"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Mr Apples]

Logic tells us then that as Shane had forgotten that he had arrived home later than usual on the day of Jodi’s murder and had also forgotten that he fixed his friend’s car that those things didn’t happen. Is that what you’re saying?

It is interesting that Shane is treated as a liar when he appears to agree with the defence but a witness of truth when he doesn’t.

Part of SM's testimony in court in January '05 was admitting he had spoken to Luke on the family landline from his mobile phone just after 1600 hrs on 30.06.03 (SM had phoned the landline, presumably to let LM know he would be later home than normal as he was going to fix his friend's car? It would be useful if the contents of this phone call were known, but they aren't and are not in the public domain -- I don't even think they were discussed at the trial). Are we expected to believe that, between 30.06.03 and 03.07.03 (03.07.03 was when SM supposedly gave his first statement, though I find this hard to believe), SM had forgotten fixing his friend's car on 30.06.03 and getting home at 1640 hrs on 30.06.03? Red flags right away -- SM was lying, was he not? Lying, imo, because he was involved in trying to help cover up this murder or that, if he didn't know at this point that his wee brother was responsible, he strongly suspected LM was, and went about trying to protect him (blood being thicker than water, and all that). Of course, there is also the possibility that such sudden forgetfulness was induced by trauma; being caught up in the biggest crime of them all, directly or indirectly, will inevitably take its toll sooner or later.

Interesting, too, that he changed his statement given on 03.07.03 to align exactly with his mother's version of events, 4 days later (ie, seeing LM in the kitchen at 1720 on 30.06.03 'mashing tatties'). But on 14.04.04, when they were all arrested, he reverted to "I can't remember if Luke was in the house" or "I don't know". To then finally conceding, under oath, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." Such a mess. Very telling. LM very much guilty, imo.

[Mr Apples]

While, imo, the circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial was overwhelming and leaves me totally convinced of his guilt, I'd still like to watch the aforementioned trial in its entirety in HD. That would be extremely interesting and would, I'm sure, remove any doubts people may have about this case or LM's guilt or innocence.

As for SM's testimony, well, I've already addressed this. He made it quite clear under oath that his wee brother wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715. SM admitted (under oath) he'd been looking at porn in his bedroom and was masturbating between 1650 and 1715; said he would never have done this if anyone else had been in the house at that time and said he couldn't hear music coming from Luke's bedroom or the dining room (implying that LM playing music was a regular occurrence at this time of day in the family household). It wasn't, I don't think, discussed in court if SM had physically checked LM's bedroom or the whole house to see if his wee brother was there (though I think I read SM, upon arrival home, shouted out "Hello?"and got no answer). Asked directly by AD Turnbull if he'd seen Luke when he went downstairs after looking at the aforementioned porn images, SM replied: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."

How can anyone, after reading the above, infer that Luke Mitchell was in his family house that day between 1650 and 1715? It's obvious he wasn't in the house and Shane was admitting as much without actually categorically saying he wasn't there. Shane was never ever going to come right out and say his brother wasn't in the house, because blood is thicker than water and Shane probably could never bring himself to fully drop his wee brother in the shit like that; besides, him categorically saying his wee brother wasn't there would've left him and his mother open to perjury charges (had AD Turnbull came right out and asked Shane if he saw his wee brother mashing tatties in the kitchen, I suspect Shane would have said he couldn't remember). The Mitchell house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey property and not some mansion or castle with a labyrinth of rooms and corridors -- it would have been impossible for those 2 boys not to see each other that day had they been in the house at the same time. The fact that neither boy could give a consistent account of each others' whereabouts at that particular time without their mother's input is very telling. I mean, for goodness' sake, you either saw Luke or you didn't -- no in between. Are we really expected to believe that the police would be able to intimidate Shane into making a false confession that his wee brother wasn't there, when he was?!! In such a serious charge of murder? That Shane would let the police bully him? A mechanic, an intelligent strapping lad who was going to batter drug dealer [Name removed]? Yeah, right!

I often wonder if SM started crying in court out of guilt for Jodi -- did him seeing those pics of her dead, mutilated body prompt him to tell the truth? Probably. That, combined with the fact that he probably knew the police had sussed out that Luke had done it and the jury would likely see through it. Fearing going to jail for perjury for trying to cover for a horrendous murder. Stuck between a rock and a hard place -- not wanting to drop his brother in the shit, blood being thicker than water. A horrible dilemma he was in. Overwhelmed, crying. I suspect, in large part, SM's human side shone through and he simply told the truth without fully exposing his wee brother -- "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." About the best he could do or say, given the circumstances. But, at the core, the police and prosecution did a good job of getting SM to tell the truth; it wasn' so much about the police playing unfairly hardball as it was of getting Shane to realise that they knew he was lying as the Mitchells' stories weren't adding up.

Actually, I wonder if LM would've still been found guilty if SM had said under oath that his wee brother was in the house with him between 1650 - 1715. What do you think?

I omitted an important point from this post. In court, AD Turnbull asked SM who he thought was in the house when he was looking at online pornography in his bedroom and masturbating. SM replied, verbatim: "No one at the time." He then went on to say that he could not hear music being played in Luke's bedroom or the dining room (meaning that LM playing music was a common occurrence/the norm in the family home when Luke got in from school, and that, uncharacteristically, no music could be heard at that time that day). As I said, when SM arrived home at 1640 hrs after fixing his friend's car, he called out "Hello?" and got no answer. AD Turnbull also said: "We come then to where we were a wee while ago, which is this: When you went on the computer to access pornography sites, you thought that the house was empty?" "Yes," came the answer. And, of course, SM confirmed LM wasn't there when he went downstairs after the internet session (as per his "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother" answer when AD Turbull asked him if he saw LM when he went downstairs after his internet session).

So, anyone who is still unsure if LM wasn't in the house between 1645-1715 on 30.06.03 after reading my posts, well, god help you.

[faithlilly]

Part of SM's testimony in court in January '05 was admitting he had spoken to Luke on the family landline from his mobile phone just after 1600 hrs on 30.06.03 (SM had phoned the landline, presumably to let LM know he would be later home than normal as he was going to fix his friend's car? It would be useful if the contents of this phone call were known, but they aren't and are not in the public domain -- I don't even think they were discussed at the trial). Are we expected to believe that, between 30.06.03 and 03.07.03 (03.07.03 was when SM supposedly gave his first statement, though I find this hard to believe), SM had forgotten fixing his friend's car on 30.06.03 and getting home at 1640 hrs on 30.06.03? Red flags right away -- SM was lying, was he not? Lying, imo, because he was involved in trying to help cover up this murder or that, if he didn't know at this point that his wee brother was responsible, he strongly suspected LM was, and went about trying to protect him (blood being thicker than water, and all that). Of course, there is also the possibility that such sudden forgetfulness was induced by trauma; being caught up in the biggest crime of them all, directly or indirectly, will inevitably take its toll sooner or later.

Interesting, too, that he changed his statement given on 03.07.03 to align exactly with his mother's version of events, 4 days later (ie, seeing LM in the kitchen at 1720 on 30.06.03 'mashing tatties'). But on 14.04.04, when they were all arrested, he reverted to "I can't remember if Luke was in the house" or "I don't know". To then finally conceding, under oath, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." Such a mess. Very telling. LM very much guilty, imo.

What was Shane lying about in his first statement? Getting home at his usual time or not remembering seeing his brother and how does either ‘lie’ help Luke?

[Mr Apples]

What was Shane lying about in his first statement? Getting home at his usual time or not remembering seeing his brother and how does either ‘lie’ help Luke?

Of course he was lying when he said he got home at his usual time of 1540 hrs on 30.06.03. He mentioned during his testimony that he had phoned his brother from his own mobile phone just after 1600 hrs on 30.06.03 from and spoke to him on the family landline. Are we expected to believe that, on 03.07.03, SM had completely forgotten about this phone call and thought he arrived home at 1540 hrs? Ridiculous! Just as ridiculous is being asked to believe that Shane was first questioned about his whereabouts on the day of the murder on 03.07.03?? Isn't it more likely he was asked about his whereabouts on the day of the murder on 01.07.03? I read he did, in fact, give an account of his whereabouts on 30.06.03 on 01.07.03, and that he maintained he got home at 1540 hrs. Alarm bells. He was lying, imo. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he would forget in such a short space of time -- unless he was lying. He knew exactly when he arrived home and, when he did get home, was under the impression that he was home alone.

"How does either lie 'help' Luke?" is the wrong question. It would be more appropriate to ask: why did SM keep changing his story regarding he and his brother's  whereabouts at certain times of the day on 30.06.03 and give vague and ambiguous answers regarding his brother's whereabouts between 1645 - 1715 on 30.06.03?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Helen Quinn I once spoke with an officer who had left the job after this case. He told me the "ordinary cops" were shaking their heads in disbelief - according to him, it seemed to them that CID had "lost their minds."
I've explained before, it's actually quite understandable why the first 2 officers on the scene were suspicious of Luke- they believed he'd left at tea time with Jodi, from her house, and now he was saying he hadn't seen her all night; they believed he'd been coming up the path, in the dark, on his bike, and they believed he was the only one out looking for and finding Jodi.
So I guess it must have seemed strange - why would he get off his bike, in the dark, and climb over a wall? Why would he say he hadn't seen her, if he left with her from her own house at tea time? How come he knew where to look? But, of course, we know now, that none of the above was actually true - Luke didn't leave with Jodi at tea-time (don't forget AO's words - "they've just left"), he wasn't on his bike, he wasn't the only one out looking and he certainly wasn't the only person there when Jodi was found.
It's from that point, I believe, that the ordinary officers thought CID "lost their minds" - and from what we now know, I think that's pretty accurate!

[faithlilly]

Of course he was lying when he said he got home at his usual time of 1540 hrs on 30.06.03. He mentioned during his testimony that he had phoned his brother from his own mobile phone just after 1600 hrs on 30.06.03 from and spoke to him on the family landline. Are we expected to believe that, on 03.07.03, SM had completely forgotten about this phone call and thought he arrived home at 1540 hrs? Ridiculous! Just as ridiculous is being asked to believe that Shane was first questioned about his whereabouts on the day of the murder on 03.07.03?? Isn't it more likely he was asked about his whereabouts on the day of the murder on 01.07.03? I read he did, in fact, give an account of his whereabouts on 30.06.03 on 01.07.03, and that he maintained he got home at 1540 hrs. Alarm bells. He was lying, imo. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he would forget in such a short space of time -- unless he was lying. He knew exactly when he arrived home and, when he did get home, was under the impression that he was home alone.

"How does either lie 'help' Luke?" is the wrong question. It would be more appropriate to ask: why did SM keep changing his story regarding he and his brother's  whereabouts at certain times of the day on 30.06.03 and give vague and ambiguous answers regarding his brother's whereabouts between 1645 - 1715 on 30.06.03?

‘I read’….doesn’t that always ring alarm bells when you post it? You do believe any old rubbish after all.

How would Luke benefit from Shane claiming he got home earlier than he did? If a story had been agreed between the Mitchells surely by the 3rd of July they would all be saying the same thing?  If an alibi was being set up why didn’t Shane say categorically that he’d seen Luke at home when he returned home on the 3rd? Your logic really makes no sense.

It is interesting that if Shane had got home at 15.40, as he usually did, Luke wouldn’t have been home from school. This is, of course, what Shane said in his first statement. This did not help Luke in the slightest.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Helen Quinn I once spoke with an officer who had left the job after this case. He told me the "ordinary cops" were shaking their heads in disbelief - according to him, it seemed to them that CID had "lost their minds."
I've explained before, it's actually quite understandable why the first 2 officers on the scene were suspicious of Luke- they believed he'd left at tea time with Jodi, from her house, and now he was saying he hadn't seen her all night; they believed he'd been coming up the path, in the dark, on his bike, and they believed he was the only one out looking for and finding Jodi.
So I guess it must have seemed strange - why would he get off his bike, in the dark, and climb over a wall? Why would he say he hadn't seen her, if he left with her from her own house at tea time? How come he knew where to look? But, of course, we know now, that none of the above was actually true - Luke didn't leave with Jodi at tea-time (don't forget AO's words - "they've just left"), he wasn't on his bike, he wasn't the only one out looking and he certainly wasn't the only person there when Jodi was found.
It's from that point, I believe, that the ordinary officers thought CID "lost their minds" - and from what we now know, I think that's pretty accurate!

When and where did these ‘first 2 officers on the scene’ say they ‘believed’ killer Luke Mitchell had ‘been coming up the path, in the dark, on his bike’ and how did Sandra Lean come to the conclusion that these two officers ‘believed he was the only one out looking for and finding Jodi’

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Helen Quinn I once spoke with an officer who had left the job after this case. He told me the "ordinary cops" were shaking their heads in disbelief - according to him, it seemed to them that CID had "lost their minds."
I've explained before, it's actually quite understandable why the first 2 officers on the scene were suspicious of Luke- they believed he'd left at tea time with Jodi, from her house, and now he was saying he hadn't seen her all night; they believed he'd been coming up the path, in the dark, on his bike, and they believed he was the only one out looking for and finding Jodi.
So I guess it must have seemed strange - why would he get off his bike, in the dark, and climb over a wall? Why would he say he hadn't seen her, if he left with her from her own house at tea time? How come he knew where to look? But, of course, we know now, that none of the above was actually true - Luke didn't leave with Jodi at tea-time (don't forget AO's words - "they've just left"), he wasn't on his bike, he wasn't the only one out looking and he certainly wasn't the only person there when Jodi was found.
It's from that point, I believe, that the ordinary officers thought CID "lost their minds" - and from what we now know, I think that's pretty accurate!

According to killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne Mitchell’s evidence it appears he was - or at least attempting to give the impression he was

Why did Corinne Mitchell say to James English in 2019 about the police “Why didn’t they check my place”

Corinne Mitchell to James English (At around 58:00’

Why didn’t they check my place

And why did killer Luke Mitchell tell the police on the 1st July 2003 it was his mother’s suggestion that he go out looking for Jodi Jones?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Helen Quinn I once spoke with an officer who had left the job after this case. He told me the "ordinary cops" were shaking their heads in disbelief - according to him, it seemed to them that CID had "lost their minds."
I've explained before, it's actually quite understandable why the first 2 officers on the scene were suspicious of Luke- they believed he'd left at tea time with Jodi, from her house, and now he was saying he hadn't seen her all night; they believed he'd been coming up the path, in the dark, on his bike, and they believed he was the only one out looking for and finding Jodi.
So I guess it must have seemed strange - why would he get off his bike, in the dark, and climb over a wall? Why would he say he hadn't seen her, if he left with her from her own house at tea time? How come he knew where to look? But, of course, we know now, that none of the above was actually true - Luke didn't leave with Jodi at tea-time (don't forget AO's words - "they've just left"), he wasn't on his bike, he wasn't the only one out looking and he certainly wasn't the only person there when Jodi was found.
It's from that point, I believe, that the ordinary officers thought CID "lost their minds" - and from what we now know, I think that's pretty accurate!

In reality Sandra Lean has no idea if killer Luke Mitchell went to meet Jodi Jones on his other bike

[Nicholas]

Donna Smith
If the moped boys admitted to being at the V at 5.15pm and the supposed killing of Jodi 5pm - why was there no more investigation into that. The moped boys must have saw something 🙄🙄 so many questions...

Sandra Lean
Donna Smith - the actual claimed time of death was 5.15pm - the EXACT time the moped was propped against the V and those two were nowhere to be seen.When you look at how this all developed, though, it becomes less surprising that there was no further investigation.
Firstly, they took 5 days to come forward, waiting until after the first raid on Luke's house in a blaze of publicity. That weekend (5th and 6th July), they lied about the time they were on the path - the police took them at face value and off they popped.
6 - 7 weeks later (and, conveniently after the second raid on Luke's house, with even more publicity), the police realised they had statements in their possession proving that the moped pair lied. Information they'd had from the very beginning. Uh-oh!!! What to do? They've spent the last almost 2 months convincing the public that Luke was Jodi's killer, failing to follow up on any other potential suspects, losing or contaminating evidence etc, etc.  Best get those moped guys back in and try to clear this up.
Then it takes a dramatic turn - one of them tells the cops his gran (who is also Jodi's gran) told them not to go to the police in those first 5 days. They said the reason they gave the wrong time was because a clock in GD's house was wrong. The police also had evidence that THAT was a lie, too.  Sh*t - that wasn't supposed to happen. What to do? What to do? OK - a plan! Don't follow up on any of this and hope nobody notices.
For the next 18 months, nobody noticed. Keeping the public focus on Luke seemed to have worked!!! Until they took the stand and DF asked them where they were and what they were doing when their moped was parked at the V. They didn't know, they couldn't remember. He asked them, did you kill Jodi Jones? of course, they said no, and the jury, like the police before them, accepted that at face value.
So, they didn't come forward for 5 days, then they LIED about the time they were on the path. They LIED about the clock being at the wrong time. What's that phrase? Oh, yes, 3 strikes and you're out. If they were caught in one more LIE, a big, fat whopper of a LIE now, almost 20 years later, what difference would that make to the case against Luke, do we think? Tick tock!!!!

Marie Milne
Sandra Lean This just beggars belief
An utterly pathetic investigation
I’m saying “investigation” but there really was very little investigation at all

Sandra Lean
Marie Milne Yup - the investigating, for almost 20 years, has been left to us. Thankfully, they weren't nearly as clever as they thought they were - they left trails for us to follow and it looks like we may be coming quite close to the end of some of those trails now.
Too late for Luke and his family, but it's never, ever too late for justice.

[Nicholas]

Donna Smith
If the moped boys admitted to being at the V at 5.15pm and the supposed killing of Jodi 5pm - why was there no more investigation into that. The moped boys must have saw something 🙄🙄 so many questions...

Sandra Lean
Donna Smith - the actual claimed time of death was 5.15pm - the EXACT time the moped was propped against the V and those two were nowhere to be seen.When you look at how this all developed, though, it becomes less surprising that there was no further investigation.
Firstly, they took 5 days to come forward, waiting until after the first raid on Luke's house in a blaze of publicity. That weekend (5th and 6th July), they lied about the time they were on the path - the police took them at face value and off they popped.
6 - 7 weeks later (and, conveniently after the second raid on Luke's house, with even more publicity), the police realised they had statements in their possession proving that the moped pair lied. Information they'd had from the very beginning. Uh-oh!!! What to do? They've spent the last almost 2 months convincing the public that Luke was Jodi's killer, failing to follow up on any other potential suspects, losing or contaminating evidence etc, etc.  Best get those moped guys back in and try to clear this up.
Then it takes a dramatic turn - one of them tells the cops his gran (who is also Jodi's gran) told them not to go to the police in those first 5 days. They said the reason they gave the wrong time was because a clock in GD's house was wrong. The police also had evidence that THAT was a lie, too.  Sh*t - that wasn't supposed to happen. What to do? What to do? OK - a plan! Don't follow up on any of this and hope nobody notices.
For the next 18 months, nobody noticed. Keeping the public focus on Luke seemed to have worked!!! Until they took the stand and DF asked them where they were and what they were doing when their moped was parked at the V. They didn't know, they couldn't remember. He asked them, did you kill Jodi Jones? of course, they said no, and the jury, like the police before them, accepted that at face value.
So, they didn't come forward for 5 days, then they LIED about the time they were on the path. They LIED about the clock being at the wrong time. What's that phrase? Oh, yes, 3 strikes and you're out. If they were caught in one more LIE, a big, fat whopper of a LIE now, almost 20 years later, what difference would that make to the case against Luke, do we think? Tick tock!!!!

Marie Milne
Sandra Lean This just beggars belief
An utterly pathetic investigation
I’m saying “investigation” but there really was very little investigation at all

Sandra Lean
Marie Milne Yup - the investigating, for almost 20 years, has been left to us. Thankfully, they weren't nearly as clever as they thought they were - they left trails for us to follow and it looks like we may be coming quite close to the end of some of those trails now.
Too late for Luke and his family, but it's never, ever too late for justice.

Why does Sandra Lean choose to continue to gaslight people into wrongly thinking the moped was propped against the V of the wall at 5:15pm when it wasn’t

[Rusty]

Why does Sandra Lean choose to continue to gaslight people into wrongly thinking the moped was propped against the V of the wall at 5:15pm when it wasn’t

Not a shred of evidence has ever been provided, to back up this claim.

Over the years when lean was challenged on this claim.

She has used.

Unnamed witness seen moped from the Beeches > Debunked.

Tool hire workers said they saw it > Debunked.

By the boy's own admission > Debunked.

[faithlilly]

Not a shred of evidence has ever been provided, to back up this claim.

By the boy's own admission > Debunked.

From the Scotsman:

“The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, and that he seemed to be "piling up a rather substantial list of coincidences".

[Nicholas]

Some of Sandra Lean and psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s core supporters are also ‘making a murderer’ supporters

There’s a series on this innocence fraud coming out soon

’According to Rech, although the new series was supposed to air a couple of years ago,  he is optimistic it will air early summer 2023. Rech said television networks are currently in the process of actively biding on the 10-episode season.  Each of the episodes is about one-hour long, he added.
Rech says that the new series — being called “a Season of Truth” —  tells a more complete story and tells the truth about Wisconsin law enforcement. Unlike the original “Making a Murderer” series, the new series “Convicting a Murderer” shows the forest through the trees.
“We don’t tell people what to think. We tell the complete story. Law enforcement was falsely portrayed dishonestly in ‘Making a Murderer.’ You’re going to hear law enforcement respond directly to the false accusations made in ‘Making a Murderer,’” Rech added.

https://wislawjournal.com/2023/02/23/making-a-murderer-rebuttal-to-air-early-summer-in-new-series-called-convicting-a-murderer-a-season-of-truth/

Shawn Rech also produced ‘A Murder in the park’ https://youtu.be/jMa6cxG2yDk about the innocence fraud of the killer, and his enablers, of Marilyn Green and Jerry Hillard

[faithlilly]

Some of Sandra Lean and psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s core supporters are also ‘making a murderer’ supporters

There’s a series on this innocence fraud coming out soon

’According to Rech, although the new series was supposed to air a couple of years ago,  he is optimistic it will air early summer 2023. Rech said television networks are currently in the process of actively biding on the 10-episode season.  Each of the episodes is about one-hour long, he added.
Rech says that the new series — being called “a Season of Truth” —  tells a more complete story and tells the truth about Wisconsin law enforcement. Unlike the original “Making a Murderer” series, the new series “Convicting a Murderer” shows the forest through the trees.
“We don’t tell people what to think. We tell the complete story. Law enforcement was falsely portrayed dishonestly in ‘Making a Murderer.’ You’re going to hear law enforcement respond directly to the false accusations made in ‘Making a Murderer,’” Rech added.

https://wislawjournal.com/2023/02/23/making-a-murderer-rebuttal-to-air-early-summer-in-new-series-called-convicting-a-murderer-a-season-of-truth/

Shawn Rech also produced ‘A Murder in the park’ https://youtu.be/jMa6cxG2yDk about the innocence fraud of the killer, and his enablers, of Marilyn Green and Jerry Hillard

So what conviction do you think that Wisconsin law enforcement got right….the rape Steven Avery served 18 years for before DNA proved him innocent or the one featured in Making a Murderer where Avery and his nephew were alleged to have slashed and stabbed a young woman repeatedly on a mattress that had absolutely no DNA of the victim on it?

The parallels to Luke’s case are astonishing at times.