Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[mrswah]

Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.

His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.

I have common sense too---at least, I hope so!

How do you know for certain what Corinne Mitchell did or didn't do?  Where is the evidence that she burned a jacket?  I don't think there is any !

Not saying that Luke didn't get rid of a jacket somehow. He might be guilty, and I might be wrong---I will always admit to this---but the evidence of a parka jacket being burned in a small woodburner just doesn't cut it for me.

[Dexter]

I have common sense too---at least, I hope so!

How do you know for certain what Corinne Mitchell did or didn't do?  Where is the evidence that she burned a jacket?  I don't think there is any !

Not saying that Luke didn't get rid of a jacket somehow. He might be guilty, and I might be wrong---I will always admit to this---but the evidence of a parka jacket being burned in a small woodburner just doesn't cut it for me.

I agree about the parka. There is no evidence that one was burnt by Corrine or anyone else.

[mrswah]

Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.

His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.

Oh, and yes, as a moderator, of course I'm going to "lurk"  !!!

[Rusty]

just doesn't cut it for me.

Ah well.

[TruthSeeker2003]

I agree about the parka. There is no evidence that one was burnt by Corrine or anyone else.

I agree with you too. I haven't seen evidence of this ever happening.

[Lynn]

Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names.  They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case.  So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.   

[Rusty]

Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names.  They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case.  So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.   

 If you have any queries or vast claims regarding this closed case, then please feel free to express yourself.

[mrswah]

Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names.  They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case.  So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.   

Welcome to the forum, Lynn. Please would you introduce yourself on the new members' thread.

Many people use "user names" on this forum, including me, but some people do use their real names. The decision is up to them.

Some people know more than others regarding this case. I get the impression a number of posters are "locals", and, for all I know, may have known the families involved. Some might even have attended the trial. Some agree with Dr Sandra Lean's take on the case, while others don't.

I don't know about Facebook, but the moderators here will do their very best to remove rude and insulting posts, so don't be afraid to post your own opinions.

[Lynn]

Thank you for the welcome.  That makes sense regarding peoples names.  I think I was having an off moment when I messaged last night

[rulesapply]

LM. His visit to RDP to go over his map. Showing the police just how far past he claimed they had all went. That difficulty. For Luke Mitchell had not mentioned anything around that dog, having to wade it's way through. Shrubs, tall grass, nettles. Even trees. Where the wall is barely visible. Those several feet to cross between the path and the wall. That abundance of other smells. Every sort of excretion from the many dogs there before. Of other animals. Along the edge and into the overgrowth. For what LM had described was that clearing. That direct access to the wall. Where the ground in that narrow path, that had been trampled over time, with feet accessing the woodland via the V. - And there was no doubt in the police's mind, that the search trio had been telling the truth, from that very first account. That LM and his dog, had went directly to the V break, over that clearing. Not a foot past it.

So we had Mitchell, that alibi in place, that dog up at the wall. And those arms and legs, striving to show the police that he had been far enough past that V, to even make it sound plausible in the slightest, that the dog had miraculously picked up some scent. Through the abundance of all those other smells. To pick up what exactly? That contradiction from Lean of believing Jodi had been murdered elsewhere? That he had nothing to scent with of Jodi's, and by Leans reckoning very little in the way of blood. Which we know is nonsense. Due to rainfall, pore space of soil and so forth. That space between the path and the wall, that overgrowth and all else. The more he tried to clarify, to make it seem plausible the bigger the hole he dug. - For he had not been a foot past that V break. Straight to it. And those 20 mins on the path prior to the search trio arriving, of any other scents left by Mitchell and his dog on the way up.  Of what was to transpire, that even here, Mitchell had led his dog to the wall at the V break, by his own description of the wall.

Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.

I haven't read the statements, Parky but I don't believe there was a conspiracy against Luke Mitchell. I think the police became suspicious of LM very early on because of LM's own actions and because he is guilty.

[rulesapply]

Thank you for the welcome.  That makes sense regarding peoples names.  I think I was having an off moment when I messaged last night

Hi. My first few attempts were much worse than yours 
Even now......

[Dexter]

I haven't read the statements, Parky but I don't believe there was a conspiracy against Luke Mitchell. I think the police became suspicious of LM very early on because of LM's own actions and because he is guilty.

Nothing to with the Police making many mistakes that should never have happened. Then looking the incompetents they were continued to rush in.

From the start Luke was marked as a suspect not because of his behaviour but because of theirs.

I would be really interested to know if Luke hadn't been convicted or either someone else had or no one then what would you say.

It's easy to sound sure because of his conviction not his guilt.

Which main points would have convinced you of his guilt without his conviction?

[rulesapply]

Nothing to with the Police making many mistakes that should never have happened. Then looking the incompetents they were continued to rush in.

From the start Luke was marked as a suspect not because of his behaviour but because of theirs.

I would be really interested to know if Luke hadn't been convicted or either someone else had or no one then what would you say.

It's easy to sound sure because of his conviction not his guilt.

Which main points would have convinced you of his guilt without his conviction?

How could I possibly know what I would say nearly two decades on if someone else had been convicted or if Luke hadn't?
The point is, he was found  guilty by a jury who heard everything. Without that same information available no one has been able to convince me Luke Mitchell isn't guilty and I have always wondered why not a single appeal was ever been based on his innocence.

[Dexter]

How could I possibly know what I would say nearly two decades on if someone else had been convicted or if Luke hadn't?
The point is, he was found  guilty by a jury who heard everything. Without that same information available no one has been able to convince me Luke Mitchell isn't guilty and I have always wondered why not a single appeal was ever been based on his innocence.

Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.

Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.

The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not

[rulesapply]

Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.

Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.

The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not

What facts? No one's allowed to see any. Very little is in the public domain, according to SL.