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?
Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?
She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?
Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )
Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt
edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.
Well we are on our 4th set of legal teams now, we finally have legal teams sussed!!!!! We call the shots.....and we have all our boxes ticked!!!!
Well heres hoping the SCCRC will read Lukes case and see it for what it is......a true miscarriage of justice.
No DNA belonging to Luke yet DNA belonging to others
witnesses changing their statements
Incorrect description of Jodis clothing
Incorrect times given by witnesses
inadaquate police investigation
disgusting crime scene management
"facts" taken at face value and not corroberated
Your link is very illuminating in several ways.I don't know why you find my quote illuminating. Nothing I've said is a secret. It's all in the public domain. I just had to look for it. Up to you if you want to read anything else into it.
I thought he had made that plain somewhere on this forum.
I fail to understand the snide comments. Just terribly rude, or even close to breaking forum rules.
I don't think it is in the slightest unless you didn't know that at one time John had given Mitchell the benefit of the doubt and thought there might have been a miscarriage of justice and was keen to investigate that. I thought he had made that plain somewhere on this forum.Yes he has. It was somewhere on this forum someone said he was once helping with Mitchell's case and how he'd changed his mind. Not only that, John answers and confirms it.
Bear in mind he was a cop whose training enables him work from the evidence.
His obvious interest in possible MOJs and his in depth study brought him into close contact with the main protagonists in the Mitchell case.
Which I think allows him the first hand knowledge to make very informed judgements having started on a different side of the fence from where he is in now.
I fail to understand the snide comments. Just terribly rude, or even close to breaking forum rules.
"facts" taken at face value and not corroberated’
Like the moped bing parked at the V in the wall
I don’t know if Corinne Mitchell is in denial or on some subconscious level knows Luke killed Jodi
What I do know is she ties herself in knots each time she opens her mouth; especially with her contradictions and ‘story telling’ which for me I view as very similar to Simon Hall’s mother Lynne.
Quote"facts" taken at face value and not corroberated
Where to start?
What we will never know is what he said to his mother. That made her believe it was not him?
It's a puzzler?
And onto a parent covering for something, of all the horror it entailed. - We just do not know - only that the evidence tells us that this did happen. - The reasons, a motive and all else, remain a mystery.
It's a puzzler?
And to revert back to Jigsawman here - of those claims of a family taking a certain course of action that came to a point they could not retract from, of it being too late - Is this what happened with the Mitchells? Did CM believe whatever her son had told her, helped to cover for fear of being implicated?
Sandra Lean gave me the impression Corinne Mitchell was a drinker ?
We know she stopped off on her way home to buy alcohol on the 30th June 2003
And Jodi apparently told her friend Corinne also smoked a lot of cannabis ?
Why?
Did Corinne have addictions?
And if so what triggered these possible addictions?
And of that time from the murder. Of this friendship taken place. Of the time moving on when LM thought there would be no arrest. Is it from these points that CM and Ms Lean were busy working out who killed Jodi Jones? - CM believing that perhaps Luke had been telling the truth. That the help she gave him was justified. Of Ms Lean working along with this. Is this where those feeders began? Of the duo, of the Jones family. of the mystery man? - Of taking evidence to scrapyards and so forth. Fed primarily from the Mitchells, from what they had actually done? From a mind made up, before LM's arrest. And from that point doing exactly what Faithlilly highlighted - of looking for criminality in everything.
Not sure about addiction, as such, but if CM liked a drink and a smoke, that could explain her relaxed approach to LM's Herculean cannabis use.
Wonder is SM was into the wacky as well.
To Ms Lean becoming POA - to having those defence papers placed in her hands - And that complete tunnel vision. Of completely 'air brushing over' - every part of that which came from the Mitchells. To scouring those statements ,
To building up their own case, to raising those questions. - They had already made up their mind, before LM was arrested in 2004, as to who they thought killed Jodi Jones - And every single thing that has happened, of all that was gotten hold of - was already tainted to the max. It was tainted to the max by that very person - who had gotten his mother to believe him, on his arrival home that day. - It was set and controlled from the very beginning, by LM.
And this is where I was coming from, when I was accused of 'picking on Ms Lean' - When I made claim to a woman, who from the moment she became entailed with the Mitchells has set out - IMO, and others - to destroy the Jones family. That with the aid of the Mitchells one had already tried and convicted them. And it has been the very theme that has been fed, as early as 2005, that I know of. - From Jigsawman and goodness knows who else. Onto the books, the documentaries - but mostly in these very forums. And we know this is is true - For every single conversation to be had - directly as a result of these books and so forth - Is primarily, a who done it - which one of this girls family killed their sister/daughter. - Truth and Justice? - Truth be damned, revenge perhaps - by way of these puppets - for LM. - The person who is controlling all of it.
Not sure about addiction, as such, but if CM liked a drink and a smoke, that could explain her relaxed approach to LM's Herculean cannabis use.
Wonder is SM was into the wacky as well.
We don’t know if she doesn’t ‘believe’ it’s not him
Sandra Lean gave me the impression Corinne Mitchell was a drinker ?
We know she stopped off on her way home to buy alcohol on the 30th June 2003
And Jodi apparently told her friend Corinne also smoked a lot of cannabis ?
Why?
Did Corinne have addictions?
And if so what triggered these possible addictions?
If she really did burn a blood stained parka jacket in her log burner, of course she would have realised it was him------IF she did that.
Text message from Corrine to Luke Mitchell - 1st July 12.29am
"You will tell me right now what is wrong. I'm on my way up to find you."
I've no idea whether or not Corinne drank or smoked, but I would imagine having one's son convicted of murder, whether guilty or not, would drive a lot of people to drink/smoke!
I've no idea whether or not Corinne drank or smoked, but I would imagine having one's son convicted of murder, whether guilty or not, would drive a lot of people to drink/smoke!
Sandra once again lying to all her followers via her live video
Jane Hamilton WAS threatened
Sandra Lean claiming she wasn’t *&^^&
Fiona Scott now being bullied and targeted for daring to ask a question *&^^&
MT: ‘ANNOUNCEMENT
Parliament is booked for 17th July 2021. 12.30 to 15.30. Let's spread the word. We are no longer waiting on you Sandra Lean. It's delay after delay.
SEE YOU ALL THERE. LETS GET LUKES VOICE HEARD.
CS: ‘Your comment is a bit harsh towards Sandra Lean in my opinion, she is busy herself not only as a working professional but as a mother.... if she could do things faster I’m sure she would to be fair
MT: ‘Unfair. She has just slated this group. She's hiding the fact one off the official groups admins was charged with threatening to burn Jane Hamilton to death. Cant support a group like that.
Completely in line with Ms Lean - poppycock. When anyone makes this type of ridiculous claim then it instantly discredits everything else that is said.
Yet Lolly claims,
“We merely delight in seeing the truth told and justice served”
more ‘poppycock’ *&^^&
The police doctor didn't, for example, say his hair was dirty, but oddly smelled freshly washed (as the forensic scientist said about Jodi's t-shirt
Morag Richie
‘If the family had told the truth from day 1 then they wouldn’t have to be seeing this now. Do they not want justice for Jodi?? Funny how they run to the red rags with all their crap, and worse than that, the desperate reporters do a story on it. The truth is just around the corner now though, and karma will make sure, that the right ones go down, and I will be amongst the many others to laugh in their faces, after what that family have covered up, and the police. Why should Luke Mitchell suffer, he done nothing…
*&^^&
CRM is clearly deluded
‘....I’ve never used her picture personally but justice for Luke is justice for Jodi. Maybe if Luke’s picture hadn’t been posted all over rags like this the Jury may have returned a different verdict. People think the ones fighting for justice for Luke are against Jodi. They couldn’t be more wrong. Two families lost their bairns that day and Jodi should never be forgotten about.
No they didn’t!
CRM
‘.... if the family believe that they should demand an independent review of all evidence gathered by the police but not used by the prosecution and put this to bed once and for all. Jodi should be remembered in this every single day. Btw I’ve just found out that none of these stickers with Jodis face have been put up in Midlothian only ones with Luke’s photo.
*&^^& *&^^&
Jodie McKeown
‘Her mother should be ashamed of herself! Who tells lies when their daughter has been murdered
*&^^& *&^^&
Sarah Spence
‘Jodie Mckeown exactly any mother would have the whole community upturned including the whole family......
Jodie McKeown
‘Sarah Spence the thing that actually gets me is ...why did she even report her missing ?? A mean she was known to be out till late hours in the morning,she was known not to be where she was ment to on several occasions,and the family instantly instructed Luke to meet them very near where she was found ! Why was this time different
Sarah Spence
‘Jodie Mckeown exactly this was also one of my thots, what made that night so diffirent for her family to report her missing?
And the fact folk have taken at face value that it was Jodie who txt Luke from her mum's fone apparently to make arrangements to meet luke, it was a txt anyone could have sent that , no one actually spoke to Jodie after school apart from her own family.x
Jodie Mckeown not forgetting the knife attack in the Jones home by a family member, 2 weeks b4 her death, which lead to her mum being injured.... I Dnt think Jodie left the house that day either....but everyone has taken thos woods were her place of death....I'm.no so sure it was..and non of the family' homes were forensicaly examined 🤷 that in itself is crazy police work...
Jodie McKeown
‘Sarah Spence if that was her place of death it would have been a bloodbath! A still believe the bike was against the wall because the bike took her there
John Lapsley
‘That family and their cronies are as guilty as the McCanns if you ask me. Something just doesn't add up in both cases. Youd think if any doubt they'd want jodies real killer caught. But no. Alarm bells ring.
#freelukemitchel
Appalling !
And one has to wonder where these people get their information from to come up with such nonsense. Who is drip feeding them? Well we all know who. Not using her real name of course, once this nonsense has been picked up, it is then spread around with some arms and legs added, and on que, we have the likes of Sarah & Jodie continuing to spread this nonsense, and of course adding their own twist to things.
Non of this will help Luke in the slightest, it will only set him back years (not that i think he will ever get out with-in the next 15 years anyway)
Morag Richie
‘If the family had told the truth from day 1 then they wouldn’t have to be seeing this now. Do they not want justice for Jodi?? Funny how they run to the red rags with all their crap, and worse than that, the desperate reporters do a story on it. The truth is just around the corner now though, and karma will make sure, that the right ones go down, and I will be amongst the many others to laugh in their faces, after what that family have covered up, and the police. Why should Luke Mitchell suffer, he done nothing…
*&^^&
EM - a Bamber supporter - has quoted MDB of all people 🙄
‘I find myself quoting the wonderful Michelle Diskin Bates time and again but it is very appropriate here: “Justice is never served by the conviction of the innocent” ….not that these types of so called ‘journalists’ are bothered by that, or getting their facts wrong. The lack of personal pride in doing a thoroughly researched a factually accurate report from these people never ceases to amaze me!’
In response to Sandra Lean ⬇️
‘An open message to the Daily Record:
You claim that misinformation and false claims of innocence are being disseminated in the campaign to have Luke Mitchell's conviction re-examined. Why? We are telling the truth - you are the source of so much misinformation and false claims and today's article proves it.
The stickers to which you refer were not "plastered all over Midlothian" - they are nowhere near Midlothian. You claim that using Jodi's image is "insensitive," yet you use the same image to peddle your lies.
Your article says, "The time has come for Jodi’s family to be respected and for this shameless attempt at rewriting history to stop."
You are absolutely correct - YOU must stop publishing misinformation, half truths and outright lies (like the one in today's article) - once again, for absolute clarity, there are no stickers bearing images of Jodi anywhere in Midlothian. Trawling social media posts for "sensationalist" snippets is not journalism, it's shameful opportunism.
If you are correct about the safety of this conviction, then you should be welcoming an independent review to prove it (and to prove what you say about the campaign and campaigners), rather than trying to shut down those who question it and, in turn, question whether true justice has ever been had for Jodi.
Respect? Let the truth be known so that Jodi can rest in peace and her family can have the closure this shameful witch hunt, masquerading as "justice," has kept from them for all these years.
Danielle Barclay claims,
‘Scotland's biggest miscarriage of Justice
The truth is out and the conviction not safe.
Justice is coming now 18 years later it's not going away
*&^^&
And I guarantee she won’t have seen Luke Mitchell’s police witness statements in full nor the SCCRC’s statement of reasons 🙄
GF states,
‘...buy a book it’s all there in black and white
Oh no it isn’t
After today’s statement the sticker culprit is bragging about going out to repeat this deplorable behaviour.
Claire Robertson me too! As soon as Luke’s stickers come, he’ll be out to join her 😍
And we can go round town too xxx
And one has to wonder where these people get their information from to come up with such nonsense. Who is drip feeding them? Well we all know who. Not using her real name of course, once this nonsense has been picked up, it is then spread around with some arms and legs added, and on que, we have the likes of Sarah & Jodie continuing to spread this nonsense, and of course adding their own twist to things.
Non of this will help Luke in the slightest, it will only set him back years (not that i think he will ever get out with-in the next 15 years anyway)
It's always everyone else's fault. It's never LM's fault. They don't come across as though they want justice for anyone at all. I looked into all of this with an open mind and now all I see is a campaign so badly damaged by lies and some clearly damaged people that it would take a miracle to drag this campaign out of the mud. The lack of proof to back up Dr. Lean's claims (never in the public domain, ) coupled with the obvious avoidance of questions that don't suit, leaves me believing LM is guilty because no one has been able to convince me otherwise. I have asked questions on lives and been ignored. Bad campaign tactics I think.
Sandra Lean
‘An interesting article - I contacted the lady involved, as she'd tweeted that Luke's case was one she and her team were going to be looking at - she replied very quickly, saying they're working on some other cases at the minute, but will be in touch>
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40
It's always everyone else's fault. It's never LM's fault. They don't come across as though they want justice for anyone at all. I looked into all of this with an open mind and now all I see is a campaign so badly damaged by lies and some clearly damaged people that it would take a miracle to drag this campaign out of the mud. The lack of proof to back up Dr. Lean's claims (never in the public domain, ) coupled with the obvious avoidance of questions that don't suit, leaves me believing LM is guilty because no one has been able to convince me otherwise. I have asked questions on lives and been ignored. Bad campaign tactics I think.
Sharon Indy Sunshine - Updated Group Description Tue 14.04
“ This is a group fighting for an independent review inquiry to end the speculation for Jodi Jones and Luke Mitchell, not a crime solving group!”
I wonder what prompted this?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodie-jones-family-slam-stickers-24318782
Sharon Indy Sunshine - Updated Group Description Tue 14.04
“ This is a group fighting for an independent review inquiry to end the speculation for Jodi Jones and Luke Mitchell, not a crime solving group!”
I wonder what prompted this?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodie-jones-family-slam-stickers-24318782
And a common theme in innocence fraud cases
And it is innocence fraud - within this cult: Those half truths and misinformation that is the backbone of those teachings now.
It is a cult - plain and simple. Actions speak louder than any words. A doctrine. It is controlled. Those who do not believe are branded. Branded as being afraid of the truth - The truth according to Ms Lean? That repetitive time old bleat of - "what are people afraid of, why are they afraid of the truth, if they have nothing to fear, to hide then the truth should not matter" - To the present day of this independent review. That message to the "willfully ignorant" - Nonsense. People are not afraid of anything. This is Ms Lean projection in some fantasy world one appears to live in. It is not the truth, it is opinion and assumption based on half truths. Much of what Ms Lean is in effect blind to. For she has never held everything in her hands. Stemming from 2003.
And the trolls, those extraordinary lengths had - to invade, to shove that doctrine heavily upon others. Of Indy Sunshine - keep talking, in the shops - "go tell it on the mountain, over the hills and everywhere"
g.
And of Unicorn Princess and the vlog you put up - Her troubled times of late with social media. The disputes, the pushing of views into others faces, that force used in an attempt to push self opinion on to others - I sat back and pondered over this, and of her mother, of the "willfully ignorant" - Of her daughters mental health issues just now. Of having to see her therapist again, that first time in a long time. Of her struggle with social media and You Tube. Of stepping down for several months due to the pain and torment she was suffering from this. - and it left me wondering if her mother was high up on the list of her personal anguish? And praise for this daughter, who was able to face those demons. To join her vlog again, to speak out on mental health awareness. To show her followers that it is ok to be sad, to be down, to be angry and upset. - which is important, to help others who suffer the same.
And of Jane Hamilton - and the irony yet again of Ms Leans open invitation to her - of these "half truths, misinformation and downright lies" - The irony in that statement yet again. From the giver?, the spreader?, the cult leader? - The recruits, to this cultish "we are the way, the truth and the light" - It is time to stop hiding behind these half truths is it not? to come out of that safety net of disclosure in Scottish law - To release those statements from the Mitchells, those interviews - they belong to them. It should not thwart any miniscule chance of future possible court proceedings - They after all, are the truth. Which is steadfast - it does not change, and should not need changed, altered molded to fit with others. To release that report in full from the SCCRC, to release the submission put in. - both of which yet again, belong to LM. It is his case. He can sign the waivers to have these released. - To let everyone see.
And of Unicorn Princess and the vlog you put up - Her troubled times of late with social media. The disputes, the pushing of views into others faces, that force used in an attempt to push self opinion on to others - I sat back and pondered over this, and of her mother, of the "willfully ignorant" - Of her daughters mental health issues just now. Of having to see her therapist again, that first time in a long time. Of her struggle with social media and You Tube. Of stepping down for several months due to the pain and torment she was suffering from this. - and it left me wondering if her mother was high up on the list of her personal anguish? And praise for this daughter, who was able to face those demons. To join her vlog again, to speak out on mental health awareness. To show her followers that it is ok to be sad, to be down, to be angry and upset. - which is important, to help others who suffer the same.
There was only one person in all of this, from the off, that could not be eliminated and that person is LM. - And of the person whom swept him completely under the carpet - from the moment that friendship began in 2003. - That closed mind to all and every possibility - the blind faith she put in him to have that access, was it not?
When I first heard about this campaign I assumed it had the backing of poor Jodi's family until I realised differently. The way Jodi's family have been treated and blamed is disgusting and because it's disgusting it mostly seems to attract certain people. The proof of them is all over social media. I take my hat off to Jodi's family for managing to still remain silent and I do not believe their silence has anything to do with guilt.
We have been approached many times to give insight into the kind of person Jodi was.
To make her a person, rather than a victim, I have, and will always be reluctant to do this.
Foremostly, because of Jodi - she would not like the notoriety her death has brought.
However, today only, I will give a little of how Jodi was.
She fought hard and long to overcome the loss of her dad. Even through this she always had thought and time for others.
She often spoke many words of wisdom to me, thus my little mentor Jodi will live always in all of us. She remains my strength.
She would (and will) be mortified by the use of her diaries by the defence.
These were private and should have remained so.
She had come to a point in her life of getting through her low self-esteem and was happy in having her first boyfriend.
On this I will say no more but that there can never be warnings of this type of evil.
On the use of cannabis there is no detriment to the clever and wise person she was.
Many teenagers wise and clever go through these phases, our only pain is that we never got to see Jodi grow and develop further into the person she was.
Jodi was no different from most people and classified all people as individuals.
Now hopefully we can be left, as Jodi would want, to deal naturally with our loss.
With these open ended assumptions by way of saying "why did two young girls want to stay away from their mother?"
This latest bleat that if the Jones family have problems with using Jodi's picture then this person would like to know why? - Really. And this person feels she has any right to anything, by way of demands of Jodi's family- whilst hanging them out to dry?
These people genuinely sadden me. It seems there really is no level too low.
I wonder how ‘this person’ would feel if a photograph of her children was reproduced - because she’s put it in the public domain and someone said, ‘The image of **** in the sticker is obviously not mine but has been available on social media for many years’
How would they feel if a stranger did this with slogans printed over the photograph calling for justice for the child?
And how would they feel if someone stated,
“My street was looking a bit plain so I decorated it with a call to Justice” which included a photo of HER child?
I would be interested to know why she really felt entitled to do what she did with [Name removed]’s photograph and to learn more about her understanding of ‘boundaries’ and respect
Has ‘this person’ generally been taken in by a book written by a women who refers to herself as a ‘criminologist’ and a biased TV show produced for entertainment and will she have anything more to say about her actions or will she continue to behave like she has and carry on regardless?
This women - Sharon Indy Sunshine - along with her lies also has no respect whatsoever for [Name removed]’s or her family regardless of what she might tell herself or anyone who will listen
She’s posts,
“What are your favourite Luke Mitchell hashtags?” along with an image of a cartoon Alsatian with the words,
‘Mia found her’ *&^^&
Jodi is reduced to a nameless female *&^^&
As I’ve stated before - the contempt of this ‘slogan’ is telling
Is it a coincidence Danielle Barclay has very recently chosen to post photographs of ‘Mia found her’ posters on one of the Facebook groups and is she also lacking the self awareness to recognise the contempt this message displays regarding Jodi?
Is it a coincidence Danielle Barclay has very recently chosen to post photographs of ‘Mia found her’ posters on one of the Facebook groups and is she also lacking the self awareness to recognise the contempt this message displays regarding Jodi?
She's not the only one showing a complete lack of respect for Jodi Jones. Scottish Bike Squad AKA The Seer AKA Janine did it, very recently posted this video. The captions are horrendous as are most of his posts.
https://youtu.be/0PJK97VGnKc
Is he a misogynist?He seems to dislike everyone equally.
He seems to dislike everyone equally.
I don't know who Danielle Barclay is but I'll search for her now. I agree that the idea of, justice for Jodi, being Sandra Lean's or anyone else's place outside of poor Jodi's family is an overstep at best.
George Fergie
‘Guys can I just say am shocked at some of the messages am receiving regarding Sandra and the other group refusing to get on board with the protest that’s been set up for Edinburgh, I find this really petty, it’s not about individual people or groups it’s about Luke and corrine , I made this protest all legal , foned all the correct ppl and was told it’s perfectly legal to do so, I made a new tag as geo protest so no group alone was involved in setting it up, I done it all on my own
Corrine herself is over the moon I’ve done this and I really tried to keep it away from my group so as not to upset anyone, regardless of any of this we’ve loads of support and the legal council authorised protest will go ahead, a just hope in the time from now to then some people think long and hard that this is for Luke
George Fergie
‘Guys can I just say am shocked at some of the messages am receiving regarding Sandra and the other group refusing to get on board with the protest that’s been set up for Edinburgh, I find this really petty, it’s not about individual people or groups it’s about Luke and corrine , I made this protest all legal , foned all the correct ppl and was told it’s perfectly legal to do so, I made a new tag as geo protest so no group alone was involved in setting it up, I done it all on my own
Corrine herself is over the moon I’ve done this and I really tried to keep it away from my group so as not to upset anyone, regardless of any of this we’ve loads of support and the legal council authorised protest will go ahead, a just hope in the time from now to then some people think long and hard that this is for Luke
No mention of Jodi or her mother who is a hero in my eyes. No mention of any of Jodi's family. All about the Mitchells. Just like the day of poor Jodi's funeral. All about the Mitchell's. Just like SL. That wee girl hardly gets a mention on updates unless it's to slate Jodi and her family. Justice for Jodi Jones? I say, BS.
George Fergie
‘Guys can I just say am shocked at some of the messages am receiving regarding Sandra and the other group refusing to get on board with the protest that’s been set up for Edinburgh, I find this really petty, it’s not about individual people or groups it’s about Luke and corrine , I made this protest all legal , foned all the correct ppl and was told it’s perfectly legal to do so, I made a new tag as geo protest so no group alone was involved in setting it up, I done it all on my own
Corrine herself is over the moon I’ve done this and I really tried to keep it away from my group so as not to upset anyone, regardless of any of this we’ve loads of support and the legal council authorised protest will go ahead, a just hope in the time from now to then some people think long and hard that this is for Luke
No mention of Jodi or her mother who is a hero in my eyes. No mention of any of Jodi's family. All about the Mitchells. Just like the day of poor Jodi's funeral. All about the Mitchell's. Just like SL. That wee girl hardly gets a mention on updates unless it's to slate Jodi and her family. Justice for Jodi Jones? I say, BS.
Ellen Barclay (Presumably mother of Danielle Barclay?)
‘27th April
‘as mother of three. grown up kids do think I'd be walking out court smiling.id be at police station asking . why luke Mitchell. protests would outside .Dalkeith police station corrupted police .no proof that luke Mitchell had anything do with loss his jodi Jones. Dalkeith police there's something elsa going on.left child body coz twit couldn't get over wall know there's another way get to child body .why has they got away with covering for someone thay must know Dalkeith why is people no talking out .I'd be round few doors asking if know anything. why twits still working Dalkeith police fitted up luke Mitchell.
*&^^&
Maybe Ellen Barclay will explain why she chooses to disrespect JuJ’s - the mother of Jodi - a murder victim ?
*&^^&
This families actions are appalling !
JuJ’s was clearly a broken women - as were Jodi’s siblings - and others
There has been a photograph of JuJ’s posted to the LM propaganda groups where she’s coming out of Court
And some of these people appear to think these photographs were taken around the time of Luke Mitchell’s murder trial
They were not
JuJ’s had short hair around this time
Danielle Barclay
‘Walking from High Court to Parliment and finished off at Arthur's seat with MiaFoundHer banner
Danielle Barclay refers to herself as a ‘truth warrior’
Maybe Ellen Barclay will explain why she chooses to disrespect JuJ’s - the mother of Jodi - a murder victim ?
*&^^&
This families actions are appalling !
Of course it’s BS
This is all about a sadistic killer - who was 14 years old (Almost 15) when he committed his first murder
and Sandra Lean - who in my firm view is a charlatan/fraud
Maybe someone will point out to this ‘truth warrior’ she could be held in contempt of court for her recent tweets re LLWho is LL please?
Who is LL please?
Lucy Letby
Lucy LetbyTried to modify it. Maybe I'll be luckier next time.
Thanks.
Tried to modify it. Maybe I'll be luckier next time.
Hi rulesapplyThank you. Has this worked? 😁
- just make sure you type replies after the at the end of the post you're replying to - that will do it. B
Hi rulesapply👍
- just make sure you type replies after the at the end of the post you're replying to - that will do it. B
Maybe Ellen Barclay will explain why she chooses to disrespect JuJ’s - the mother of Jodi - a murder victim ?
*&^^&
This families actions are appalling !
JuJ’s was clearly a broken women - as were Jodi’s siblings - and others affected by her murder
There has been a photograph of JuJ’s posted to the LM propaganda groups where she’s coming out of Court
And some of these people appear to think these photographs were taken around the time of Luke Mitchell’s murder trial
They were not
JuJ’s had short hair around this time
Danielle Barclay refers to herself as a ‘truth warrior’ and states ‘Studied Psychology and Sociology’I understand they have the wrong end of the stick but even if what she is saying is true, who could blame Judith Jones for looking satisfied that her daughter's killer is going to stay in prison for a very long time? I don't blame her. I call that, some kind of justice and she can smile till the End of Days as far as I'm concerned. She's one of the very.few people who deserve a voice.
Maybe then she can explain why her mother has chosen to publicly mock and disrespect JuJ’s and why - as a family - they choose to display publicly their contempt for a murder victim who I suspect they never met or knew ?
And why choose to attempt to ghost Jodi Jones 🌻
*&^^&
And in response Gordon Graham (From this & the JB forum and the now defunct WAP site) states,
‘It’s been like this for years!!’
I wonder if he’ll ever realise ‘why’ it’s been like this for years?
Surely he’s now aware of innocence fraud? But has he ever bothered to ask Sandra Lean, what lessons - if any - she’s learned from cases & campaigns like killers Adrian Prout and Simon Hall?
I asked her live on air but she never answers. Not surprised really because she can't answer. She has a wholly damaged reputation as an advocate for convicted killers given what has happened. One would think Sandra Lean would be embarrassed by her poor decision making and go away but sadly some never learn. Getting it wrong once is bad enough but several times is unforgivable.
I asked her live on air but she never answers. Not surprised really because she can't answer. She has a wholly damaged reputation as an advocate for convicted killers given what has happened. One would think Sandra Lean would be embarrassed by her poor decision making and go away but sadly some never learn. Getting it wrong once is bad enough but several times is unforgivable.
I asked her live on air but she never answers. Not surprised really because she can't answer. She has a wholly damaged reputation as an advocate for convicted killers given what has happened. One would think Sandra Lean would be embarrassed by her poor decision making and go away but sadly some never learn. Getting it wrong once is bad enough but several times is unforgivable.
Have you listened to her ‘Team catch up’ video?
Lianna and Stephanie Nicol appear to me to have been taken in - not only by the ‘credibility fallacy’ but also the innocence fraud of others - including Damian Echols/WM3
Are these people even aware of Exhibit 500 http://callahan.mysite.com/wm3/img/exh500.html
Lianna and Stephanie (Nicol) appear to have known of Sandra Lean since the TV show - all of what - 3 months or so 🙄
And it is innocence fraud - within this cult:
Sandra Lean
author and researcher
2003 – Present (14 years)
"For ten years, I have researched and written about cases of wrongful conviction and factual innocence. I have tried to assist a number of people over the years, and campaign, write articles, etc, wherever I am able to help. I obtained a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law in 2010, via Criminal Law Training and Strathclyde University.
I completed a PhD in 2012, the thesis title being "Hidden in Plain View," which studied the factors which lead to wrongful convictions, and why ordinary people are completely unaware of these factors.
I am currently writing two further books, as follow-ups to my first book, "No Smoke, the Shocking Truth about British Justice" which was published by Checkpoint Press, Ireland in 2008.
In my "other life," I specialise in helping people with issues of low self esteem, confidence, and the effects of bullying.
Beginning with the murder of Jodi Jones in 2003, and the subsequent conviction of her boyfriend Luke Mitchell in 2005, I have studied and written about wrongful convictions of factualy innocent individuals in the UK ever since. I currently support a number of campaigns fighting injustice
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383389.html#msg383389
And those who don’t agree with the cult like leader aren’t welcome into the inner circle https://psychcentral.com/blog/narcissism-decoded/2017/03/14-ways-narcissists-can-be-like-cult-leaders#1
Dr Sandra Lean
author and researcher The University of Stirling
About
My goal is to help share stories of people who have suffered injustice and in so doing, to alert an unsuspecting public that the same could happen to any one of them.
Since 2003, I have researched and written about cases of wrongful conviction and factual innocence. I have tried to assist a number of people over the years and campaign, write articles, etc, wherever I am able to help. Following the completion of my Honours degree in Social Sciences (Psychology and Sociology) in 2000, I obtained a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law in 2010, via Criminal Law Training and Strathclyde University.
I completed a PhD in 2012, (the thesis title being "Hidden in Plain View,") which studied the factors which lead to wrongful convictions and why ordinary people are completely unaware of these factors.
My first book, "No Smoke, the Shocking Truth about British Justice," was published by Checkpoint Press, Ireland in 2008. My second book, "Innocents Betrayed" was published by NGU Books in 2018 and I am currently working on a third.
I am also a fully qualified Clinical Hypnotherapist and Hypno-analyst, with a long term interest in alternative healthcare and Personal Development.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandra-lean-4b499a43
Yet more LinkedIn changes and yet another website removed ➡️ http://enabledbynature.com/ 🙄
Stephen T Manning stated (https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-innocent-prisoner-stephen-manning)
‘Hi Folks - as the publisher of Ms Sandra Lean's book - 'No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice' - I thought I should help clarify a couple of points of possible misinformation here.
I wish to make it clear that I do not wish to cause any offence, nor am I qualified to comment on the intricacies of any of the seven cases covered in Ms Lean's book, but I do think the following facts need to be stated for the record.
Firstly, 'No Smoke' (2nd edition) was published by CheckPoint Press under our 'Traditional Contract' terms. This means that the manuscript qualified for publication 'on merit' [for content, theme, and quality of writing]. Ms Lean did NOT pay us anything towards the costs of publication. Therefore, her book cannot be described as either 'self-published' or 'vanity publishing'. (Please see this link for a sample 'look inside' of the book, and judge the quality for yourself).
http://checkpointpress.com/NS28pageSample.pdf
Secondly, although admittedly not our current bestseller, 'No Smoke' not only continues to sell in steady numbers, but has also received many glowing reviews from respectable sources. (Please see link below for some examples).
http://checkpointpress.com/NSNewTitleIn ... eviews.pdf
Thirdly, and given the central theme of 'No Smoke' is to expose the many flaws and weaknesses in the British Justice System, I believe it is somewhat inappropriate to target Ms Lean or her work based on anyone's own (arguably subjective) opinion of any specific case covered in the book. Ms Lean has invested literally years of her life, unpaid, in direct support of many of the victims of these miscarriages of justice, and for that I believe she deserves our respect and admiration.
Whatever one's views of any specific case covered in the book, the overall message of 'No Smoke' is that many innocent people fall afoul of a highly dysfunctional justice system. Those who have been brought together by such calamities in their own lives, should surely be working together in this cause - and not finding reasons to criticise other activists? I personally believe that 'No Smoke' is a courageous and insightful piece of research that does much to raise general awareness amongst the public - and gives specific support to the seven cases covered in the book.
Ms Lean has made this her life's work, and is currently working on a doctorate in the area of criminal justice, after gaining which, she will surely be a more powerful advocate for reform. May I respectfully suggest therefore, that it is our support and gratitude we need to be expressing to her - not unhelpful criticisms.
Thank you for allowing me to post this comment here.
I sincerely hope those who have been betrayed by the justice system eventually find some peace in their endeavours..
Kind regards to all
Stephen
CheckPoint Press
'Books With Something To Say'
Corrine Mitchell
to stephen@checkpoint press
WOW! on behalf of Sandra Lean, myself (Luke Mitchells mum) and the rest of the people she has helped with her book......a big THANK YOU xx
........maybe that will make a couple of certain people re~think their comments!!!!!
One author, Sandra Lean, has received plenty of feedback from readers, but she says Franklin has refused to pay royalties or to provide accounts or sales figures. The authors are asking the court to order printers Lightning Source to open up their books and thus reveal what royalties they are owed.
The Eye contacted Diggory Press and asked: why will you not give authors detailed sales figures or accounts? Why will you not remove authors' books from your website when they ask? Have you withheld any royalties owed? Why have you been so difficult to contact/failed to reply to correspondence? Diggory Press failed to reply to this correspondence either and answer came there none...
More here https://podpeep.blogspot.com/2007/12/news-diggory-veinglory.html#.YCJhvBrfWhB
Stephanie Nicol
‘She can’t argue with the fact Jodi has never had Justice with what has come of all of this.
Regardless of opinion of Luke’s innocence, this case should’ve been watertight to put somebody in prison and put an end to the heartache of Jodi’s death and the fact that it isn’t (enough for there to be a campaign) shows there is still Justice to be done.
To say it’s “lies, mis-truths” etc is easy. To prove it is something she seemingly can’t do (so far)
If everything Sandra and the other experts involved within the case have said was lies, she would’ve been sued long ago her book would never have been published (or quickly taken off sale) and the documentaries wouldn’t have happened. An appeal is not a retrial. I’ve read the appeals papers, it is not a re-examination of evidence. It’s an examination on what influence any new evidence (evidence which was not available or known of at time of trial) or procedure failure may have had on the Jury’s decision.
Appeal court Judges are not Juries. They don’t get to find somebody Not Guilty based on evidence given at the trial. They can only work within the means they have if there is significant evidence to show that if the Jury was to have been able to take into consideration vital new evidence, there probably would’ve been a different outcome.
I recommend anybody to read the Appeal papers. It’s fascinating (and scary) to discover the actual process of an Appeal.
No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.
‘No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice, by Sandra Lean is published by Diggory Press, Exposure Publishing
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/claiming-killer-innocent-part-search-truth-2453025
’Diggory did what?’
https://www.diggorypress.com/diggory-did-what
I asked her live on air but she never answers. Not surprised really because she can't answer. She has a wholly damaged reputation as an advocate for convicted killers given what has happened.
I understand they have the wrong end of the stick but even if what she is saying is true, who could blame Judith Jones for looking satisfied that her daughter's killer is going to stay in prison for a very long time? I don't blame her. I call that, some kind of justice and she can smile till the End of Days as far as I'm concerned. She's one of the very.few people who deserve a voice.
AE: ‘So guys, quite confused of the today's update. What was the update? Am I missing something despite Luke's new legal team and slating Fiona 🤔
Jeez. Now where have I heard those words before.
I think one is probably correct - the mere fact that no name of family member has been given, should be enough to tell people that this has not come directly from Jodi's immediate family. The point made however is bang on the money.
This campaigner - whom not once from all I have read, has ever contacted any member of this girls family. She claims to, under this complete false premise to have written "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". She has since time began on this, and I will say it again, because it is stark in its reality - had some personal beef around why, in her opinion - this girls family were not given the same treatment by the police and media - as the Mitchell family. That while in one hand, claims the treatment of the Mitchell family was wrong, that in her opinion there was a clear case of double standards - and the hypocrisy, yet again of going about things in such a way - that the results, from the few brain cells out there, are doing exactly what it says on her tin of a book - by giving this girls family the treatment, these people feel they deserve. - In what is without a shadow of a doubt - double standards.
This back up bleat of falseness - Of not wanting the same to happen to others as happened to the Mitchells is a Joke. There is clearly a vendetta of sorts. And it is more than fair to say - that the books which led into the documentaries, podcasts and so forth - are the direct cause of this. And it is clearly by way of "half truths. misinformation and downright lies" - that clear hypocrisy and contradiction in attempting to call Jane Hamilton out for this. - And how does Ms Lean know, that not one single picture/poster has been put up anywhere in Midlothian, Edinburgh is classed as Midlothian, is it not? - furthermore. this clear divide, this split by these campaigners, these fall outs - Ms Lean can not make a statement, that she can not know to be fact. _ She is in control of nothing. - This divide of CM backing some whilst others are backing Ms Lean.
And of this vendetta?? - From a person. Whom had without a shadow of doubt. Became involved with the Mitchells in 2003. Had declared LM as not being responsible, when she became interested in the murder of Jodi Jones. And from that moment with media articles and all else, along with the Mitchells discussed whom they felt may have been responsible for her death?
And from here. From peoples belief and perception that some well known expert in the field of criminology - is trusted, that she must be correct in what she has said and done - That it all must be true with this naive bleat of "no-one has taken any action against her"? - this is on par with LM's awareness of DNA implications. - That everything by book has been done by that fine line - Of knowing exactly where that cross over to liable begins. -Sneaky, intelligent and deliberate? For there has been far more said on forums over time. Under many guises and most definitely from those long time faithful followers. Scouring and trolling every person involved in this case. Every discussion where able to - to ram those opinions down one's throat.
One would get the correct impression would they not - that this use of a sunflower on the front of IB, these posters of Jodi going up in the fight for LM, this blatant take over of this girl, her death and all else - is a hateful prod directly at Jodi's immediate family is it not? - That these people who have put blind faith in this campaign. Who are blaming Jodi's mother, brother, sister, grandmother, aunts and all else for LM's incarceration - These puppets, peddling the wares that in effect come directly from LM himself. This clear case of double standards - When there is nothing other than these half truths and clear misrepresentation of the actual facts in this case - that no doubt stemmed from as early as 2003. Does Ms Lean not class this "WE" she mentions as the very spreaders of lies, half truths and misinformation" Nicholas has already put up many of the comments.
So yes, in effect. By using this sunflower on the book, by using this girls picture - by having no right at all to take over anything to do with this girl - This charade of truth and Justice - is a Joke. There is nothing truthful or Just about it. Ms Lean, IM humble O - is a fraud. The nerve, the hypocrisy and that contradiction of calling, yet again Jane Hamilton out, when one backs every single lie, every half truth and every single piece of misinformation as a direct result of her, of all she has touted out - With that completely false premise of using Jodi Jones, by claiming to tell the "True story" of her murder. - It is LM's story, onto CM and ultimately put together by Ms Lean - it is their version of some twisted format, of what they class as truth. One must end this with - One would not know the truth if it were to smack one directly between the eyes!
Sharon Indy Sunshine & her YouTube channel Liquid Sunshine Crime is all about her “bragging” rights & ownership of this tradgedy. She is using Jodi a girl who was brutally murdered at 14 as a springboard or stepping stone to try and hit the “big time” with her true crime podcasts. She and Sandra have a mutual agreement to promote each other. I was a moderator in the Official group in the early days but was thrown out because I didn't agree with everything that they said. I was made to believe that the group was as much for Jodi as it is for Luke - this isn't the case. It's merely a promotional tool for Sunshine and the brady bunch.
I’ve had enough of the charade, I am ready to spill my guts, tell you all what really went on. The only reason that I am saying anything is because I am sick of Jodi’s name being abused by Sandra, Sharon, Kenny, Danielle, Stephanie and the rest of the misinformed team. I lived in the area at the time of the murder, I knew the Jones family. I was hated for that. They were actually jealous of the fact! Make of that what you will as Sandra would say.
No. I did at first but I learned a few things that put doubt in my mind. I don't know what to think anymore if I am honest.As far as I'm concerned you can think whatever you like whenever you like. I'm not looking for bootlickers. I'm just looking for non abusive conversation so thanks for providing that.
No. I did at first but I learned a few things that put doubt in my mind. I don't know what to think anymore if I am honest.
I lost faith in what I was lead to believe. When I questioned anything I was shut down, I was told that I stood up for Jodi too much.
No. This happened 4 months ago and I had to free up the memory in my phone.
You are right. It has been a lesson. I was really naive and was completely taken in by them all. I feel used and stupid.
I feel bad and extremely stupid. Just glad that I was able to see through them all eventually
Yes. As I said I lived in the same town. I watched the C5 doc and it brought everything back that happened in 2003. I went on Facebook and found Sandra and the official Facebook group. They invited me to be a moderator and I accepted. I wanted to know more about the case than just believing the doc. They made out to me that the group was as much for Jodi as it was for Luke. They got fed up of my trying to protect jodi’s name. I didn't want to join the podcasts the made either. I found it really distasteful, I still do. I wanted to help with lots of things and I had my own ideas. When I began questioning them about their plans and actions they all blocked my and threw me out of the group.
I have learned so many terrible things about their behaviour since, such as the threat was made to Jane Hamilton, the stickering and poster campaigns. I also learned that Dr Lean isn't who she appears to be.
I believed the papers. The doc made me take a closer look at this case.
You only need to look at the threat to Janes Hamilton.
The sticker campaign.
The self promotional vids
They do exactly as they are ordered to.
They believe everything they are told by Sandra
Her name is Jodi Jones 🌻
I lost faith in what I was lead to believe. When I questioned anything I was shut down, I was told that I stood up for Jodi too much.
All too believable - we've seen how Dr Lean's followers hang on her every word as if it's gospel, and how she lashed out at dissenters. Good for you.
And those who don’t agree with the cult like leader aren’t welcome into the inner circle https://psychcentral.com/blog/narcissism-decoded/2017/03/14-ways-narcissists-can-be-like-cult-leaders#1
All too believable - we've seen how Dr Lean's followers hang on her every word as if it's gospel, and how she lashed out at dissenters. Good for you.
All too believable - we've seen how Dr Lean's followers hang on her every word as if it's gospel, and how she lashed out at dissenters. Good for you.
Yes. As I said I lived in the same town. I watched the C5 doc and it brought everything back that happened in 2003. I went on Facebook and found Sandra and the official Facebook group. They invited me to be a moderator and I accepted. I wanted to know more about the case than just believing the doc. They made out to me that the group was as much for Jodi as it was for Luke. They got fed up of my trying to protect jodi’s name. I didn't want to join the podcasts the made either. I found it really distasteful, I still do. I wanted to help with lots of things and I had my own ideas. When I began questioning them about their plans and actions they all blocked my and threw me out of the group.
I have learned so many terrible things about their behaviour since, such as the threat was made to Jane Hamilton, the stickering and poster campaigns. I also learned that Dr Lean isn't who she appears to be.
I listen to Sandras weekly updates but im not part of any of the groups. I assume you were the moderator she said left the group in her recent update? Sorry I have lots of questions too. For them to say you are focusing too much on [Name removed] is crazy, that’s the whole point of the case, yes its about Luke, is he guilty or not but focus should also be about [Name removed], have we got the right person behind bars, if any doubt it needs checked to ensure we got proper justice for her and her family. Ive not seen any of the stuff being said about [Name removed] family, but its disgusting if they are still getting trolled, it goes back to the days of the old WAP forum and seems its never changed just got worse. I’ve also heard about a threat made to JH, but ive not seen it. What was said, was this someone in the group mouthing off or was this a serious threat made to JH? Is any action being taken? Why did Sandra deny this happened, was it a private chat or a public statement? These groups are set up to help Luke & Jodi but from what I can see they are not doing a very good job, It seems there is trouble in the ranks at the moment. .You say the group do exactly as they are ordered to, who is the person doing the ordering, is that Sandra? In what why is she not what she appears to be? I think the Doc did a great job to get the case back in the public eye, but with that comes the idiots unfortunately! Sandra has stuck with this case for many years, I do not see anything she has got back from this (financially or otherwise) for her to not be 100% genuine, it would be such a shame if these people undo her hard work, on the other hand if she is not what she appears (not sure what you mean by that exactly) please enlighten us so we do not fall into the same trap or can get out of it if we already have!
Thanks. I feel like an absolute idiot.
Action has been taken ⬇️
https://twitter.com/janehamilton22/status/1398541628294549504
Excerpt
‘This month I had to contact police over a sinister threatening comment about me on Facebook.
A concerned member of the public sent it in. I’m not going to repeat what it said but suffice to say Police Scotland took it seriously and arrested a women.’
That’s brilliant someone was arrested for it. Too many times these horrible trolls get away with stuff, thinking they can hide behind a screen!!
I listen to Sandras weekly updates but im not part of any of the groups. I assume you were the moderator she said left the group in her recent update? Sorry I have lots of questions too. For them to say you are focusing too much on [Name removed] is crazy, that’s the whole point of the case, yes its about Luke, is he guilty or not but focus should also be about [Name removed], have we got the right person behind bars, if any doubt it needs checked to ensure we got proper justice for her and her family. Ive not seen any of the stuff being said about [Name removed] family, but its disgusting if they are still getting trolled, it goes back to the days of the old WAP forum and seems its never changed just got worse. I’ve also heard about a threat made to JH, but ive not seen it. What was said, was this someone in the group mouthing off or was this a serious threat made to JH? Is any action being taken? Why did Sandra deny this happened, was it a private chat or a public statement? These groups are set up to help Luke & Jodi but from what I can see they are not doing a very good job, It seems there is trouble in the ranks at the moment. .You say the group do exactly as they are ordered to, who is the person doing the ordering, is that Sandra? In what why is she not what she appears to be? I think the Doc did a great job to get the case back in the public eye, but with that comes the idiots unfortunately! Sandra has stuck with this case for many years, I do not see anything she has got back from this (financially or otherwise) for her to not be 100% genuine, it would be such a shame if these people undo her hard work, on the other hand if she is not what she appears (not sure what you mean by that exactly) please enlighten us so we do not fall into the same trap or can get out of it if we already have!
Was the individual charged?
What does Jane Hamilton’s article say?
I watched it. Nowhere did she refer to a mod leaving. I left months ago.
I saw that tweet from Jane Hamilton.It said someone was arrested and charged. Didn't see any info about the threats etc but there is never an excuse to threaten someone like that
Sorry my mistake, I remember her saying something about someone that had left the group, i thought she had said a moderator. Must be another person that left the group also.
Seems like a lot of mods leave or get blocked. They are certainly going through them.
Danielle Barclay refers to herself as a ‘truth warrior’
You don't know the half of it. They whole carry on in played out for everyone to see. IF you look closely enough you will find.
I am rather confused. You say that you stayed to protect Jodi’s name but tbh although I have seen little of what happened in the group what I have seen was never in any way detrimental to Jodi, in fact quite the opposite.
These posts have a very familiar ring to them. Nothing will be their original work either. Their blogs are a joke.
Sticker campaign?!? 🙄
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodie-jones-family-slam-stickers-24318782
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/family-murdered-jodi-jones-hit-20816470
If you are unable to see the disrespect shown by those links there is nothing I can do to help you.
If you are unable to see the disrespect shown by those links there is nothing I can do to help you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc
Sandra Lean
‘If I make people furious by telling the truth…’
As a trainee lawyer, back in 2010/11 he worked for MOJO 3 days a week and was apparently instrumental in investigating two case https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf
MOJO secured a 2 year supervised traineeship for Scott Forbes with Graham Mann solicitors.
Around the same time securing a paid placement for Paul McLaughlin (who was mentioned in the news article here https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/)
In their annual report MOJO stated:
“Paul and Scott have been a huge asset to the Organisation and in taking the
Projects aims and objectives forward.”
Ill-advised maybe, disrespectful no.
Didn’t you leave the group some months ago, long before this recent activity?
Please correct me if I’m wrong but am I right in thinking that you believed the media in 2003, was converted by the documentary and now you’re not sure of Luke’s guilt since being being thrown out the group? Forgive me but you do seem rather susceptible to outside influence.
How and why did Scott Forbes get involved with MOJO in the first place?
Did he too falsely claim to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice ?
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
How and why did Scott Forbes get involved with MOJO in the first place?
Did he too falsely claim to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice ?
To whom does this refer to?Corrine Mitchell
At about 10.50 minutes into this video there's an explanation.
https://youtu.be/RGhh114oQBw
Thanks
So did Sandra Lean also ‘meet up for coffee’ with Mark Kane?
At about 10.50 minutes into this video there's an explanation.
https://youtu.be/RGhh114oQBw
Don't think there would be much unusual about MK being on Newbattle Road given that he was resident at Newbattle Abbey College - the college entrance opens onto Newbattle Road.
Sandra Lean:
‘….and to see him him still being slagged off to this day for doing the right thing I thinks says everything that needs to be said about this case if we’re being totally honest
He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police.
I agree. I think it would be an unlikely case of mistaken identity too given that MK and LM didn't look alike.
They definitely didn’t look alike
That PI’s conformation bias made him sound rather foolish during the TV show 🙄
And if Mark Kane was on Newbattle Road at the crucial time then why didn't any witnesses see a boy AND a man? Why didn't the boys who knew LM from school and positively identified him not see MK too. He wasn't hiding because according to Dr. Lean, some witnesses did see him. Did the boy and man see each other? All I know for sure is LM was there. Positively identified.
Undoubtedly disrespectful.
What do you believe? Innocence? Or Guilt?
Thanks
I’ve transcribed what she says about Scott Forbes ⬇️
Sandra Lean: ‘Now what I have to tell you is when I finally got access to the case papers every single thing - with the exception of the essay - every single thing that Scott Forbes said was backed up by the information in the case papers
So the scratches on Mark Kane’s face Scott Forbes was not the only witness to those the agitated behaviour he was not the only witness to those
Mark kane being on the new battle road that night which Scott actually didn’t say because Mark Kane couldn’t remember where he was the information about him being on the newbattle road that night was in the case files from other witnesses so I wanted to get that absolutely cleared up once and for all
Excerpt from IB (screenshot on Fb)So, are there two now? What happened to the other three?
“Two other witness statements supported Mr Forbes claims that Mr Kane had facial injuries, gave conflicting accounts about how they came about and was acting strangely the day after the murder”
So, are there two now? What happened to the other three?
That’s the wrong question. Was Luke’s guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt? Undoubtedly not….and several of the jury, after hearing all the evidence, agreed.
Excerpt from IB (screenshot on Fb)
“Two other witness statements supported Mr Forbes claims that Mr Kane had facial injuries, gave conflicting accounts about how they came about and was acting strangely the day after the murder”
Can you give me a source for this information? Website? Newspaper article?Screenshots?
Your reference to the jury. No thinking he was guilty. He was found guilty. Curious if you have come across information that contradicts the conviction.
So what does Sandra Lean say about Scott Forbes ‘assaulting’ Mark Kane? ⬇️
He was convicted by a majority therefore logic tells us that several of the jury were not convinced of Luke’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt….perhaps as many as 7.
How do we determine what the numbers are? I was lead to believe by Sandra that the exact figures aren't known even by her. It's not something that the person convicted is told. Is that correct?
The need to tweet about this case so much concerns me. Especially if he worked on the case himself.The need to lash out at Kane, (deceased,) Jane Hamilton, Dobbie, Kane's mother, (a different tweet,) so viciously makes SF seem as if he has a bit of a temper.
How do we determine what the numbers are? I was lead to believe by Sandra that the exact figures aren't known even by her. It's not something that the person convicted is told. Is that correct?
Modify message
So, are there two now? What happened to the other three?
As new questions are posed, querying these things. Excuses are made up as they go along. The normal default position is used, unnamed witnesses, I have the papers, it is all there. Now take my word for it, or your banned. And people fall for this excuse time and time again. Mind boggling that people take this stuff as gospel without seeing the evidence.
Show the people the evidence Ms Lean..
And if Mark Kane was on Newbattle Road at the crucial time then why didn't any witnesses see a boy AND a man? Why didn't the boys who knew LM from school and positively identified him not see MK too. He wasn't hiding because according to Dr. Lean, some witnesses did see him. Did the boy and man see each other? All I know for sure is LM was there. Positively identified.
Excerpt from IB (screenshot on Fb)
“Two other witness statements supported Mr Forbes claims that Mr Kane had facial injuries, gave conflicting accounts about how they came about and was acting strangely the day after the murder”
I'm interested in when these witness statements were given to the police. I believe these witnesses are connected to the college. Dr. Lean tells us that no one at the college was spoken to at the time of poor Jodi's murder. Are these another two who waited almost three years to tell the police of their grave concerns despite the brutal murder of a child? Do you have any idea when they gave their statements please?
She went on
“A third witness stated that a colleague with whom she worked in the collage told her a similar story (She was unaware of the other witnesses’ accounts) and gave the name of the colleague who witnessed it directly. The colleague was never asked for a statement.
Therefore, three further aspects of Scott Forbes’ accounts were substantiated by evidence the Crown claimed did not 3xist.
We can't know, we'll never know. Anyone that tries to promote the numbers as gospel is a fantasist, trying to push an agenda.
Yeah, Scott Forbes, The Doer of the Right Thing.
Yeah, Scott Forbes, The Doer of the Right Thing.
Who?
The need to tweet about this case so much concerns me. Especially if he worked on the case himself.
Sandra Lean refers to him as a ‘trainee’ and ‘volunteer’
There’s no evidence whatsoever Scott Forbes was a lawyer
Again
How long was he at uni for ? Week? Months? A year?
Sandra Lean refers to him as a ‘trainee’ and ‘volunteer’SF says he was a lawyer but his licence or whatever it's called, has lapsed and that's why he's not registered at the moment. He said it on one of these very recent threads. Definitely within the last 24 hours.
There’s no evidence whatsoever Scott Forbes was a lawyer
Again
How long was he at uni for ? Week? Months? A year?
SL claims witnesses saw MK on Newbattle Road at the crucial time and so there could have been mistaken identity.
SF says he was a lawyer but his licence or whatever it's called, has lapsed and that's why he's not registered at the moment. He said it on one of these very recent threads. Definitely within the last 24 hours.
SF says he was a lawyer but his licence or whatever it's called, has lapsed and that's why he's not registered at the moment. He said it on one of these very recent threads. Definitely within the last 24 hours.
He’s not referred to in the MOJO annual report until 2010/2011
15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’
”
Scott Forbes qualifications..In what capacity were you and Dr.Lean working together as far back as 2006?
B.A.(Hons), LL.B, LP.
The need to lash out at Kane, (deceased,) Jane Hamilton, Dobbie, Kane's mother, (a different tweet,) so viciously makes SF seem as if he has a bit of a temper.
Scott Forbes qualifications..In what capacity did you and Dr. Lean work together as far back as 2006?
B.A.(Hons), LL.B, LP.
Have you ever seen actual evidence for his qualifications?I've read about Stephen T. Manning. I came across him online by accident one day. Dubious indeed.
Sandra Leans publisher Stephen T Manning referred to himself as a ‘Dr’ when he was no such thing - another academic fraud https://wondereraround.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/dr-stephen-t-manning-ph-d-is-an-academic-fraud/
Where is Scott Forbes actual certificate or acknowledgement from Stirling uni?
I've read about Stephen T. Manning. I came across him online by accident one day. Dubious indeed.No. I haven't looked for his qualifications though. I'm not sure I'd know where to begin but I'm interested in around 2006 though when SF first approached CM at her place of work because that's where Dr. Lean first met Scott Forbes.
So you must know SF and you must have known MK then.
No trolling and no Scott Forbes so that may result in a t*t
haha if you say so scott.
tell me, as someone involved with the midlothian soft drugs scene back as far as 2003, did you know LM , JF or any others involved in this case personally at the time of the murder, scott?
Well, if you're not SF, I suggest someone tells SF about you because he may be being stalked. You know so much about him and his relationship with MK, his education and his five figures that alarm bells ring and if you're not SF but you can back up everything, show it please. You're absolutely correct. SF doesn't have to provide any kind of proof. You do.
Next time you see SF would you mind asking him where he picked MK up from a few days after poor Jodi's murder? Thanks.
No, Scott only knew MK in 2003. He thereafter came to know many in the area that sold soft drugs , and knew Luke, Jodi, [Name removed],,[Name removed] and others, while carrying out investigations/interviews.Is this the bit where everyone is told that Kane knew Jodi Jones?
No, Scott only knew MK in 2003. He thereafter came to know many in the area that sold soft drugs , and knew Luke, Jodi, [Name removed],,[Name removed] and others, while carrying out investigations/interviews.
Scott knew Luke and Jodi? Prior to the murder?
Your comment above confused my when you said about getting to know those in area whilst selling drugs. We're you referring to Scott or Mark?
haha if you say so scott.
tell me, as someone involved with the midlothian soft drugs scene back as far as 2003, did you know LM , JF or any others involved in this case personally at the time of the murder, scott?
Where was Scott Forbes living back in 2003?And yet, not soooooo early on that any decent person could have believed Mk was guilty! What if MK had killed again???? Three years is, after all, a long time. It didn't just take one person to resort to approaching Corinne at her workplace almost three years on, it took the others as long to speak up. A poor, innocent child is literally butchered but no one thought it was too important for nearly 3 years? SF "couldn't get anyone to listen" 😪😪😪 I'd have screamed it from the rooftops. Wouldn't you?
I suspect he knew or knew of many of the people who’s names came up in this case and he clearly appears to have inserted himself into the police investigation early on
His decision to be interviewed for the frontline and channel 5 shows also give some indication of what appears to be his chronic need for attention
And yet, not soooooo early on that any decent person could have believed Mk was guilty! What if MK had killed again???? Three years is, after all, a long time. It didn't just take one person to resort to approaching Corinne at her workplace almost three years on, it took the others as long to speak up. A poor, innocent child is literally butchered but no one thought it was too important for nearly 3 years? SF "couldn't get anyone to listen" 😪😪😪 I'd have screamed it from the rooftops. Wouldn't you?
Loving the limelight and attention.
I've read about Stephen T. Manning. I came across him online by accident one day. Dubious indeed.
No he came to know people who knew the others during his investigation
And yet, not soooooo early on that any decent person could have believed Mk was guilty! What if MK had killed again???? Three years is, after all, a long time. It didn't just take one person to resort to approaching Corinne at her workplace almost three years on, it took the others as long to speak up. A poor, innocent child is literally butchered but no one thought it was too important for nearly 3 years? SF "couldn't get anyone to listen" 😪😪😪 I'd have screamed it from the rooftops. Wouldn't you?
It's not his temper that concerns me the most. Although He does have a temper and lashes out frequently.
It's his desperate need to tweet to keep him relevant somehow or is it just attention that he craves. Probably both. Clearly, he wants kudos and notoriety also.
Depends on what attention he craves..... He might want any attention possible or he might crave praise and adulation, plaudits too.
True but then you’d have to actually know him to judge his character and, unfortunately, you don’t.
Not heard that one before.
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Not heard that one before.
https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf
Morag Ritchie the YouTube troll and UFO spotter *&^^& *&^^& *&^^&
‘We also had a Trainee Lawyer, Scott Forbes, working with the Project 3 days per week. Scott was instrumental in investigating two cases, Mr I and Mr P, which resulted in Mr P’s case going back to the SCCRC for review. Mr I’s case is ongoing.’
Scott Forbes was never a bonafide solicitor
https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf
MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
No, Scott only knew MK in 2003. He thereafter came to know many in the area that sold soft drugs , and knew Luke, Jodi, [Name removed],,[Name removed] and others, while carrying out investigations/interviews.
No, Scott only knew MK in 2003. He thereafter came to know many in the area that sold soft drugs , and knew Luke, Jodi, [Name removed],,[Name removed] and others, while carrying out investigations/interviews.
Morag Ritchie
Another one, wrongly incarcerated due to a Miscarriage of Justice, Martin has since been released and his name been cleared. Just shows you it could happen to anyone, it’s happening all the time. Pop over and give the page a like, and listen to his 1st podcast about his story. A must for all my fellow Luke supporters..
It seems she has done on to support people accused of sex crimes. *&^^& *&^^& *&^^& *&^^&
I meant to ask you this last night. Something in your post has baffled me. At what point in time are you saying Scott Forbes knew Jodi? Why would he be interviewing Jodi Jones and what was he investigating?
No, Scott only knew MK in 2003. He thereafter came to know many in the area that sold soft drugs , and knew Luke, Jodi, [Name removed],,[Name removed] and others, while carrying out investigations/interviews.
It does.
no it only does if that's what you want to see. It says he got to know people in the area who sold drugs and knew the people i mentioned. It doesn't say Scott Forbes knew Jodi
And knew Luke, Jodi........
It's right there!
he got to know people in the area connected to drugs and THEY knew the people named etc etc . Come on its not hard really is it. If i wanted to say Scott knew so and so that is what I would have written...i didnt
Where was Scott Forbes living exactly in 2003 ?
What years was he in prison ?
And when does he plan to publish his police witness statement so the public can verify EXACTLY what he told them way back when ?
These posts have a very familiar ring to them. Nothing will be their original work either. Their blogs are a joke.
He appears to be another fraudster
And what do you know - Sandra Lean acknowledges him in her ‘thesis’
‘Special thanks to Stephen Manning, of Checkpoint Publishing. Without his encouragement and enthusiasm, I may not have been in a position to undertake this research.
Page 5 ➡️ https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9834706.pdf
Don’t you think the blog site appears to be based on ‘Barbie’ world ?
Although the pink background seems to have been changed recently to a deeper hue than the original https://www.lollytruecrimeworld.co.uk/
Documentary Research & Production
‘Lolly True Crime are delighted to announce that we are now directly involved with the research and production of true crime documentaries with our freelance producer/documentary maker James Smerdon he can be contacted directly by email:
Documentaries@lollytruecrimeworld.co.uk
Our first production is planned for early autumn 2021 which will be a double-barrelled, two-part documentary looking at the story of three street prostitutes in Norwich who disappeared and were murdered.
We will be looking at the tragic story of these three young women and the possible connections to a serial killer, namely Steve Wright, also known as the Suffolk Strangler.
This is a very exciting new step for us and something which we hope to continue and grow with in the future.
Our business is also delighted to be collaborating with
Liquid Bullet Productionz and Vincent Wright to review the case of the Claire Tiltman murder and demonstrate Mr Wright's reasoning that he believes the male who is currently convicted of killing the teenager to be innocent of the crime.
We will be publishing two articles, based on Vincent Wright's research and evidence of several other professionals.
Liquid Bullet Productionz will be broadcasting an interview with Mr Wright, the link to which will be published here.
You can view their amazing productions at:
Liquid Bullet YouTube
The production team can be contacted via email at:
liquidbullet2021@outlook.com
If you have a case that you feel important enough to warrant a documentary production then do please get in touch. The team are waiting to hear from you.
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source
Sandra Lean
‘.. Jodi has not had justice
She did not deserve what happened to her to be manipulated and twisted the way it has been’
*&^^& *&^^&
(Approx 106:00 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0fnJqhih0)
Classic deflection.
Ask him!
True but then you’d have to actually know him to judge his character and, unfortunately, you don’t.
Look, if you're not SF and you're here as a spokesperson then why not start answering some questions? If not, why are you here?
Absolutely.
No need for ANYONE to be rude. Thank you!
Thank you.I certainly didn't mean to come across as rude. I apologise if that's how it sounded but my question is a genuine one. I'm here because I'm interested in the case and I'm interested in how far some people will go to advance their cause. You have been asked questions and some of your answers have been vague. Some questions you've just ignored. My question for you was genuine.
It seems people want answers to questions but when it happens if the reply doesn't suit they don't like the person replying
I certainly didn't mean to come across as rude. I apologise if that's how it sounded but my question is a genuine one. I'm here because I'm interested in the case and I'm interested in how far some people will go to advance their cause. You have been asked questions and some of your answers have been vague. Some questions you've just ignored. My question for you was genuine.
Some questions you've just ignored.
It's not just you - don't feel bad.
I didn't realise when you join this forum you have to answer every question as a God given right to the person asking? Maybe as people post day and night it's hard to keep up especially on the extra long posts and then reply to everything.
She uses this line a lot. “ I have the case papers” “I know more about this case than anyone else does”
I didn't realise when you join this forum you have to answer every question as a God given right to the person asking? Maybe as people post day and night it's hard to keep up especially on the extra long posts and then reply to everything.
Aye, calm down, m8.
She uses this line a lot. “ I have the case papers” “I know more about this case than anyone else does”
We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.
Geraldine Dunn
Looking forward to update, hope all the other stuff can be worked through as it make no sense to me , the two main groups I have followed each give wonderful support, nobody has the right to claim ownership for the fight for justice and for what ever reason it is coming across that way at the moment. I see it as a wee bump on the road nothing else nothing more . Thankyou to Sandra for getting the message out , neither an easy task professionally or personally but your dedication is outstanding. Thankyou to all the Groups set up to help us (the peeps), make sense of this and support to the family. You all should be proud for keeping to the task, just a wee bump a wee distraction, I have full faith in all involved to smooth this out ✌✌💛
Have you seen the ‘about’ section of Sandra Leans Facebook page?
It reads,
“Dr Sandra Lean is a leading criminologist specialising in miscarriages of justice. www.longroadtojustice.com”
Since when?
And where can we find evidence of this?
Has she been successful in any of them?
There’s nothing ‘professional’ about Sandra Leans behaviour
And why did Sandra Lean choose the ‘30th June’ - the anniversary of Jodi Jones murder?
Why not today, tomorrow or the 1st July?
Why did she choose to mention the 30th June?
And why did Sandra Lean choose the ‘30th June’ - the anniversary of Jodi Jones murder?
Why not today, tomorrow or the 1st July?
Why did she choose to mention the 30th June?
Was it really necessary ?
That is down to the paperwork being collected.
She mentioned the Anniversary date - which is no doubt a highly significant and emotive day for [Name removed]’s family
Sandra Lean actually asked for the paperwork to be collected by Tuesday!
Why let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Are the picking up the papers from the car park at local Scotmid. Experts and professionals @)(++(* @)(++(*
The date of the handover of the papers being the most tragic of anniversaries is significant, surely.
Dr Lean off the case, and handing the papers over to a new legal team on the anniversary is a bigger story - expect press coverage.
The Jones family will be laying flowers at Roans Dyke Path, and Dr Lean and the lawyers seize the opportunity for publicity.
Couldnt be more insensitive.
Sandra Lean actually asked for the paperwork to be collected by Tuesday!
So, you're part of the new legal team, then?
Ironically, I think LM now has a better chance with Dr Lean & Co out of the way.
But you were part of a previous team involving SF?
Dr Lean off the case, and handing the papers over to a new legal team on the anniversary is a bigger story - expect press coverage.
I very much doubt it
Dr Lean off the case, and handing the papers over to a new legal team on the anniversary is a bigger story - expect press coverage.
I very much doubt it
You don't know who she is handing the paperwork over to. Its all assumption
You don't know who she is handing the paperwork over to.
You basically came on here to defend SF.
Actually no I didn't, I came here for a different reason entirely
To point the finger at MK again? You had a right good go at that earlier.
I have never pointed the finger at MK. My point was about the Police investigation. I believe that Luke is innocent that's the only claim I make.
Please do NOT speculate about the identities of other posters, or about their reasons for being members of this forum.
Many thanks.
Not really seeing as it isnt true.
What isn't? She clearly stated the date in her live broadcast today. She said by June 30th.
Did you hear something different from me?
She asked for the paperwork to be collected by Tuesday
No great plan to make a huge statement on the anniversary. However you dress it up and want to believe that was the case. For the papers to be collected it Involves more than just Sandra!
There was no mention of ‘Tuesday’
Sandra Lean clearly stated Wednesday
Sandra Lean has given 18 years to this
“I could not accept such an instruction”
She’s not a lawyer
Did you not hear what she told Sharon Indy Sunshine here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-x5EIX9m1Lc
at around 46:00
Sandra Lean
‘We’re coming up to 17 years. I’m getting tired of “you can’t do this you can’t do that” and I mean in reference to the case. We’re 17 years in* (*can’t make out if she said in or down) the line there’s a kid there who’s lost his his entire youth so if it comes to getting a new website up and putting stuff on there that’s not been out before well maybe it’s time maybe it’s time
so I will announce on Facebook when we finally get a way to set up a website and all of that it will be on Facebook but if anybody wants to get in touch just look for me Sandra Lean the the picture is a hand with a yellow paper clip it’s not a picture of me so.…
You have all but pointed the finger at a dead person. Easy route, eh?
I have not all but anything. What I did was post what SF did and said. Agreeing with him in no way implicates anyone. SF was asked directly and he did not say he thought MK was guilty
So why appear in the documentary? To talk about a guy who has now passed away, and who he thinks didn't do it anyway?
That documentary was a travesty.
I have not all but anything. What I did was post what SF did and said. Agreeing with him in no way implicates anyone. SF was asked directly and he did not say he thought MK was guilty
That ‘documentary’ was a sham
Sandra Lean has said herself that the Frontline Scotland documentary wouldn't even have been possible without SF. He's certainly an interested party but not so interested that he approached CM before her son was given a life sentence.but that's ok because he trusted that the possible murderer had indeed spoken to police. Took him at his word despite the gravity of the crime. He didn't even check back so what a shock to learn that someone else had been convicted of the crime!! BS.
He comes across as another grifter
And nothing he says can be backed up with solid evidence
Any idea yet how much was he paid to appear in the channel 5 TV show?
That's not true. When SF was asked in the C5 documentary whether or not he thought MK had killed poor Jodi, he said, " I genuinely don't know but I've always suspected it. "
Let's be honest. No one would even know he exists if it weren't for poor Jodi. It's shameful.
Let's be honest. No one would even know he exists if it weren't for poor Jodi. It's shameful. Sandra Lean said no money made out of the documentary but I'd like a more reliable source.
Killer Luke Mitchell’s lawyer for 5 plus years @)(++(*
Sandra Lean could and should have nipped that in the bud a long time ago
She didn’t though did she
Instead she suggested during one of her live videos LM answer the question
yes i know, i watched it too.
You don't want much do you? It wouldn't matter what you were provided with, you still wouldn't believe it would you?
Killer Luke Mitchell’s lawyer for 5 plus years @)(++(*
Sandra Lean could and should have nipped that in the bud a long time ago
She didn’t though did she
Instead she suggested during one of her live videos LM answer the question
Yeah. Another cop out by Sandra Lean. Ask Luke? Wasn't she speaking for Luke because asking Luke's not just an email away. 8((()*/
I remember it.
You don't want much do you? It wouldn't matter what you were provided with, you still wouldn't believe it would you?
I suppose you'll only know that if I'm ever provided with any proof.
Has Sandra Lean stated she appeared on the channel 5 show for free?
Yes. No money from books, well a little bit, no money from documentaries.
Who exactly do you expect to provide this to you? The legal papers cannot be released to you, the proof of what SF did cannot be given to you. What do you want?
She appears to change the goal posts at a drop of a hat
‘All profits from this company will be donated to a new charity organisation, Long Road to Justice.
To provide full-time, fully trained case-workers who can review existing cases and seek to find ways to take those cases forward. With funding to Legal Aid and the Criminal Case Review Commissions cut to the bone, the valuable work undertaken by Long Road to Justice caseworkers opens up an avenue not currently available to those at the end of the Legal Aid route.’
https://innocentsbetrayedltd.com/about/
What happened to LM’s ‘fighting fund’?
Didn’t Sandra Lean recently contact ‘Lolly’s true crime world’? Are they collaborating ?
I very much doubt it. Who would want to?
Sandra Lean
‘An interesting article - I contacted the lady involved, as she'd tweeted that Luke's case was one she and her team were going to be looking at - she replied very quickly, saying they're working on some other cases at the minute, but will be in touch>
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40
⬇️
Didn’t Sandra Lean recently contact ‘Lolly’s true crime world’? Are they collaborating ?
Sandra Lean
‘An interesting article - I contacted the lady involved, as she'd tweeted that Luke's case was one she and her team were going to be looking at - she replied very quickly, saying they're working on some other cases at the minute, but will be in touch>
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40
‘All profits from this company will be donated to a new charity organisation, Long Road to Justice.
To provide full-time, fully trained case-workers who can review existing cases and seek to find ways to take those cases forward. With funding to Legal Aid and the Criminal Case Review Commissions cut to the bone, the valuable work undertaken by Long Road to Justice caseworkers opens up an avenue not currently available to those at the end of the Legal Aid route.’
⬇️https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/thank-you-for-your-comments-we-really-appreciate-them-fa0654d5ccec
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/thank-you-for-your-comments-we-really-appreciate-them-fa0654d5ccec
The person who left the comment is part of the official group. She's another one who throws stuff out about people with no proof. Also unchecked by anyone within the group I have proof of some of the comments she has made.
You mean RM
If you click on the link her name is RM.
Yes TY 8((()*/
She's another unchecked, hateful troll.
She's another unchecked, hateful troll.
I’m guessing she’s ‘unchecked’ because she’s seen to be defending Sandra and slating and accusing [Name removed]’s family *&^^&
Another one where Sandra Lean has commented underneath too rolling eyes 🙄
Sandra Lean
‘That's hilarious - the complete lack of logic!! Thousands of people questioning the conviction on the basis of one "mental" person. Take me out of the equation,you've still got Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Bussutil, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, Roy Ramm (ex chief of Met Police), John Scott, QC, Frontline Scotland, Channel 5 ... all questioning the conviction. Mental!
Nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘complete lack of logic’ as Sandra claims
Innocence fraud is big business
Doesn't matter how nasty they get, they're not trolls they're Luke Supporters. No matter how polite someone who disagrees is, they're a troll. All Luke supporters unchecked until someone got Scott Forbes mixed up with a rapist by the same name. That was certainly addressed. That was actually a Luke supporting troll who got that wrong.
Doesn't matter how nasty they get, they're not trolls they're Luke Supporters. No matter how polite someone who disagrees is, they're a troll. All Luke supporters unchecked until someone got Scott Forbes mixed up with a rapist by the same name. That was certainly addressed. That was actually a Luke supporting troll who got that wrong.
I'm not aware of Professor Busitill putting his name to anything.
That's hilarious - the complete lack of logic!! Thousands of people questioning the conviction on the basis of one "mental" person. Take me out of the equation,you've still got Prof Allan Jamieson,
He appears to be another fraudster
And what do you know - Sandra Lean acknowledges him in her ‘thesis’
‘Special thanks to Stephen Manning, of Checkpoint Publishing. Without his encouragement and enthusiasm, I may not have been in a position to undertake this research.
Page 5 ➡️ https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9834706.pdf
Oh okay
I’ve found a comment made by her under a post by a person with the initials PPO on the ‘unofficial’ official FB page where it’s stated,
‘Is any one on the true crime page? Bit concerning this morning as they where talking about the luke case. There's alot of people who thinks he's guilty and talking to them is pointless. They just come bk with the same shit or laughing faces.
https://youtu.be/RGhh114oQBw
In the comments section, most of the conversations are interesting but there's one thread started by Susan McLeish with 100+ replies. That's an interesting one. RM gets her tuppence worth in amongst others. None of it called out.
In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,
”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”
Thanks. Skimming it now.
So why did Sandra Lean choose to allow these false accusations about [Name removed]’s family members to remain on her YouTube comments? Why didn’t she delete Rosemarys BS?
This ⬆️ can be heard at around 31:00 on her 13th June 2021 video
They're a vile bunch but they're also Luke supporters. As I said, it took for Scott Forbes to be mixed up with another Scott Forbes although she still didn't call out the real trolls. I'm surprised this has been hidden or deleted. Some of the others have.
https://youtu.be/RGhh114oQBw
In the comments section, most of the conversations are interesting but there's one thread started by Susan McLeish with 100+ replies. That's an interesting one. RM gets her tuppence worth in amongst others. None of it called out.
They're a vile bunch but they're also Luke supporters. As I said, it took for Scott Forbes to be mixed up with another Scott Forbes although she still didn't call out the real trolls. I'm surprised this has been hidden or deleted. Some of the others have.
Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”
Mark McKeown troll aka janinedidit *&^^&
Okay have skimmed through the Susan McLeish thread. And there’s someone called Mrs S and that Mark McKeown troll aka janinedidit *&^^&
The fact Sandra Lean hasn’t called it out is telling
It is a bizarre way to behave. I notice he does not say anything about the case on his own Twitter page. Instead, changes his name multiple times to rant in the comments section on YouTube about all this evidence he has. What a creepy cowardly weirdo.
It is a bizarre way to behave. I notice he does not say anything about the case on his own Twitter page. Instead, changes his name multiple times to rant in the comments section on YouTube about all this evidence he has. What a creepy cowardly weirdo.
Mark Mckeown is vile to mrs s, carry king, therese bowen and everyone else who doesn't believe his mad conspiracy theories and he's had a few of them.
Do you think it is a coincidence that he goes after those with female usernames.
Do you think it is a coincidence that he goes after those with female usernames.
Do you think it is a coincidence that he goes after those with female usernames.I'm pretty sure ourwilliam is male. It's on the same video as the new [ censored word ]s.Mark Mckeown just doesn't like to be confronted and his reaction to it is creepy.
Do you think it is a coincidence that he goes after those with female usernames.
I'm not aware of Professor Busitill putting his name to anything.
Can I point you to the Frontline Scotland documentary?Yes and while you're there, please point out to me where Professor Busitill says he thinks LM is nnocent as SL implies. Very clearly implies.
Yes and while you're there, please point out to me where Professor Busitill says he thinks LM is nnocent as SL implies. Very clearly implies.
I didn’t know that she had so I’m afraid I’ll have to disappoint you.
I'm pretty sure ourwilliam is male. It's on the same video as the new [ censored word ]s.Mark Mckeown just doesn't like to be confronted and his reaction to it is creepy.
A couple of hate spreaders as recently as yesterday
https://youtu.be/pOTKX_t_OHI
‘Bigot’ & ‘moron’ appear to be words favoured by Mark McKeown
Then again that could be the whole point - to make it appear as though it’s him?
I'm pretty sure ourwilliam is male. It's on the same video as the new [ censored word ]s.Mark Mckeown just doesn't like to be confronted and his reaction to it is creepy.
I’ve not had chance to read through all the YouTube comments on JibberJabbers channel but I’ve just read one by Rosemary McG where she’s referred to ‘worms’
Why haven’t they been removed?
And have the police and SK been made aware of what is being said?
I’ve also just read the false allegation Mark McKeown has made about SK re ‘minors’ *&^^&
I believe the people involved are genuinely concerned with keeping a respectful silence for Jodi Jones. If the Jones family don't and if SK doesn't, then who's going to maintain a respectful silence? A silence that according to Jodi's mother, Jodi would have wanted? That wee girl gets lost in this SL rubbish. She must have been terrified and living through it is unimaginable because just thinking about it is unimaginable. How dare these keyboard warriors!
I agree with all you’ve stated
However I do think the police should be made aware of individuals like Mark McKeown
I note too how he’s finished one of his comments with ‘son’. He does that on twitter also
The hedgehog story with James English was interesting too
Did Luke watch the hedgehog die - ‘it wasn’t going to be a happy ending’ or did that happen during her alleged ‘2 hour shift’ ?
Dr Lean said: “I lived in the local area. It started with doubts about how quickly attention had focused on Luke, and some of the stories I was hearing seemed so ridiculous and small-town mentality– a lot of gossip.
“Then over time, more bits of pieces just seemed strange, and his mother Corrine put a note through the door of my workplace one day.
“It said, ‘I’ve heard what you’re saying about my son’s situation, can you help us?’ I knew nothing about the justice system or anything, but I agreed to meet her and Luke, and they started telling me about what had been going on and where some of the stories that were doing the rounds had come from.
“What convinced me he was innocent finally, was access to all of the case papers in 2009.”
Dr Lean claims she knew Mitchell was innocent the first time they met.
I think after that Sandra Lean checked out their credentials or lack of them. Same with lolly's other half and all the work he has done previously. Its a shame none of it exists or maybe its not
What about Scott Forbes alleged qualifications?
LP
‘Love this picture 💕. He can't wait to get back to horse's and all other animals! Corinne was a hedgehog carer and she had a very sick hedgehog, Luke sat up all night caring for the wee guy although he knew that it was near the end of his wee life! 💞
*&^^&
The bizarre hedgehog story was bizarre.
Sandra Lean (13th June 2021 fb video at around 5:00)
‘….a perfectly innocent man being portrayed as a rapist and sex offender. So I commented immediately that’s a different Scott Forbes I contacted the admins I said “take it down” and then I got a private message saying arh your were stepping aside from this group but you’re still commenting on things that you don’t like so let me get something absolutely clear no matter where it is and no matter who’s posted it I will always call out wrongful accusations always I don’t care where they are or who’s posting them”
CM could recite the hedgehog story on the JE podcast but she couldn't remember the time her son found poor Jodi's body!!
She never did though did she
And the person who posted about the rapist and sex offender Scott Forbes appears to have made a mistake is all
She wasn't there. Why would she know what time Jodi's body was found, unless Luke told her? She would only have known the approximate time he went out.The court case? Common knowledge that others have? Police statements? Are you for real?
The court case? Common knowledge that others have? Police statements? Are you for real?
And to refer here also to Nicholas and "gaslighting"
Ms Lean has been gaslighting for years has she not? - Projecting onto others what was projected onto herself from psychopath Mitchell and his mother when they jumped on their "bandwagon" together. Birds of a feather and all that? With this clear 'It's all everyone else's fault'. And how easy was Lean to get sucked into all of this? This woman who tells us her interest lay in the macabre? Her fascination for murder and murderers? To have one happen on her doorstep. To then be invited into the home of this murderer?
Gaslighting, triangulation, smear campaigns - these are some of the tools used by toxic & manipulative abusers
She wasn't there. Why would she know what time Jodi's body was found, unless Luke told her? She would only have known the approximate time he went out.
Her son was given a life sentence for poor Jodi's murder and you don't think it's even a bit odd that CM doesn't remember the time her son found poor Jodi Jones? I remember the time so why wouldn't CM? Has she not been living and breathing this for nearly two decades??
Anxiety, depression, being nervous and certain medications can affect your memory. Isn’t Corrine allowed to be fallible like the rest of us?
Faithlilly, that's just BS.
Faithlilly, that's just BS.
if you know this is BS as you claim, prove it. How do you know what she does or doesnt think and remember?
Let's leave this one between faithlilly and I. You have some proving of your own to do.
haha that is a typical reply on here. When you have to explain, just deflect and change the subject. you called me out now do what you demand or stop demanding. Oh and who made you the Boss?
if you know this is BS as you claim, prove it. How do you know what she does or doesnt think and remember?
Rubbish. Deflectve rubbish. I'll ask you again. Where's the proof of your claims?
I guess it’s easier to think of individuals as one dimensional villains rather than complex and often contradictory humans.
Deflecting at its best. Lets test your theory. YOU said it was BS so please explain how YOU know this?
Deflecting again, Dexter? And we still don't have your proof.
Let's leave this one between faithlilly and I. You have some proving of your own to do.
Thought you had issues to sort out with FL and it was none of my business. You don't half change your mind
I didn't say any of that. Back to the proof you clearly don't have.
mrswah is here now to delete our posts so best say goodbye to you
I see that and I bow out now but I wonder if you'r rude post will be deleted? Doubt it. Good night
Thought you had issues to sort out with FL and it was none of my business. You don't half change your mind
Looks like he/she has put me on the back burner.
to be continued im sure but only when mrswah isnt looking
Truth be damned, revenge perhaps - by way of these puppets - for LM. - The person who is controlling all of it.
You don’t view it as a joint enterprise?
I do, to a degree. That two way street of give and take. But she had ultimately in the beginning had those strings attached by LM.
Sandra Lean (13th June 2021 fb video at around 5:00)
‘….a perfectly innocent man being portrayed as a rapist and sex offender. So I commented immediately that’s a different Scott Forbes I contacted the admins I said “take it down” and then I got a private message saying arh your were stepping aside from this group but you’re still commenting on things that you don’t like so let me get something absolutely clear no matter where it is and no matter who’s posted it I will always call out wrongful accusations always I don’t care where they are or who’s posting them”
She might sound convincing but she’s clearly not sincere
Plus she’s partial to making wrongful accusations herself
She's jumped between supporting the 2 big groups and is now Admin on the “Offical page”Sandras several changes of loyalties? Think 18 years speaks for itself don't you.
Why can't she support all the groups? What is going on in the background with her several changes of loyalties or affiliations? Is she burning bridges and cutting ties with certain groups and people? If so why?
Sandras several changes of loyalties? Think 18 years speaks for itself don't you.
The egos on the groups are something else. They think it's more about them than Luke
Sadly sharing photos and pretending they have the copyright etc won't do anything to help Luke.
Thank god the fate of anyone is not actually in their hands. Where would we be?
Are we talking this other alter ego again? Making the same claims. Of speaking with CM everyday, of putting a report in to do with taking advantage of a vulnerable adult? Of the pictures coming off Google, of the statement having grammar errors in it? Of being spat on, abused in shops and else? - Lean written all over it? That blatant alter ego to get back at LP? and Fergie boy?
Or those vying for attention by lying? - Leans right handers? Direct puppets such as L.Mackie? Claiming to know everything. This Allen Ovens nonsense of claiming he said to LM "they have just left" . Telling M.Messenger that he did not give evidence in court. For Lean to then tell Messenger some of Allen Ovens evidence, but not to let him know he had been in court giving evidence. Where the only strength in any of this, to gain support is by way of lying. Always has been. Where people are just too far to the dim side, to realise that these half truths, misinformation and downright lies have been touted out for years.
So do you mean 18yrs of lying? From Mitchell? Onto Lean, onto those studies. Onto devoting herself to gain qualifications, to write those fact & fiction books? To spend sometime outwith this pursuing other goals. - The gullible instantly believing this person has devoted all those years of her life to this case. Nope, the person has devoted years to herself, using this case with others, for self gain? Budding author? The tail turning on the them both. Mutual use come to an end? Clearly not enough support to man a charity, to pay for those man hours. All a front, was it not?
This nonsense of files into hard copy, been on hard copy for many years have they not. Bit by bit by Lean? The delay in handing the paper ones over until the final transfer to hard copy complete? - Where legally one should not have anything remaining. Notes or otherwise. Destroyed or handed over. Anything at all outwith those exact words in her book. Handed over. That 5% verbatim used. Where in effect now, Lean can not claim to have anything to back up that book anymore, can she? For one is not legally entitled to be keeping anything. Perhaps those who are genuine with any claims of contact with the Mitchells now, should be realising this? Any lawyer who has already demanded that hand over?
Or do you mean the fate of others, through the rightful conviction of LM where lives no doubt have been saved? Where Lean or anyone else's nonsense, vying to be noticed, to be someone, thankfully has no bearing on our Justice system or the safe conviction of the above. For as she clearly stated before. there is no risk in misinformation, half truths and downright lies that pose any threat to Mitchell walking the streets again
Are we talking this other alter ego again? Making the same claims. Of speaking with CM everyday, of putting a report in to do with taking advantage of a vulnerable adult? Of the pictures coming off Google, of the statement having grammar errors in it? Of being spat on, abused in shops and else? - Lean written all over it? That blatant alter ego to get back at LP? and Fergie boy?
Or those vying for attention by lying? - Leans right handers? Direct puppets such as L.Mackie? Claiming to know everything. This Allen Ovens nonsense of claiming he said to LM "they have just left" . Telling M.Messenger that he did not give evidence in court. For Lean to then tell Messenger some of Allen Ovens evidence, but not to let him know he had been in court giving evidence. Where the only strength in any of this, to gain support is by way of lying. Always has been. Where people are just too far to the dim side, to realise that these half truths, misinformation and downright lies have been touted out for years.
So do you mean 18yrs of lying? From Mitchell? Onto Lean, onto those studies. Onto devoting herself to gain qualifications, to write those fact & fiction books? To spend sometime outwith this pursuing other goals. - The gullible instantly believing this person has devoted all those years of her life to this case. Nope, the person has devoted years to herself, using this case with others, for self gain? Budding author? The tail turning on the them both. Mutual use come to an end? Clearly not enough support to man a charity, to pay for those man hours. All a front, was it not?
This nonsense of files into hard copy, been on hard copy for many years have they not. Bit by bit by Lean? The delay in handing the paper ones over until the final transfer to hard copy complete? - Where legally one should not have anything remaining. Notes or otherwise. Destroyed or handed over. Anything at all outwith those exact words in her book. Handed over. That 5% verbatim used. Where in effect now, Lean can not claim to have anything to back up that book anymore, can she? For one is not legally entitled to be keeping anything. Perhaps those who are genuine with any claims of contact with the Mitchells now, should be realising this? Any lawyer who has already demanded that hand over?
Or do you mean the fate of others, through the rightful conviction of LM where lives no doubt have been saved? Where Lean or anyone else's nonsense, vying to be noticed, to be someone, thankfully has no bearing on our Justice system or the safe conviction of the above. For as she clearly stated before. there is no risk in misinformation, half truths and downright lies that pose any threat to Mitchell walking the streets again
Who are LP and Fergie Boy???
So, did Allen Ovens give evidence in court? Do you know for sure? I've been wondering about that for a long time.
How does anyone know what he said to Luke on the phone, other than himself and Luke (if they remember)? "They just left" "She just left" "She's on her way to meet you." Who knows?
I know very little about the campaigners, but I am aware that Lianna Mackie knew both Luke and Jodi. Interesting that she believes Luke is innocent.
Yes he did give evidence in court. Naturally so. You can look up many reports around Jodi's mothers evidence in court. There is mention of Ovens also. Of the court being shown CCTV footage, of the call taken by himself. Brief and basic as the media were interested more in reporting on her mothers evidence. Which tells us it happened on the same day. That blind side yet again played on. Of there being nothing that actually states, when he took the stand, but neither do they state they simply read from his statements. He was there in person, he gave evidence.
And before the inevitable, "why should I believe you" - again it matters not whether you believe the Crowns evidence, or anything else out in the public domain over time via forums such as this. Any source of information. And if we take the stance of "Who knows" over evidence led, from Mr Ovens, who stated he told Mitchell she had already left to meet him. But to draw your attention to all this nonsense of buried statements, of Ovens not being a witness. To all the nonsense from Ms Lean around his actual statements. Of what Luke claimed he said over what Ovens said. - So we are left with whom do we put trust in? Liars?
To Lianna Mackie who claims to have been friends with this girl, nonsense is it not. So you are perhaps correct, that she maybe knew them, saw them around the playground, shared a class. To the nonsense she puts out, of Ovens and all else. Where she puts herself on some pedestal of worth by claiming to know them - so that people will look and say things, such as "interesting she believes Luke is innocent" A clear case of, listen to me, I know everything but does not even know the basics. That she could not answer a simple question, with anything other than misinformation and blatant lies. That she is telling people that Ovens did not give evidence, that he said in his statement "They left". As you say, interesting. The blind leading the blind?
Peden and Fergie - the people who called Lean out for lying? Where some other alias has popped up, Nikki Weir, who claims to have reported her for taking advantage of a vulnerable adult, of claiming they too see CM on a daily basis. That she is very ill. That the statement put out could not have been from LM, as his grammar was far better? Articulate lad. Full of the same, being threatened for 18yrs for speaking out, spat on, attacked in shops - those are Leans words. Is this Weir simply a copycat? - someone else vying for the lying?
If LP had been totally wrong, then you can be sure that something would have come forward, directly from Lean herself. Does one really imagine she would be sitting on her laurels with it? - She would be letting everyone know, If LM had told her it was wrong. Perhaps she still will, once Luke eventually converses with her, or answers this Mackie person?
What I will say, if Lean actually does not know Ovens was in court giving evidence (cough) then she has held even less in her hands, and written a hell of lot more assumption and nonsense around all that is missing. - That blind faith around the unknown? Filled in with the nonsense.
Yes he did give evidence in court. Naturally so. You can look up many reports around Jodi's mothers evidence in court. There is mention of Ovens also. Of the court being shown CCTV footage, of the call taken by himself. Brief and basic as the media were interested more in reporting on her mothers evidence. Which tells us it happened on the same day. That blind side yet again played on. Of there being nothing that actually states, when he took the stand, but neither do they state they simply read from his statements. He was there in person, he gave evidence.
And before the inevitable, "why should I believe you" - again it matters not whether you believe the Crowns evidence, or anything else out in the public domain over time via forums such as this. Any source of information. And if we take the stance of "Who knows" over evidence led, from Mr Ovens, who stated he told Mitchell she had already left to meet him. But to draw your attention to all this nonsense of buried statements, of Ovens not being a witness. To all the nonsense from Ms Lean around his actual statements. Of what Luke claimed he said over what Ovens said. - So we are left with whom do we put trust in? Liars?
To Lianna Mackie who claims to have been friends with this girl, nonsense is it not. So you are perhaps correct, that she maybe knew them, saw them around the playground, shared a class. To the nonsense she puts out, of Ovens and all else. Where she puts herself on some pedestal of worth by claiming to know them - so that people will look and say things, such as "interesting she believes Luke is innocent" A clear case of, listen to me, I know everything but does not even know the basics. That she could not answer a simple question, with anything other than misinformation and blatant lies. That she is telling people that Ovens did not give evidence, that he said in his statement "They left". As you say, interesting. The blind leading the blind?
Peden and Fergie - the people who called Lean out for lying? Where some other alias has popped up, Nikki Weir, who claims to have reported her for taking advantage of a vulnerable adult, of claiming they too see CM on a daily basis. That she is very ill. That the statement put out could not have been from LM, as his grammar was far better? Articulate lad. Full of the same, being threatened for 18yrs for speaking out, spat on, attacked in shops - those are Leans words. Is this Weir simply a copycat? - someone else vying for the lying?
If LP had been totally wrong, then you can be sure that something would have come forward, directly from Lean herself. Does one really imagine she would be sitting on her laurels with it? - She would be letting everyone know, If LM had told her it was wrong. Perhaps she still will, once Luke eventually converses with her, or answers this Mackie person?
What I will say, if Lean actually does not know Ovens was in court giving evidence (cough) then she has held even less in her hands, and written a hell of lot more assumption and nonsense around all that is missing. - That blind faith around the unknown? Filled in with the nonsense.
Thanks for answering my questions, Parky.
I didn't get any info re Ovens from Sandra Lean, actually, but from various people on other forums and on You Tube. Some say he gave evidence, and some say he didn't.
As I say, I don't follow the "campaigners" very much. Don't really like campaigns. I did hear, however that it is true that Corrinne Mitchell has been in hospital, so presumably she has been ill-----don't know the details, though.
Yes he did give evidence in court. Naturally so. You can look up many reports around Jodi's mothers evidence in court. There is mention of Ovens also. Of the court being shown CCTV footage, of the call taken by himself. Brief and basic as the media were interested more in reporting on her mothers evidence. Which tells us it happened on the same day. That blind side yet again played on. Of there being nothing that actually states, when he took the stand, but neither do they state they simply read from his statements. He was there in person, he gave evidence.
And before the inevitable, "why should I believe you" - again it matters not whether you believe the Crowns evidence, or anything else out in the public domain over time via forums such as this. Any source of information. And if we take the stance of "Who knows" over evidence led, from Mr Ovens, who stated he told Mitchell she had already left to meet him. But to draw your attention to all this nonsense of buried statements, of Ovens not being a witness. To all the nonsense from Ms Lean around his actual statements. Of what Luke claimed he said over what Ovens said. - So we are left with whom do we put trust in? Liars?
To Lianna Mackie who claims to have been friends with this girl, nonsense is it not. So you are perhaps correct, that she maybe knew them, saw them around the playground, shared a class. To the nonsense she puts out, of Ovens and all else. Where she puts herself on some pedestal of worth by claiming to know them - so that people will look and say things, such as "interesting she believes Luke is innocent" A clear case of, listen to me, I know everything but does not even know the basics. That she could not answer a simple question, with anything other than misinformation and blatant lies. That she is telling people that Ovens did not give evidence, that he said in his statement "They left". As you say, interesting. The blind leading the blind?
Peden and Fergie - the people who called Lean out for lying? Where some other alias has popped up, Nikki Weir, who claims to have reported her for taking advantage of a vulnerable adult, of claiming they too see CM on a daily basis. That she is very ill. That the statement put out could not have been from LM, as his grammar was far better? Articulate lad. Full of the same, being threatened for 18yrs for speaking out, spat on, attacked in shops - those are Leans words. Is this Weir simply a copycat? - someone else vying for the lying?
If LP had been totally wrong, then you can be sure that something would have come forward, directly from Lean herself. Does one really imagine she would be sitting on her laurels with it? - She would be letting everyone know, If LM had told her it was wrong. Perhaps she still will, once Luke eventually converses with her, or answers this Mackie person?
What I will say, if Lean actually does not know Ovens was in court giving evidence (cough) then she has held even less in her hands, and written a hell of lot more assumption and nonsense around all that is missing. - That blind faith around the unknown?
Filled in with the nonsense.
I have seen the comments about giving evidence or not. Would be interested to know which version is true.
According to this article Allen Ovens spoke directly to the court
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12411779.she-gave-me-a-kiss-and-went-out-i-never-saw-jodi-again-mother-tells-murder-trial-of-phone-calls-to-accused-after-daughter-went-missing/
According to this article Allen Ovens spoke directly to the court
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12411779.she-gave-me-a-kiss-and-went-out-i-never-saw-jodi-again-mother-tells-murder-trial-of-phone-calls-to-accused-after-daughter-went-missing/
According to this article Allen Ovens spoke directly to the court
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12411779.she-gave-me-a-kiss-and-went-out-i-never-saw-jodi-again-mother-tells-murder-trial-of-phone-calls-to-accused-after-daughter-went-missing/
Sandra Lean (yesterday)
‘There was a discussion recently about whether AO (Jodi's mother's partner) gave evidence at trial. I wasn't able to answer definitively, because I couldn't remember seeing any media coverage and I know I hadn't seen transcripts, but neither of those confirm the situation one way or another.
Someone very kindly found the article below and shared it with me, so now we have the answer- he did (albeit reported in the middle of Jodi's mum's evidence in this article)
She also included a link to the Nov 2004 media article you posted rulesapply
Sandra Lean (yesterday)
‘There was a discussion recently about whether AO (Jodi's mother's partner) gave evidence at trial. I wasn't able to answer definitively, because I couldn't remember seeing any media coverage and I know I hadn't seen transcripts, but neither of those confirm the situation one way or another.
Someone very kindly found the article below and shared it with me, so now we have the answer- he did (albeit reported in the middle of Jodi's mum's evidence in this article)
She also included a link to the Nov 2004 media article you posted rulesapply
Sandra Lean (yesterday)
‘There was a discussion recently about whether AO (Jodi's mother's partner) gave evidence at trial. I wasn't able to answer definitively, because I couldn't remember seeing any media coverage and I know I hadn't seen transcripts, but neither of those confirm the situation one way or another.
Someone very kindly found the article below and shared it with me, so now we have the answer- he did (albeit reported in the middle of Jodi's mum's evidence in this article)
She also included a link to the Nov 2004 media article you posted rulesapply
She adds
Sandra Lean
MA He wasn't the last person to see her, M. According to his statements, he saw Jodi in the living room when he came in from work, then went to the bathroom. Jodi left while he was still in there, so the last people to see her (according to their statements) were her mum and brother and then the two independent witnesses who saw her being followed closely by stocky man around 5 past 5
M
Sandra Lean that’s very interesting Sandra , usually the last person to see the victim was involved, are we sure that the independent witness actually seen Jodi ? Or was that someone else as AB make a mistake on the identity of Jodi and Luke , plus I am really sorry ur not involved any more , u r truly an amazing woman , no one could have done what u have for Luke xxx
Sandra Lean
MA One of the independent witnesses knew Jodi, so that's a fairly solid identification (compared to AB who said she didn't know Jodi or Luke, didn't see either of their faces and described people completely different to Luke and Jodi). Makes you wonder where this case might have gone if they'd accepted the other witnesses' sighting, doesn't it???
Makes you wonder why AB’s sighting was chosen ahead of someone who knew Jodi? Of course if Jodi was seen without Luke at 5.05pm then that blows the case wide open.
What were/are the names of these ‘two independent witnesses’ and was the reason their evidence wasn’t used in court anything to do with their ‘evidence’ not holding up?
What were/are the names of these ‘two independent witnesses’ and was the reason their evidence wasn’t used in court anything to do with their ‘evidence’ not holding up?
What were/are the names of these ‘two independent witnesses’ and was the reason their evidence wasn’t used in court anything to do with their ‘evidence’ not holding up?
What possible would an acquaintance of Jodi have to lie that they had seen her?If this person knew Jodi, was their identification of Jodi on that evening a positive one? Did that person, who knew Jodi, say they definitely saw Jodi? Not someone who looked like Jodi, not someone who may have been Jodi but, definitely Jodi?
If this person knew Jodi, was their identification of Jodi on that evening a positive one? Did that person, who knew Jodi, say they definitely saw Jodi? Not someone who looked like Jodi, not someone who may have been Jodi but, definitely Jodi?
She identified Jodi so of course it was positive. The rest of your post is simply the same question asked in different ways.
No. The witness may have known Jodi but is the witness absolutely sure that Jodi was the girl she saw?
The witness identified Jodi, who she knew. I really can’t make it a
ny simpler than that.
The witness identified Jodi, who she knew. I really can’t make it any simpler than that.Show me. Show me proof that Jodi was identified at 5.05pm. Positively. Show me this person in court.
Show me. Show me proof that Jodi was identified at 5.05pm. Positively. Show me this person in court.
Show me. Show me proof that Jodi was identified at 5.05pm. Positively. Show me this person in court.No, no, no, no. I can only assume you're trying to answer the question with a question because you can't provide an answer. Why have you NEVER once just answered a question??
No, no, no, no. I can only assume you're trying to answer the question with a question because you can't provide an answer. Why have you NEVER once just answered a question??
Simply illustrating your hypocrisy.You are off topic.
You chose to believe without evidence information that supports your bias but reject that which doesn’t.
You are off topic.
And you are not a moderator.
You're still off topic. And YOU are not a jury but you still disagree with them.
Show me. Show me proof that Jodi was identified at 5.05pm. Positively. Show me this person in court.
No. That's a cop out because I'm not making claims about AB or anyone. You are. I have nothing to prove. Show me the proof of your claims please.
You believe AB without proof because her evidence confirms your bias.
Now Nicholas is online so off you go and play.
You believe AB without proof because her evidence confirms your bias.Show me your proof or hold your argument please.
Now Nicholas is online so off you go and play.
According to this article Allen Ovens spoke directly to the court
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12411779.she-gave-me-a-kiss-and-went-out-i-never-saw-jodi-again-mother-tells-murder-trial-of-phone-calls-to-accused-after-daughter-went-missing/
The above newspaper appears to have made a mistake re the time of JuJ’s first text message to killer Luke Mitchell’s phoneIt's all interesting.
The following is interesting though ⬇️
Sandra Lean
TM And I've never understood where 10.20 came from in the first place - her first text to Luke's phone was at 10.38, almost 40 minutes after Jodi's curfew of 10pm
The above newspaper appears to have made a mistake re the time of JuJ’s first text message to killer Luke Mitchell’s phoneYeah. I believe SL knew but said nothing. I believe that for a different reason but it's all the same thing at the end of the day. It's all deliberate deception.
The following is interesting though ⬇️
Sandra Lean
TM And I've never understood where 10.20 came from in the first place - her first text to Luke's phone was at 10.38, almost 40 minutes after Jodi's curfew of 10pm
Sandra makes claim she’s ‘never understood where 10.20 came from ‘ which suggests she’s seen the article before 🙄
She identified Jodi so of course it was positive. The rest of your post is simply the same question asked in different ways.
Yeah. I believe SL knew but said nothing. I believe that for a different reason but it's all the same thing at the end of the day. It's all deliberate deception.
Nonsense. Again these strawman arguments. There were no positive sightings of Jodi Jones anywhere near to 5.05pm. They would simply have been used. They were not used as there were none, plain and simple. Just to be clear, to make it perfectly clear. This is Monday the 30th of June at 5.05pm. Even using that time, like it actually means something should be enough to tell people it is nonsense. That clear precision used, with not one other factor of verification.
Let us think of times. Those outside factors, used to corroborate timings of sightings and so forth. Jodi leaving home. AO did not give an exact time for getting home, Jodi's mother did not give an exact time of leaving, AB did not give an exact time, F&W, the boys on the cycles, the man on the cycle, the jogger, MK, the duo, the motorists. There were no timings ascertained far less any ID of Jodi as above. On Monday the 30th of June at 5.05pm. The estimates given, sought to be established by other factors. None to establish, it was a false trail. Then we can add here, those exact times given by CM, of arriving home at 5.05pm. Of SM changing his statement, to also say his mother arrived home at 5.05pm. So much so, he actually came down and said he physically spoke with her, before returning upstairs for ten mins. She was not even home.
Now let us throw in a couple of facts here, those half truths. DF used a newspaper article to ask JF if he were the mystery man, to then go on to ask him if he were the youth seen by AB also. Two together? Now what he did not produce were any witness statements, nothing as there was no confirmed sightings of Jodi. Simply used to muddy the waters for the Jury. I asked Ms Lean previously about this nonsense. That clear cut statement Faith put out. Of there being something to prove that Jodi could not have been seen by Bryson. And the answer I got, was that DF was not allowed to introduce evidence not led by the prosecution. As we have witnessed with other areas. This cock and bull, that really amounts to a defence not being allowed to produce evidence to prove their client innocent. And people just accept this nonsense. And the fact of course that DF did this twice. The newspaper article and the unconfirmed nonsense of the bike being seen at a break in the wall. - Hook, line and sinker. The exact same as those phone masts, the dog, and so forth.- Nonsense.
The person who knew Jodi and the neighbour. On Easthouse's Road, onto Parkhead Place, after coming off the school bus. Just after 4pm. The girl with the buggy, that simple answer from Lean, that she saw nothing. Certainly did not, on Monday the 30th of June at 5.05pm. The guy on Morris Road, was on Easthouse's Road around 5pm , but not on the 30th of June, it was a different day. One is taking a little of what people do know, from the media. Adding to it by morphing other information together. The reality, yet again folks, use some common sense. You are being bluffed, led down that garden path, the same way as DF attempted to do, with those smoke screens.
The information and all else around these possible sightings, the mystery man, did not just disappear. Lean did not have access to any of that information, did she? Those hand me down case files from DF. What he used, she has gleamed. What he however had was full access to those investigation files, as did the Crown. Who both gleamed what they needed. A fraction. So from this fraction that DF used, You are being asked to believe that all of what Ms Lean has never had, never been privy to, amounts to some buried treasure in this hunt for fools gold. Where what she most certainly has done, is written chapter and verse, around the unknown. Where the biggest lie in all of this, from IB is, that she claims it is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" - What? with this fraction of what she has only ever had, to assume what she does not. To cast dispersion upon these innocent people, by way of deceit? Of being eliminated, when she has not got a clue about the elimination process of this investigation, she has never been privy to it. Where she does not have all those court transcripts, did not attend the trial, and fed most of that information she has stuck to like glue - From the media, the Mitchells in that calm before the storm period of time. That seven months of colluding with a murderer and his mother?
This latest debacle around Ovens. What people should be taken from this (they wont),is it is clearly telling them what little Lean actually has. For LMc now, after it being said for many weeks, that Sandra ONLY had the defence papers. Where they really need to sit and ask themselves that question.How can someone be telling the true story of anything, with only partial information? Those missing court transcripts, never had. Of the other areas I have also been making clear. That of those recordings from the operator, those speaking phone clock records, which showed Mitchell to be out the house. That direction from the Judge, of a strong majority. And that shambles around the search party that evening. Where after weeks yet again, of showing that is was LM lying. Of SK's father statement. Those phone records being incomplete and trying to match them to witness statements. The reality, and clear fact is that Ms Lean has never had access to every witness statement, and in some cases, every part of one. It is hardly surprising therefore just how much of a mess one has made, in that attempt at deciphering them. But again, those blatant areas of misinformation and half truths. - What a mess.
So this nonsense, of what one feels is vital in any way. Not Lean, but those she feeds this nonsense to. Used as always, and has always been used for many years, to distract away from the Mitchells, from LM and those lies he just kept on given. Where by his own mouth, his own actions he heaped suspicion upon himself. That disposal of evidence, was the easy part. That alibi, and cock and bull story of the evenings events were never going to muster. The wheels firmly in motion. From that moment that he met Jodi in Easthouses.
I’m afraid you’re preaching to the choir…to everyone else you are a proven purveyor of misinformation.Who is everyone else?
The above newspaper appears to have made a mistake re the time of JuJ’s first text message to killer Luke Mitchell’s phone
The following is interesting though ⬇️
Sandra Lean
TM And I've never understood where 10.20 came from in the first place - her first text to Luke's phone was at 10.38, almost 40 minutes after Jodi's curfew of 10pm
Sandra makes claim she’s ‘never understood where 10.20 came from ‘ which suggests she’s seen the article before 🙄
Of course it is deception. Let us take another example. SK's fathers statement of alibi. Making claim that she had spouted for years he had no alibi other than JaJ, As there was no statement from his father in the defence papers. There are no statements as such from anyone. There are copies of areas of statements, some full some not. To attempt, as usual to wangle one's way out of making false claims around Kelly for years, by using this half truth. Brought to light by the SCCRC. To further that deceit upon other similar matters, by making claims to buried statements, information not known to the defence. Using again those half truths, of morphing this into being buried, unknown to the defence. Where one does not equal the other. Not there, simply equals that there was no reason to keep by Findlay. Plain and simple. He had the information, done his precognitions and all else. Exactly what I have been saying all along. Of using those half truths, those minute areas, adding to them, pushing them out. Where one can claim, as she did with Ovens, that she did not know due to not physically holding solid proof - Bollocks.
Yeah. I believe SL knew but said nothing. I believe that for a different reason but it's all the same thing at the end of the day. It's all deliberate deception.
This latest debacle around Ovens. What people should be taken from this (they wont),is it is clearly telling them what little Lean actually has.
She’s game playing - being her usual deceptive self 🙄
She would know from the Mitchell’s AO gave evidence
Sandra Lean is a phoney
And there are many ‘academic’ phoneys around
I know. That double barrel of pulling the wool over people with this misconception, that she had access, physically to more than she has ever had.As in trial transcripts and so forth. The blatant pretence of not actually knowing if he gave evidence or not, is just that. Using one over the other. Whilst attempting to cover her back one way, has opened up that admittance yet again, of all that she does not, and has never had. As with R. Kelly's statement. And so much more. Which one has used as above, to tout out those half truths, misinformation and blatant lies.Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know, he was an extra in her game. IMO
As I had already pulled some followers up on. By pleading ignorance, letting people, as one does with most of the misinformation. tout out any nonsense around this. Dispersing all sorts of doubt upon innocent people. Exactly what is aimed for.
Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know, he was an extra in her game. IMO
.
Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know, he was an extra in her game. IMO
.
Who was?
Allen Ovens? In relation to Ms Leans reason as to why she could not answer questions around whether he had testified at court. Of claiming never to have read the article and held no courts transcripts around it. Playing dumb? Irrespective of what one may or not have read/have. Is it really plausible to believe that Ms Lean did not know Ovens had testified at trial? The whole debacle came to a head, finally. When I picked M. Messenger and L. Mackie up on this. Where he had asked the question and got no answer, other than L.Mc to categorically say that he had not testified. To which I had stated that it was nonsense, that Ms Lean was playing silly beggars. Intentionally allowing these arms and legs, of buried statements and conspiracy theories to do the rounds. That is served purpose to do so. Anything to cast dispersion upon others away from the Mitchells?
Thanks!
I was under the impression that SL had attended the trial. Do you know whether or not she did?
Thanks!
I was under the impression that SL had attended the trial. Do you know whether or not she did?
Sandra Lean
Tracy Reilly in terms of "evidence"
this should never have been
allowed, How can anyone claim to
know what another person
thinks???
And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??QuoteSandra Lean
Tracy Reilly in terms of "evidence"
this should never have been
allowed, How can anyone claim to
know what another person
thinks???
Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.
And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??
Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.
And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??
Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.
Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him
Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him
I know. That double barrel of pulling the wool over people with this misconception, that she had access, physically to more than she has ever had.As in trial transcripts and so forth. The blatant pretence of not actually knowing if he gave evidence or not, is just that. Using one over the other. Whilst attempting to cover her back one way, has opened up that admittance yet again, of all that she does not, and has never had. As with R. Kelly's statement. And so much more. Which one has used as above, to tout out those half truths, misinformation and blatant lies.
As I had already pulled some followers up on. By pleading ignorance, letting people, as one does with most of the misinformation. tout out any nonsense around this. Dispersing all sorts of doubt upon innocent people. Exactly what is aimed for.
That's what I believe. Even if Sandra Lean hadn't done her research properly, she would certainly have known via Corinne Mitchell who gave evidence in court.
If he didn't know he was dumped during family tea time then how did he know later on in the evening?
Corrine wasn’t allowed in court until she gave evidence and she was one of the last, if not the last, witnesses to give evidence.Point taken about Corinne Mitchell.
The fact that he thought he’d been stood up maybe?
He didn't think he'd been dumped if he thought poor Jodi had been grounded.
The fact that he thought he’d been stood up maybe?
I believe he had several scenarios that he thought possible.
Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him
I know. That double barrel of pulling the wool over people with this misconception, that she had access, physically to more than she has ever had.As in trial transcripts and so forth. The blatant pretence of not actually knowing if he gave evidence or not, is just that. Using one over the other. Whilst attempting to cover her back one way, has opened up that admittance yet again, of all that she does not, and has never had. As with R. Kelly's statement. And so much more. Which one has used as above, to tout out those half truths, misinformation and blatant lies.
As I had already pulled some followers up on. By pleading ignorance, letting people, as one does with most of the misinformation. tout out any nonsense around this. Dispersing all sorts of doubt upon innocent people. Exactly what is aimed for.
And I’m of the view Sandra Lean has done this from the very beginning
For me she’s a highly deceptive individual
I have lost count of the times I have asked SL if she sat through the trial only to be ignored whilst everyone around me was answered their question at least once. Except for once when her answer was, I know more about the case and the trial than anyone else in Scotland. She could have just said, no, way before that. I took that as a no but the problem with that kind of deliberate deception is that many people took that to be a ,yes. That empowers them and in turn it empowers her and IMO it's still all just a lie.
She didn’t lie. She simply didn’t answer you…her prerogative.
She lies by omission
She didn’t lie. She simply didn’t answer you…her prerogative.
She didn’t omit anything. She simply didn’t answer. There is a difference.
She didn’t lie. She simply didn’t answer you…her prerogative.
SMH
She lies by omission
Sandra didn't buy her / their rubbish
Dr Sandra Lean (13th June 2021)
An interesting article - I contacted the lady involved, as she'd tweeted that Luke's case was one she and her team were going to be looking at - she replied very quickly, saying they're working on some other cases at the minute, but will be in touch>
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40
Yes she did ⬇️
Thankfully any connection didn't last long . They are a couple of ...well fill in the blanks to save a mod editing later . Sandra didn't buy her / their rubbish and no one else should either. It comes in many guises but their 'style' is always the same.
I think it was Rosemary McGuigan who pressed the point of Luke's innocence to LollysWhatever. I'll tell you one thing, Nicholas, Rosemary McGuigan is like a mother to Luke Mitchell.Sorry, Dexter. I didn't mean for you to see that first. That was for Nicholas 👍