UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Parky41 on March 19, 2021, 06:57:36 PM
-
Let us start first of all with statements - what appeared to concern the police in those first statements?
Let's take these changes in statements that Ms Lean is claiming were so demonstrably different from the first account given to the ones four weeks after this murder had taken place:
Ms Lean claims that "all" of the search parties statements were the same as LM's, that they all stated that the dog had led them to find Jodi Jones.
She uses a handful of small areas of wording to show this to be true:
LM stated that his dog was "standing up at the wall", SK stated that the dog was "standing up at the wall".
LM stated he had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall. SK and JaJ stated they had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall.
All true? - why therefore did the police find these statements to be in contrast with each other - they were after all saying the same thing?
It is worthy to note here that not only was there a reproduction wall built in the court.
The Jury were taken to Roansdyke path to see the locus first hand.
Were the witnesses also taken to this path to go over their statements. - all that effort in the latter would suggest so?
It was dark, almost 11.30pm
Let's take another area of the statements, where JaJ and Jodi's grandmother make reference to LM going over this V. Why?
There is never mention in the statements of AW having to "backtrack", there is good reason for this. IMO
Ms Lean has tied in different areas of statements in an attempt to match them with LM's How do we know this?
Let's expand those first statements just a little further:
LM stated that he had walked some distance past this V break "not even 20yards" (not even 60ft) Fair distance past though.
SK, JaJ's and AW stated that when they "came to" this V break in the wall that LM once again took the decision to look into the woodland.
Note there "once again" LM had already took it upon himself to look into this woodland, he had climbed the wall some distance before the V.
No claimed reactions from the dog here - in fact this part is pretty much diverted away from, from the innocence camp.
This was at the 'Gino' spot. (graffiti) where the wall is much higher, bar a couple of broken stones at the top. LM "shone his torch into the woods" and climbed down again.
When the search party came to the V in the wall SK gives reference to the "dogs head being level with the V" Does this back up and confirm LM's statement? - no it simply does not, why?
Is it the same? - no it is not. Why?
The obvious being that SK states this was at the V - LM up to 60ft past it. Also;
SK's account is by far the accurate one, of what actually happened, that the search party did not go past the V.
It is physically impossible to make reference to the dogs head being level with this V unless actually right beside it. It was dark. SK made it clear with his description, that this was at the V.
"backtrack" - We have already cleared up here as to why LM did not "backtrack" to the V with his dog from where he claimed it reacted.
He simply did not need to backtrack - he was at the V.
Common sense would tell us that there is a whole lot of difference between someone stepping from left to right to actually "backtracking"
From those very first statements - gaping contrast.
SK and JaJ having to backtrack to this V - came after LM was in the woodland, from when he had shouted he had found "something".
That after LM had entered the woodland and turned left they had continued to walk, that they had barely "walked 10ft" when LM shouted out,
it was at this point they both "backtracked to the V"
If anyone has anything at all to counter act this I would be grateful to see it - to date there has been nothing. Bar;
JaJ could not have seen which direction LM turned, "the base of the V is 6ft from the ground" - no it is not.
How? if she continued to walk did she see which direction LM turned - simple, because JaJ and SK continued once LM was over and had started to walk in that direction. The direction of his torch light.
So that total contrast in statements from the first - Remember here also that vital time frame of approx: 10mins.
It was not simply that LM claimed to have walked in the direction his dog had reacted, some 20yards away.
He was in this woodland mere seconds - before shouting out he had found something.
One would need to know this area of woodland like the back of their hand, no deliberation of steps, of searching at all - instant.
But LM did not know this woodland did he? He claimed never to have been in it prior to that night, he claimed that he knew not of the existence of this V until that night - Yet he chose, only him - to look into the woods, which was blocked from view completely by this wall, 8ft high in most parts.
Jodi Jones had been forbidden by her mother to walk this path alone. - But;
LM claimed not to have been worried when she did not turn up - claiming that she was walking this very path alone to meet with him.
Yet, felt the need to introduce the possibility that Jodi may be in the woods. Why?
An introduction that came before the claimed reaction of the dog.
This is the information that we know - from evidence heard, the Crowns case and from Ms Lean - why therefore when there are claims of the search trio being partly responsible for LM's incarceration, by the very act of changing statements is there not far more from Ms Lean?
To simply claim with much retribution - that "all" of the search party agreed with LM, that it was indeed Mia that found Jodi Jones, can she not back this up with an expansion of these very statements - statements from that first instance that grossly differed from LM's?
This, not being able to release "all" of the statements in their entirety is a far cry from taking several words and adding them to others - is it not?
Why not a whole paragraph? - perhaps the simple answer is - they would expose more truth than theory.
It has never been just about the dog finding Jodi Jones - the sequence of events, the timing and most importantly where? are what is needed to back up this claim that the dog did indeed find her. - It is blatantly obvious that they were never there to back it in the first instance. IMO
Approx: 10mins. From LM asking "do you have anything of Jodi's for Mia to scent" (they did not, why would they?) to LM shouting out "I have found something"
This was from near the High School at the top of this path - Approx: 10mins.
Jodi Jones was known to be missing just after her mother texted to LM at 10.40pm
LM offered to search this path at 10.50pm when on the phone to JuJ.
Jodi is reported missing to the police.
LM claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm
LM is on Roansdyke path by 10.59pm when he is again on the phone with JuJ.
At or Just after 11.15pm LM is nearing the top end of the path and sees members of Jodi's family approaching to meet with him.
A conversation is had - LM asks "do you have anything of Jodi's to use for Mia to scent" Again they did not, why would they?
Why would this family have even known LM was going to have his dog?
11.30pm Jodi Jones is found, off the path, behind this wall some 40ft down from the V break. Approx: 10mins
The girls family were looking into the side of the field and undergrowth of the wall - LM looks into the woods?
It is the time frame that really stands out to me - hardly surprising the police were suspicious?
Known to be missing around 10.40pm found by 11.30pm - By LM?
-
Imo Suspicious fell on Luke on the first night because of confusion by the police as to who found her, originally they thought it was only Luke and the others met up with him but in fact it was all of them. Luke’s smart ars attitude, Him being strange or weird, Luke being the boyfriend.
After the first night, imo, to the police the main suspect was Luke and after that any evidence that was found, if it didn’t fit Luke, it was not investigated as thoroughly as it could have been. Important information could have been ignored.
The whole police investigation from the moment they took the call was messed up. For that reason alone an independent review should be done, what else did they mess up that we don’t know about. If anyone is so sure or his guilt or innocence then what harm can an independent review do other than prove your point and put this all to rest once and for all for everyone involved.
-
Imo Suspicious fell on Luke on the first night because of confusion by the police as to who found her, originally they thought it was only Luke and the others met up with him but in fact it was all of them. Luke’s smart ars attitude, Him being strange or weird, Luke being the boyfriend.
After the first night, imo, to the police the main suspect was Luke and after that any evidence that was found, if it didn’t fit Luke, it was not investigated as thoroughly as it could have been. Important information could have been ignored.
The whole police investigation from the moment they took the call was messed up. For that reason alone an independent review should be done, what else did they mess up that we don’t know about. If anyone is so sure or his guilt or innocence then what harm can an independent review do other than prove your point and put this all to rest once and for all for everyone involved.
But it wouldn't be resolved, would it? Certainly not if previous failed appeals etc are anything at all to go by.
-
Imo Suspicious fell on Luke on the first night because of confusion by the police as to who found her, originally they thought it was only Luke and the others met up with him but in fact it was all of them. Luke’s smart ars attitude, Him being strange or weird, Luke being the boyfriend.
After the first night, imo, to the police the main suspect was Luke and after that any evidence that was found, if it didn’t fit Luke, it was not investigated as thoroughly as it could have been. Important information could have been ignored.
The whole police investigation from the moment they took the call was messed up. For that reason alone an independent review should be done, what else did they mess up that we don’t know about. If anyone is so sure or his guilt or innocence then what harm can an independent review do other than prove your point and put this all to rest once and for all for everyone involved.
I wonder if the independent review will show Corrine's involvement? She was complicit.
-
Let us start first of all with statements - what appeared to concern the police in those first statements?
Let's take these changes in statements that Ms Lean is claiming were so demonstrably different from the first account given to the ones four weeks after this murder had taken place:
Ms Lean claims that "all" of the search parties statements were the same as LM's, that they all stated that the dog had led them to find Jodi Jones.
She uses a handful of small areas of wording to show this to be true:
LM stated that his dog was "standing up at the wall", SK stated that the dog was "standing up at the wall".
LM stated he had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall. SK and JaJ stated they had to "backtrack" to the V in the wall.
All true? - why therefore did the police find these statements to be in contrast with each other - they were after all saying the same thing?
It is worthy to note here that not only was there a reproduction wall built in the court.
The Jury were taken to Roansdyke path to see the locus first hand.
Were the witnesses also taken to this path to go over their statements. - all that effort in the latter would suggest so?
It was dark, almost 11.30pm
Let's take another area of the statements, where JaJ and Jodi's grandmother make reference to LM going over this V. Why?
There is never mention in the statements of AW having to "backtrack", there is good reason for this. IMO
Ms Lean has tied in different areas of statements in an attempt to match them with LM's How do we know this?
Let's expand those first statements just a little further:
LM stated that he had walked some distance past this V break "not even 20yards" (not even 60ft) Fair distance past though.
SK, JaJ's and AW stated that when they "came to" this V break in the wall that LM once again took the decision to look into the woodland.
Note there "once again" LM had already took it upon himself to look into this woodland, he had climbed the wall some distance before the V.
No claimed reactions from the dog here - in fact this part is pretty much diverted away from, from the innocence camp.
This was at the 'Gino' spot. (graffiti) where the wall is much higher, bar a couple of broken stones at the top. LM "shone his torch into the woods" and climbed down again.
When the search party came to the V in the wall SK gives reference to the "dogs head being level with the V" Does this back up and confirm LM's statement? - no it simply does not, why?
Is it the same? - no it is not. Why?
The obvious being that SK states this was at the V - LM up to 60ft past it. Also;
SK's account is by far the accurate one, of what actually happened, that the search party did not go past the V.
It is physically impossible to make reference to the dogs head being level with this V unless actually right beside it. It was dark. SK made it clear with his description, that this was at the V.
"backtrack" - We have already cleared up here as to why LM did not "backtrack" to the V with his dog from where he claimed it reacted.
He simply did not need to backtrack - he was at the V.
Common sense would tell us that there is a whole lot of difference between someone stepping from left to right to actually "backtracking"
From those very first statements - gaping contrast.
SK and JaJ having to backtrack to this V - came after LM was in the woodland, from when he had shouted he had found "something".
That after LM had entered the woodland and turned left they had continued to walk, that they had barely "walked 10ft" when LM shouted out,
it was at this point they both "backtracked to the V"
If anyone has anything at all to counter act this I would be grateful to see it - to date there has been nothing. Bar;
JaJ could not have seen which direction LM turned, "the base of the V is 6ft from the ground" - no it is not.
How? if she continued to walk did she see which direction LM turned - simple, because JaJ and SK continued once LM was over and had started to walk in that direction. The direction of his torch light.
So that total contrast in statements from the first - Remember here also that vital time frame of approx: 10mins.
It was not simply that LM claimed to have walked in the direction his dog had reacted, some 20yards away.
He was in this woodland mere seconds - before shouting out he had found something.
One would need to know this area of woodland like the back of their hand, no deliberation of steps, of searching at all - instant.
But LM did not know this woodland did he? He claimed never to have been in it prior to that night, he claimed that he knew not of the existence of this V until that night - Yet he chose, only him - to look into the woods, which was blocked from view completely by this wall, 8ft high in most parts.
Jodi Jones had been forbidden by her mother to walk this path alone. - But;
LM claimed not to have been worried when she did not turn up - claiming that she was walking this very path alone to meet with him.
Yet, felt the need to introduce the possibility that Jodi may be in the woods. Why?
An introduction that came before the claimed reaction of the dog.
This is the information that we know - from evidence heard, the Crowns case and from Ms Lean - why therefore when there are claims of the search trio being partly responsible for LM's incarceration, by the very act of changing statements is there not far more from Ms Lean?
To simply claim with much retribution - that "all" of the search party agreed with LM, that it was indeed Mia that found Jodi Jones, can she not back this up with an expansion of these very statements - statements from that first instance that grossly differed from LM's?
This, not being able to release "all" of the statements in their entirety is a far cry from taking several words and adding them to others - is it not?
Why not a whole paragraph? - perhaps the simple answer is - they would expose more truth than theory.
It has never been just about the dog finding Jodi Jones - the sequence of events, the timing and most importantly where? are what is needed to back up this claim that the dog did indeed find her. - It is blatantly obvious that they were never there to back it in the first instance. IMO
Approx: 10mins. From LM asking "do you have anything of Jodi's for Mia to scent" (they did not, why would they?) to LM shouting out "I have found something"
This was from near the High School at the top of this path - Approx: 10mins.
Jodi Jones was known to be missing just after her mother texted to LM at 10.40pm
LM offered to search this path at 10.50pm when on the phone to JuJ.
Jodi is reported missing to the police.
LM claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm
LM is on Roansdyke path by 10.59pm when he is again on the phone with JuJ.
At or Just after 11.15pm LM is nearing the top end of the path and sees members of Jodi's family approaching to meet with him.
A conversation is had - LM asks "do you have anything of Jodi's to use for Mia to scent" Again they did not, why would they?
Why would this family have even known LM was going to have his dog?
11.30pm Jodi Jones is found, off the path, behind this wall some 40ft down from the V break. Approx: 10mins
The girls family were looking into the side of the field and undergrowth of the wall - LM looks into the woods?
It is the time frame that really stands out to me - hardly surprising the police were suspicious?
Known to be missing around 10.40pm found by 11.30pm - By LM?
Donald Findlay referred to the changing of statements in court. There is no doubt that the rest of the searcher’ statements changed.
With regards to your claims above, could you post your source material? I believe your quotes come from police statements and court transcripts but it would be helpful to see the full passages to give context.
-
But it wouldn't be resolved, would it? Certainly not if previous failed appeals etc are anything at all to go by.
This is not like an appeal, this is going over all the information that was available to the police at the time and ensuring things were done correctly and going by all the information and evidence ensuring the correct decisions and judgment were made. Like the Hillsborough review where they found out after years of blaming the football fans that it was in fact the fault of the police. Unless all the information is reviewed we will always be stuck at this point.
-
This is not like an appeal, this is going over all the information that was available to the police at the time and ensuring things were done correctly and going by all the information and evidence ensuring the correct decisions and judgment were made. Like the Hillsborough review where they found out after years of blaming the football fans that it was in fact the fault of the police. Unless all the information is reviewed we will always be stuck at this point.
I would love to see a Hillsborough type review but as the law stands in Scotland at the moment I’m afraid I can’t see that happening. No harm in making your voice heard though as many are doing at the moment.
-
It has never been just about the dog finding Jodi Jones - the sequence of events, the timing and most importantly where? are what is needed to back up this claim that the dog did indeed find her. - It is blatantly obvious that they were never there to back it in the first instance. IMO
Approx: 10mins. From LM asking "do you have anything of Jodi's for Mia to scent" (they did not, why would they?) to LM shouting out "I have found something"
This was from near the High School at the top of this path - Approx: 10mins.
Jodi Jones was known to be missing just after her mother texted to LM at 10.40pm
LM offered to search this path at 10.50pm when on the phone to JuJ.
Jodi is reported missing to the police.
LM claimed to leave his house at 10.52pm
LM is on Roansdyke path by 10.59pm when he is again on the phone with JuJ.
At or Just after 11.15pm LM is nearing the top end of the path and sees members of Jodi's family approaching to meet with him.
A conversation is had - LM asks "do you have anything of Jodi's to use for Mia to scent" Again they did not, why would they?
Why would this family have even known LM was going to have his dog?
11.30pm Jodi Jones is found, off the path, behind this wall some 40ft down from the V break. Approx: 10mins
The girls family were looking into the side of the field and undergrowth of the wall - LM looks into the woods?
It is the time frame that really stands out to me - hardly surprising the police were suspicious?
Known to be missing around 10.40pm found by 11.30pm - By LM?
The Mitchell Alsatian would have scented Jodi on the first pass but this was conveniently ignored. Luke Mitchell needed to be with the Jones family when he found the body otherwise it would look as if he knew where she was located all along. His entire version of finding the body is a fabrication imo.
-
The Mitchell Alsatian would have scented Jodi on the first pass but this was conveniently ignored. Luke Mitchell needed to be with the Jones family when he found the body otherwise it would look as if he knew where she was located all along. His entire version of finding the body is a fabrication imo.
Doesn’t a tracker dog track on command?
-
The Mitchell Alsatian would have scented Jodi on the first pass but this was conveniently ignored. Luke Mitchell needed to be with the Jones family when he found the body otherwise it would look as if he knew where she was located all along. His entire version of finding the body is a fabrication imo.
The evidence speaks for itself as to why suspicion fell upon LM - by the very story he told. One which was in total contrast to the evidence of others.
In total contradiction between even those who are supporting his innocence.
"He was a wee laddie, in the dark on his own, in a rush to get up and off this path as quickly as possible"
CM "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog"
LM "I said to JuJ that I would go to the path to search for Jodi, if I did not find her I would make my way to her house"
Timings again - LM was on this path before 11pm - LM was still on this path after 11.15pm, not even at the top. Yet;
It had taken only 10mins to walk 3/4 the way back down, inclusive of his ascend at the Gino spot, carry on down to the V and find Jodi.
There was no time for LM to have been searching further past the V - which again confirms the evidence and first statements of the Jones' family.
That he had went to the V not some distance past it.
Confirms that he had barely been over the wall seconds prior to shouting "I have found something"
The first call to the emergency services was around 11.34pm?
IMO LM was prepped and ready for that inevitable call from this girls mother.
LM so cocky and sure of himself that in his interviews he was telling the police how to do their job.
Smart arse indeed? - nothing at all in his demeanor throughout those first hours of questioning, that one would expect from a 14yr old boy who had just found the dead body of his girlfriend.
I have said before - no one truly know if LM is guilty, nothing can be 100% certain unless he was to admit this awful crime.
But there were clear reasons as to why suspicion fell upon him in those first hours - reasons that came from himself primarily. IMO
-
This is not like an appeal, this is going over all the information that was available to the police at the time and ensuring things were done correctly and going by all the information and evidence ensuring the correct decisions and judgment were made. Like the Hillsborough review where they found out after years of blaming the football fans that it was in fact the fault of the police. Unless all the information is reviewed we will always be stuck at this point.
How many bites at the cherry do you suppose this murderer is entitled to?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)has already reviewed Mitchell's case on 2014.
The point you seem to be neglecting is that all the information available has been subject to numerous reviews and appeals all of which have resulted in confirming that the evidence which convicted Mitchell in the first instance is sound.
My opinion is that Mitchell is one of a long line of murderers denying their crimes worldwide and in Scottish jails with all that distinguishes him being his youth and the fact that like Venables and Thompson he was caught at the start of his career rather than at the end of it.
https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog/serial-killers-what-age-do-they-usually-start-killing
-
How many bites at the cherry do you suppose this murderer is entitled to?
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)has already reviewed Mitchell's case on 2014.
The point you seem to be neglecting is that all the information available has been subject to numerous reviews and appeals all of which have resulted in confirming that the evidence which convicted Mitchell in the first instance is sound.
My opinion is that Mitchell is one of a long line of murderers denying their crimes worldwide and in Scottish jails with all that distinguishes him being his youth and the fact that like Venables and Thompson he was caught at the start of his career rather than at the end of it.
https://www.murdermiletours.com/blog/serial-killers-what-age-do-they-usually-start-killing
Most individuals whose convictions are quashed have been through the appeal process several times before they receive justice.
As to Luke starting his career early...if he’s innocent then he never did.
-
The evidence speaks for itself as to why suspicion fell upon LM - by the very story he told. One which was in total contrast to the evidence of others.
In total contradiction between even those who are supporting his innocence.
"He was a wee laddie, in the dark on his own, in a rush to get up and off this path as quickly as possible"
CM "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog"
LM "I said to JuJ that I would go to the path to search for Jodi, if I did not find her I would make my way to her house"
Timings again - LM was on this path before 11pm - LM was still on this path after 11.15pm, not even at the top. Yet;
It had taken only 10mins to walk 3/4 the way back down, inclusive of his ascend at the Gino spot, carry on down to the V and find Jodi.
There was no time for LM to have been searching further past the V - which again confirms the evidence and first statements of the Jones' family.
That he had went to the V not some distance past it.
Confirms that he had barely been over the wall seconds prior to shouting "I have found something"
The first call to the emergency services was around 11.34pm?
IMO LM was prepped and ready for that inevitable call from this girls mother.
LM so cocky and sure of himself that in his interviews he was telling the police how to do their job.
Smart arse indeed? - nothing at all in his demeanor throughout those first hours of questioning, that one would expect from a 14yr old boy who had just found the dead body of his girlfriend.
I have said before - no one truly know if LM is guilty, nothing can be 100% certain unless he was to admit this awful crime.
But there were clear reasons as to why suspicion fell upon him in those first hours - reasons that came from himself primarily. IMO
Could you please provide the source materials such as the official statements and court transcripts, or sections thereof, for the above claims?
-
Could you please provide the source materials such as the official statements and court transcripts, or sections thereof, for the above claims?
Is that the best you can do?
-
All posters are reminded to keep comments amicable and to the point. Information provided to support debate should be accompanied by a link where possible. Please abide by the rules which have been developed for everyone's benefit. TY
-
Is that the best you can do?
Haven’t you seen John’s latest post?
‘Information provided to support debate should be accompanied by a link where possible.’
-
Haven’t you seen John’s latest post?
‘Information provided to support debate should be accompanied by a link where possible.’
What links are you looking for Faithlilly? - where are your links if this is on the basis that all said must have links?
Are you disputing the evidence heard from LM?
Did JuJ not text him at 10.40pm?
Did he not speak with JuJ again at 10.49pm?
Did he not say he was leaving to go search this path while making his way to JuJ?
Did he not claim to have left his house just after this call?
Did he not say he was at Roansdyke path when he was on the phone again with a JuJ at 10.59pm
Did he not say he saw the Jones family when nearing the top of this path?
Did he not ask them if they had anything of Jodi's to scent?
Did he not climb the wall at the GIno spot?
Was it not approx: 11.30pm when he called out he had found something?
Did he not deny of ever frequenting this woodland before?
Did he not deny of knowing of the existence of this V prior to June the 30th?
Did he not say he had walked not even 20yards past the V break in the wall?
Have you done the math? I am saying clearly some reasons as to why suspicion may have falling upon LM.
Was there a replica wall built in the court?
Were the Jury taken to this path?
Were the witnesses taken to this path?
Has Ms Lean used the excerpt of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" to show that he agreed with what LM said?
Can you see this V from nearly 60ft past it at all in the dark - the simple answer is NO.
-
What links are you looking for Faithlilly? - where are your links if this is on the basis that all said must have links?
Are you disputing the evidence heard from LM?
Did JuJ not text him at 10.40pm?
Did he not speak with JuJ again at 10.49pm?
Did he not say he was leaving to go search this path while making his way to JuJ?
Did he not claim to have left his house just after this call?
Did he not say he was at Roansdyke path when he was on the phone again with a JuJ at 10.59pm
Did he not say he saw the Jones family when nearing the top of this path?
Did he not ask them if they had anything of Jodi's to scent?
Did he not climb the wall at the GIno spot?
Was it not approx: 11.30pm when he called out he had found something?
Did he not deny of ever frequenting this woodland before?
Did he not deny of knowing of the existence of this V prior to June the 30th?
Did he not say he had walked not even 20yards past the V break in the wall?
Have you done the math? I am saying clearly some reasons as to why suspicion may have falling upon LM.
Was there a replica wall built in the court?
Were the Jury taken to this path?
Were the witnesses taken to this path?
Has Ms Lean used the excerpt of SK's statement of "the dogs head being level with the V" to show that he agreed with what LM said?
Can you see this V from nearly 60ft past it at all in the dark - the simple answer is NO.
Do you have the links in order to substantiate your claims? I’ll take extracts from police statements, court transcripts, anything official really.
-
Do you have the links in order to substantiate your claims? I’ll take extracts from police statements, court transcripts, anything official really.
So will I. Most of what I find on the subject of Jodi's murder either comes from Sandra Lean or from the Sun newspaper.
I don't think much of the Sun, and the majority of people on here don't think much of Sandra, so I'd be grateful for something from another source to study!
-
So will I. Most of what I find on the subject of Jodi's murder either comes from Sandra Lean or from the Sun newspaper.
I don't think much of the Sun, and the majority of people on here don't think much of Sandra, so I'd be grateful for something from another source to study!
Sandra can't be contradicted because apparently she is the *only* one with the court transcripts.
-
Sandra can't be contradicted because apparently she is the *only* one with the court transcripts.
She certainly appears to be the only one who has written a book about the case.
-
Sandra can't be contradicted because apparently she is the *only* one with the court transcripts.
Quite obviously her interpretation of which differs markedly from that of the trial judge and the most senior appeal judges in the land.
-
Sandra can't be contradicted because apparently she is the *only* one with the court transcripts.
[Name removed]’s family will possibly have court transcripts
-
Sandra can't be contradicted because apparently she is the *only* one with the court transcripts.
Sandra most definitely can be contradicted. She continues to say Luke isn't on protection in prison and he certainly is. If a simple thing like that is a lie what else that she says is lies
-
Sandra most definitely can be contradicted. She continues to say Luke isn't on protection in prison and he certainly is. If a simple thing like that is a lie what else that she says is lies
There doesn’t seem to be any concrete confirmation either way.
-
There doesn’t seem to be any concrete confirmation either way.
There certainly is .I know for sure he's in protection.
-
There certainly is .I know for sure he's in protection.
And Sandra Lean says he’s not. Off course it all comes down to proof and neither of you have offered any.
-
And Sandra Lean says he’s not. Off course it all comes down to proof and neither of you have offered any.
Of course it does. I could offer proof but I'll bide my time. Of course if Luke really wasn't in protection and himself, sandra and corrine wanted it put out there that he wasn't. Luke himself (if and when) he does his phone interview with James English he could verify it. Somehow I don't think that will happen as it would soon be verified as lies
-
Of course it does. I could offer proof but I'll bide my time. Of course if Luke really wasn't in protection and himself, sandra and corrine wanted it put out there that he wasn't. Luke himself (if and when) he does his phone interview with James English he could verify it. Somehow I don't think that will happen as it would soon be verified as lies
I think permission has been refused for the James English interview to go ahead so I’m afraid he’ll never be asked. So we are where we are...two individuals making claims with absolutely no evidence that they’re true.
BTW are you claiming that Luke has been in protection for the whole of his time in prison or just recently ?
-
I think permission has been refused for the James English interview to go ahead so I’m afraid he’ll never be asked. So we are where we are...two individuals making claims with absolutely no evidence that they’re true.
BTW are you claiming that Luke has been in protection for the whole of his time in prison or just recently ?
Yes James English was refused an interview in prison. Telephone interview as what was done for channel 5 interview is what was alluded to! So can't see why that wouldn't happen. His time in shotts he's definitely been on protection. Not sure of his sentence up until then but definitely in Shotts. Considering what he was convicted of it's probably more than likely all his time in prison has been in protection. For his protection
-
Yes James English was refused an interview in prison. Telephone interview as what was done for channel 5 interview is what was alluded to! So can't see why that wouldn't happen. His time in shotts he's definitely been on protection. Not sure of his sentence up until then but definitely in Shotts. Considering what he was convicted of it's probably more than likely all his time in prison has been in protection. For his protection
That’s interesting. Luke has been in protection for all the time he’s been at Shotts and possibly the rest of his time in prison too but I don’t remember reading this salacious nugget in any of the the media which is strange because stories that paint Luke in a bad light seem to have tabloid gold for quite some time. Are you sure that you haven’t been sold a pup? Is someone you know in Shotts?
-
That’s interesting. Luke has been in protection for all the time he’s been at Shotts and possibly the rest of his time in prison too but I don’t remember reading this salacious nugget in any of the the media which is strange because stories that paint Luke in a bad light seem to have tabloid gold for quite some time. Are you sure that you haven’t been sold a pup? Is someone you know in Shotts?
Haha. Now what do you mean by in shotts? In shotts as a resident, in shotts as a p.o. , in shotts as a worker, in shotts as sometimes works in there. You'll never know. But one thing I am is I can taken at my word as truthful. Can you say same? And maybe just maybe press just aren't interested in where he is anymore as they know he's not going anywhere anytime soon. The issue of him being on protection is only relevant because it is just another lie that sandra lean puts out there.
-
Haha. Now what do you mean by in shotts? In shotts as a resident, in shotts as a p.o. , in shotts as a worker, in shotts as sometimes works in there. You'll never know. But one thing I am is I can taken at my word as truthful. Can you say same? And maybe just maybe press just aren't interested in where he is anymore as they know he's not going anywhere anytime soon. The issue of him being on protection is only relevant because it is just another lie that sandra lean puts out there.
By in Shotts I mean in any capacity, someone privy to information that isn’t in the public domain.
As to truthfulness, with the greatest respect, you are just another poster on an internet forum and as you are providing no proof of your claim I’m really in no position to gauge how truthful you are. On the other hand I have known Sandra for several years and she has never, to my knowledge, lied to me. If I was to believe you over someone I’ve known for some time I really would need some proof of your claim. You are of course quite at liberty to refuse but why would you, if what you say is true?
-
By in Shotts I mean in any capacity, someone privy to information that isn’t in the public domain.
As to truthfulness, with the greatest respect, you are just another poster on an internet forum and as you are providing no proof of your claim I’m really in no position to gauge how truthful you are. On the other hand I have known Sandra for several years and she has never, to my knowledge, lied to me. If I was to believe you over someone I’ve known for some time I really would need some proof of your claim. You are of course quite at liberty to refuse but why would you, if what you say is true?
Well Sandra lean has said on several occasions luke isn't on protection. What point was she trying to prove by saying this? I have nothing to prove by providing evidence of this. Sandra lean does. He's on protection and this information could easily be found out. You've been dupped
-
Well Sandra lean has said on several occasions luke isn't on protection. What point was she trying to prove by saying this? I have nothing to prove by providing evidence of this. Sandra lean does. He's on protection and this information could easily be found out. You've been dupped
Sandra doesn’t have to prove anything just as you don’t have to prove anything but that doesn’t take us any further forward, does it? You say that the information that Luke is on protection is easily found yet you refuse to say where. That strikes me as very odd.
-
Sandra doesn’t have to prove anything just as you don’t have to prove anything but that doesn’t take us any further forward, does it? You say that the information that Luke is on protection is easily found yet you refuse to say where. That strikes me as very odd.
sandra makes claims to people that she wants to help her in her quest to get him freed so she should be backing up her claims. Or does she justvrely on them blindly following and believing every word that comes out her mouth? Why does she claim he's not on protection, what is purpose of that? And I don’t refuse to say I choose not to.If anyone really wants to find out they'll go to effort of finding it out. I'm not going to do the work for them. Perhaps you should make the effort rather than just taking Sandra's word for it
-
sandra makes claims to people that she wants to help her in her quest to get him freed so she should be backing up her claims. Or does she justvrely on them blindly following and believing every word that comes out her mouth? Why does she claim he's not on protection, what is purpose of that?
Don’t you see that’s what you’re doing too? Do you rely on people simply believing you? Why do you claim that Luke’s on protection, what do you hope to gain?
Are you willing to share where this easily found information can be found or simply do the same thing you accuse Sandra of, not backing up your claims?
-
Don’t you see that’s what you’re doing too? Do you rely on people simply believing you? Why do you claim that Luke’s on protection, what do you hope to gain?
Are you willing to share where this easily found information can be found or simply do the same thing you accuse Sandra of, not backing up your claims?
Matters not one bit to me whether people believe me or not. I'm not the one trying to get luke freed. It should matter to Sandra though that if she's making a claim that its true and she can back it up. I know where luke is does Sandra really know ? I think not. And just for the record I don't disclose anything other than what could easily be found in public domain as I am aware and adhere to data protection. Something I tried to make Sandra's followers aware of in lives when they were giving Luke’s information out on social media ! Are they and Sandra really thst uneducated that they don't see the danger in that. They really don't think very much do they?
-
Mayters not one bit to me whether people believe me or not. I'm not one trying to get luke freed. It should matter to Sandra though that if she's making a claim that its true and she can back it up. I know where luke is does Sandra really know ? I think not
Whether Luke is in protection or not will make nor one iota’s difference to whether he is freed or not and I’m not sure why you think it will.
Those who believe Sandra’s claim will still believe her and those who believe that you have information will believe you. However it is clear where Sandra’s information is coming from, that’s not the case with you.
You say that the information I have requested several times now is readily available but have thus far refused to say where so, for me, this discussion has reached its natural end.
And with that I’ll bid you a good night Mrs S. Sleep well.
-
Whether Luke is in protection or not will make nor one iota’s difference to whether he is freed or not and I’m not sure why you think it will.
Those who believe Sandra’s claim will still believe her and those who believe that you have information will believe you. However it is clear where Sandra’s information is coming from, that’s not the case with you.
You say that the information I have requested several times now is readily available but have thus far refused to say where so, for me, this discussion has reached its natural end.
And with that I’ll bid you a good night Mrs S. Sleep well.
I never said it would make any difference to whether he gets freed or not. The point I was making was Sandra hasn't told truth on that so it leaves open to question whether anything else she says is true or not.
-
I never said it would make any difference to whether he gets freed or not. The point I was making was Sandra hasn't told truth on that so it leaves open to question whether anything else she says is true or not.
Well, I don't know her, but her book has been out for quite a while now and, as far as I am aware, nobody has yet sued her for libel. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume there is a lot of truth in what she says.
-
Well, I don't know her, but her book has been out for quite a while now and, as far as I am aware, nobody has yet sued her for libel. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume there is a lot of truth in what she says.
She can only be sued for libel if she tells a blatant defamatory untruth about someone named in the book. Provided she steers clear of doing that she can make up anything she likes.
-
Well, I don't know her, but her book has been out for quite a while now and, as far as I am aware, nobody has yet sued her for libel. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume there is a lot of truth in what she says.
That is interesting and as far as I know there hasn’t been one statement in the three years since the book was published from any of the main protagonists refuting any of the claims she makes.
-
She can only be sued for libel if she tells a blatant defamatory untruth about someone named in the book. Provided she steers clear of doing that she can make up anything she likes.
Why would she want to make up anything she likes???
-
Why would she want to make up anything she likes???
Why does anyone?
-
Well, I don't know her, but her book has been out for quite a while now and, as far as I am aware, nobody has yet sued her for libel. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume there is a lot of truth in what she says.
A lot of truth in what someone says isn't really enough though is it? If someone is campaigning to get someone convicted of an extremely violent murder freed you would want everything that they say to be true surely?.
-
A lot of truth in what someone says isn't really enough though is it? If someone is campaigning to get someone convicted of an extremely violent murder freed you would want everything that they say to be true surely?.
Of course, and I have no reason to suspect that what Sandra Lean writes is untrue.
I don't understand why some people have misgivings about her, but the fact is, she has done more to campaign for Luke than has anyone else, and if she is right about Luke being innocent of Jodi's murder, she has achieved an awful lot, whatever mistakes she may or may not have made along the way.
-
Of course, and I have no reason to suspect that what Sandra Lean writes is untrue.
I don't understand why some people have misgivings about her, but the fact is, she has done more to campaign for Luke than has anyone else, and if she is right about Luke being innocent of Jodi's murder, she has achieved an awful lot, whatever mistakes she may or may not have made along the way.
But if she's wrong about Luke (as she has been wrong about at least two other individuals) what would that make her...?
-
Of course, and I have no reason to suspect that what Sandra Lean writes is untrue.
I don't understand why some people have misgivings about her, but the fact is, she has done more to campaign for Luke than has anyone else, and if she is right about Luke being innocent of Jodi's murder, she has achieved an awful lot, whatever mistakes she may or may not have made along the way.
On the other hand she could be doing Luke more harm than good. If Luke is guilty she's making an impossible situation for him to get back from. Therefor doing him more harm than good!
-
On the other hand she could be doing Luke more harm than good. If Luke is guilty she's making an impossible situation for him to get back from. Therefor doing him more harm than good!
How could she be doing him more harm than good?
I think that she should be lauded for everything she’s done for Luke, especially considering the toxicity of the treatment she’s received from certain individuals. It seems to me that there are several posters even here who have a vested interest in keeping Luke behind bars and have joined since the documentary simply to further muddy the waters.
-
How could she be doing him more harm than good?
I think that she should be lauded for everything she’s done for Luke, especially considering the toxicity of the treatment she’s received from certain individuals. It seems to me that there are several posters even here who have a vested interest in keeping Luke behind bars and have joined since the documentary simply to further muddy the waters.
Perhaps it was the muddy waters of the documentary and sandra lean that brought more people here. It certainly was what brought me here! I have no vested interest in keeping luke behind bars as you put it. He has been convicted of a violent crime, failed several appeals, so yes he should stay in prison to serve his sentence until such times as parole board are satisfied that he is safe to be free in society. Regardless of what Sandra Lean says its not been proven that he has been wrongfully convicted.
-
Surely it's in everyone's interest to keep violent psychopaths locked up for as long as possible and resist all attempts to free them early?
-
Surely it's in everyone's interest to keep violent psychopaths locked up for as long as possible and resist all attempts to free them early?
It is indeed-----so long as Luke actually is a violent psychopath.
-
On the other hand she could be doing Luke more harm than good. If Luke is guilty she's making an impossible situation for him to get back from. Therefor doing him more harm than good!
Agreed---if he's guilty.
One could say the same about anyone who campaigns against a possible miscarriage of justice. It's always the case that they might be wrong.
-
Agreed---if he's guilty.
One could say the same about anyone who campaigns against a possible miscarriage of justice. It's always the case that they might be wrong.
And that is something that sadly Sandra Lean has a track record of being - wrong.
-
Perhaps it was the muddy waters of the documentary and sandra lean that brought more people here. It certainly was what brought me here! I have no vested interest in keeping luke behind bars as you put it. He has been convicted of a violent crime, failed several appeals, so yes he should stay in prison to serve his sentence until such times as parole board are satisfied that he is safe to be free in society. Regardless of what Sandra Lean says its not been proven that he has been wrongfully convicted.
I’m sorry I wasn’t pointing the finger at you though now you mention it you have claimed that Luke is in protection in prison yet seem reluctant to point out where you obtained this information. For me that’s certainly ‘muddying’ the waters without any justification.
-
I’m sorry I wasn’t pointing the finger at you though now you mention it you have claimed that Luke is in protection in prison yet seem reluctant to point out where you obtained this information. For me that’s certainly ‘muddying’ the waters without any justification.
There's no muddying the waters in my part . I'm not claiming as you put it that Luke is on protection .I'm stating it as FACT!. As I've said before it's not relevant whether he's on protection or not. What IS relevant is why Sandra Lean claims he isn't and that is muddying the waters on her part
-
Ms Lean has been shown to lie on more than one occasion. This is a simple fact.
The search party had to walk directly passed YW's on their way to the path
SL
This has now only recently been changed to they should have checked YW's as it is just yards away.
a lie is still a lie
SL
-
Ms Lean has been shown to lie on more than one occasion. This is a simple fact.
SL
This has now only recently been changed to they should have checked YW's as it is just yards away.
SL
Hasn't it also been shown on this forum alone that she is mistaken in her assertion that there was only one route he could have taken home after murdering Jodi and that was along a public highway.
-
Hasn't it also been shown on this forum alone that she is mistaken in her assertion that there was only one route he could have taken home after murdering Jodie and that was along a public highway.
And Sandra Lean claimed to James English,
“There were no issues in his childhood”
Clearly there were
Luke Mitchell to Rozyln Little 2018
“I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide”
Luke Mitchell school jotters - pre crimes
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
-
And Sandra Lean claimed to James English,
“There were no issues in his childhood”
Clearly there were
Luke Mitchell
She also claimed in that very same podcast, that JF stepped over the body twice.
-
Hasn't it also been shown on this forum alone that she is mistaken in her assertion that there was only one route he could have taken home after murdering Jodie and that was along a public highway.
Not really mistaken, more misleading her new audience. She has always known about the back route.
-
She also claimed in that very same podcast, that JF stepped over the body twice.
Which is a possible indicator of the lengths she’s prepared to go to in order to attempt to exploit the words written in some of the witness statements
-
On the other hand she could be doing Luke more harm than good. If Luke is guilty she's making an impossible situation for him to get back from. Therefor doing him more harm than good!
Luke Mitchell has been found guilty by the courts and sentenced to serve twenty years before he will be considered for parole.
At the time the murder was committed it was a high profile case mainly because of the violence of Jodi's death and the desecration of her body both while she lived and after her death.
I think keeping the details in the public eye and that of the Law Lords is doing Luke more harm than good particularly as he has only a couple of years to go before he can be considered for parole.
I commend Ms Lean for her tireless efforts in this case because it is my opinion that when or if Mitchell is ever considered for parole the board will not be influenced by a documentary riddled with bias and error ~ they will consider all the evidence including trial transcripts and failed appeals and an obvious lack of contrition.
I think which all taken together will ensure the full life tariff the trial judge in effect handed down will be enforced.
Is there the slightest chance Luke Mitchell is not guilty of the heinous crime for which he was convicted??? I would say as much chance as any of the other killers which evidence has put behind bars but who carry out their sentences either protesting innocence or refusing to relinquish details of their victim or victims' remains.
In my opinion Sandra Lean will almost single handed be responsible for keeping society safe from Mitchell and if she had any sense her numerous failed past efforts should indicate that fact to her.
-
Not really mistaken, more misleading her new audience. She has always known about the back route.
Part of the back route - near to the Mitchell’s house here ⬇️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bnVXSM9OIo
-
And Sandra Lean claimed to James English,
“There were no issues in his childhood”
Clearly there were
Luke Mitchell to Rozyln Little 2018
Luke Mitchell school jotters - pre crimes
There was something seriously amiss with him for one reason or another which is why the suggestion was made by his school regarding an educational psychologist.
What I really cannot get my head around is the collection of bottles filled with urine in his bedroom which I find one of the most extraordinary facts I've ever encountered.
-
There was something seriously amiss with him for one reason or another which is why the suggestion was made by his school regarding an educational psychologist.
Without doubt
-
What I really cannot get my head around is the collection of bottles filled with urine in his bedroom which I find one of the most extraordinary facts I've ever encountered.
Mitchell’s urine collection could have been an early indicator of paraphilic behaviour or disorder
https://www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/article.htm
-
There was something seriously amiss with him for one reason or another which is why the suggestion was made by his school regarding an educational psychologist.
But Corrine Mitchell didn’t appear to want to support the educational psychologists/teachers regarding Mitchell’s behaviour?
Did she think he’d grow out of it?
-
Luke Mitchell has been found guilty by the courts and sentenced to serve twenty years before he will be considered for parole.
At the time the murder was committed it was a high profile case mainly because of the violence of Jodie's death and the desecration of her body both while she lived and after her death.
I think keeping the details in the public eye and that of the Law Lords is doing Luke more harm than good particularly as he has only a couple of years to go before he can be considered for parole.
I commend Ms Lean for her tireless efforts in this case because it is my opinion that when or if Mitchell is ever considered for parole the board will not be influenced by a documentary riddled with bias and error ~ they will consider all the evidence including trial transcripts and failed appeals and an obvious lack of contrition.
I think which all taken together will ensure the full life tariff the trial judge in effect handed down will be enforced.
Is there the slightest chance Luke Mitchell is not guilty of the heinous crime for which he was convicted??? I would say as much chance as any of the other killers which evidence has put behind bars but who carry out their sentences either protesting innocence or refusing to relinquish details of their victim or victims' remains.
In my opinion Sandra Lean will almost single handed be responsible for keeping society safe from Mitchell and if she had any sense her numerous failed past efforts should indicate that fact to her.
Exactly this! Also Sandra could be doing more damage than good in any chance of Luke’s rehabilitation and addressing offending behaviour. When it's being shouted from rooftops that you are innocent, it's hard to get back from that and admit guilt. On other hand some prisoners will never admit guilt and address offending behaviour or satisy a parole board that they no longer are a risk to society. There for parole gets refused as ultimately protecting society is paramount.
-
There was something seriously amiss with him for one reason or another which is why the suggestion was made by his school regarding an educational psychologist.
What I really cannot get my head around is the collection of bottles filled with urine in his bedroom which I find one of the most extraordinary facts I've ever encountered.
Yes, what is the “perfectly innocent” explanation for this, according to Lean?
-
Yes, what is the “perfectly innocent” explanation for this, according to Lean?
OCD - presumably because he ‘hoarded’ his urine in numerous large fizzy drinks bottles?
‘Compulsive hoarding has been found to be twice as prevalent in men as women and research has shown that sufferers often had a family member who has OCD and/or hoarding tendencies. Some of the common items hoarded include newspapers, leaflets and any paper items generally, such as shopping lists and receipts, or clothes and furniture but in some cases may include animals, half-eaten food, urine and faeces. It is easy to see that one of the immediate practical issues of hoarding is that of health and safety including fire, infestations and falls.
https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/memberarticles/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-compulsive-hoarding
-
OCD - presumably because he ‘hoarded’ his urine in numerous large fizzy drinks bottles?
‘Compulsive hoarding has been found to be twice as prevalent in men as women and research has shown that sufferers often had a family member who has OCD and/or hoarding tendencies. Some of the common items hoarded include newspapers, leaflets and any paper items generally, such as shopping lists and receipts, or clothes and furniture but in some cases may include animals, half-eaten food, urine and faeces. It is easy to see that one of the immediate practical issues of hoarding is that of health and safety including fire, infestations and falls.
https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/memberarticles/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-compulsive-hoarding
That’s a mental health issue right there. Guilty or not, this boy had some problems. As a mother I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would allow my child to hoard his own piss in his bedroom.
-
There's no muddying the waters in my part . I'm not claiming as you put it that Luke is on protection .I'm stating it as FACT!. As I've said before it's not relevant whether he's on protection or not. What IS relevant is why Sandra Lean claims he isn't and that is muddying the waters on her part
Of course it’s not relevant which begs the question why you brought it up in the first place. This is the internet and anyone can claim anything, without proof you’re simply one of those anyones.
-
Ms Lean has been shown to lie on more than one occasion. This is a simple fact.
SL
This has now only recently been changed to they should have checked YW's as it is just yards away.
SL
To lie or to have made a mistake....or is she simply not allowed to do that?
-
Of course it’s not relevant which begs the question why you brought it up in the first place. This is the internet and anyone can claim anything, without proof you’re simply one of those anyones.
It's relevance is Sandra Lean has stated he isn't on protection so she made it relevant as It's another untruth from her, tell you what when Sandra lean gives the proof he isnt on protection, I'll give the proof he is! yes I am just another nobody on the internet, but seeminly one with more info regarding that than Sandra Lean, or more probable more truthful! Sandra lean has certainly prooved that anyone can claim anything
-
There was something seriously amiss with him for one reason or another which is why the suggestion was made by his school regarding an educational psychologist.
What I really cannot get my head around is the collection of bottles filled with urine in his bedroom which I find one of the most extraordinary facts I've ever encountered.
When you give it context it really does seem that strange at all. Luke was a child, yes a child, who had found his girlfriend murdered and mutilated and then was subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment from both the police and the media. If innocent can you even begin to fathom the effect this would have on his mental health? That Luke began collecting his urine in bottles is not a surprising reaction but an all too understandable one.
-
It's relevance is Sandra Lean has stated he isn't on protection so she made it relevant as It's another untruth from her, tell you what when Sandra lean gives the proof he isnt on protection, I'll give the proof he is! yes I am just another nobody on the internet, but seeminly one with more info regarding that than Sandra Lean, or more probable more truthful!
You had your chance Mrs S. Not really interested anymore.
-
OCD - presumably because he ‘hoarded’ his urine in numerous large fizzy drinks bottles?
‘Compulsive hoarding has been found to be twice as prevalent in men as women and research has shown that sufferers often had a family member who has OCD and/or hoarding tendencies. Some of the common items hoarded include newspapers, leaflets and any paper items generally, such as shopping lists and receipts, or clothes and furniture but in some cases may include animals, half-eaten food, urine and faeces. It is easy to see that one of the immediate practical issues of hoarding is that of health and safety including fire, infestations and falls.
https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/memberarticles/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-compulsive-hoarding
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?
-
When you give it context it really does seem that strange at all. Luke was a child, yes a child
Luke was a teenager, not a child. A teenager that was allowed to have sex, with several girls, a teenager that was allowed to smoke and deal cannabis, a teenager that was allowed to carry knives, a teenager that was allowed to get tattoos, a teenager that was allowed out to all hours of the evening. A teenager not a child, huge difference.
-
You had your chance Mrs S. Not really interested anymore.
That makes two of us! Perhaps Sandra should be more truthful even on the small seemingly irrelevant things. Have a nice day.
-
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?
Says who?
-
Luke was a teenager, not a child. A teenager that was allowed to have sex, with several girls, a teenager that was allowed to smoke and deal cannabis, a teenager that was allowed to carry knives, a teenager that was allowed to get tattoos, a teenager that was allowed out to all hours of the evening. A teenager not a child, huge difference.
child
/tʃʌɪld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
He was a child.
-
That makes two of us! Perhaps Sandra should be more truthful even on the small seemingly irrelevant things. Have a nice day.
Perhaps you should cease to make claims that you are unwilling or unable to prove.
-
child
/tʃʌɪld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
He was a child.
A very poorly brought up and disciplined one.
-
Luke was a teenager, not a child. A teenager that was allowed to have sex, with several girls, a teenager that was allowed to smoke and deal cannabis, a teenager that was allowed to carry knives, a teenager that was allowed to get tattoos, a teenager that was allowed out to all hours of the evening. A teenager not a child, huge difference.
Apart from the tattoos, I've met quite a few teenagers who have done all that. Sad, but true. It is not unusual.
-
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?
How do you know when this started?
The bottles were found on 4 July 2003 (CoA para 127) around 20 large fizzy drink size bottles apparently
I don’t think Mitchell filled these bottles over the course of approx 3 days and it’s highly possible this was something he was already doing prior to 30th June
-
Perhaps you should cease to make claims that you are unwilling or unable to prove.
Perhaps Sandra should do the same! Swings and roundabouts there. Difference is I could prove my claim if I chose to. Sandra Can't!
-
Apart from the tattoos, I've met quite a few teenagers who have done all that. Sad, but true. It is not unusual.
I’m afraid not least of all the victim.
-
Apart from the tattoos, I've met quite a few teenagers who have done all that. Sad, but true. It is not unusual.
Did the parents or parent allow these teenagers that you know to do these things?
-
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?
-
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?
Murder is thirsty work I’m sure!
-
child
/tʃʌɪld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
He was a child.
Ah, you finally get some kind of source. It's not like you, Copy & paste one. Anyway. Did you get the source for the claim you made about SM Apprehension? Been days now I've been waiting. Or are you just intent on tittle tattle arguments with other posters?
-
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?
Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?
-
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?
And if the FLO was in the Mitchell family home from the 1st onwards - doesn’t this also reduce the time further still to fill these 20 empty fizzy drinks bottles?
Sandra Lean and co have yet to explain where these empty bottles came from and how they were filled - especially given the fact Mitchell is said to be sleeping downstairs on one of the couches
Wasn’t there a downstairs WC?
-
To lie or to have made a mistake....or is she simply not allowed to do that?
Hardly?
When asked about this repeated statement over time, it was not met with It was a mistake, it was met with a narrative of opinion
As was the claim that the search party had to walk from the top of Mayfield rather than from the bottom beside CM's workplace.
As was that of Jodi being grounded.
These three things alone used to imply that the search party had much further to walk than they did, that perhaps this girls mother was lying as her daughter had been at LM's on the Saturday night.
Extracts from 'No Smoke' of SK being on the path at the crucial time, of a mystery man following Jodi into the path - demonstrably wrong.
As the excuses put forward now for CM and her podcast - that she was simply mistaken also? Why on earth would she remember anything of the evidence against her son? or much of anything at all - bar finger pointing, mad theories and calling people names? "Hitler in a skirt" "feral little bleeps"
That none of the boys from the Abbey were witnesses in court - yes they were.
All mistakes?
Attempts at trying to do the same as AT in court - when he displayed CM's character of lying and doing pretty much as her son demanded of her?
He however had evidence to back this up - there is a difference between evidence and ones own narrative of opinion?
-
What was Luke Mitchell doing when he was observed walking outside at around 10pm?
-
Ah, you finally get some kind of source. It's not like you, Copy & paste one. Anyway. Did you get the source for the claim you made about SM Apprehension? Been days now I've been waiting. Or are you just intent on tittle tattle arguments with other posters?
I hope you found something fun to do during those long days you were waiting, futile though it was and will continue to be.
Luke was a child and just because others chose not to treat him as they would a child doesn’t make it less true.
That’s what I find so truly appalling about this case, before this CHILD was even arrested he was vilified in a way that would destroy a grown man, let alone a boy and anyone defending his treatment need to give their moral compass a bit of a reset....if they have one.
-
And if the FLO was in the Mitchell family home from the 1st onwards - doesn’t this also reduce the time further still to fill these 20 empty fizzy drinks bottles?
Sandra Lean and co have yet to explain where these empty bottles came from and how they were filled - especially given the fact Mitchell is said to be sleeping downstairs on one of the couches
Wasn’t there a downstairs WC?
Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?
-
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell urinated into empty fizzy drinks bottles prior to the murder
And para 131 from the CoA judgement appears to indicate such
‘....he had started urinating in bottles because one time he had fallen off his bed when he got up to go to the toilet during the night, that he had hurt his head and had woken everyone up in the house
-
Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?
The bottles were found on 4 July 2003 (CoA para 127) around 20 large fizzy drink size bottles apparently
-
Hardly?
When asked about this repeated statement over time, it was not met with It was a mistake, it was met with a narrative of opinion
As was the claim that the search party had to walk from the top of Mayfield rather than from the bottom beside CM's workplace.
As was that of Jodi being grounded.
These three things alone used to imply that the search party had much further to walk than they did, that perhaps this girls mother was lying as her daughter had been at LM's on the Saturday night.
Extracts from 'No Smoke' of SK being on the path at the crucial time, of a mystery man following Jodi into the path - demonstrably wrong.
As the excuses put forward now for CM and her podcast - that she was simply mistaken also? Why on earth would she remember anything of the evidence against her son? or much of anything at all - bar finger pointing, mad theories and calling people names? "Hitler in a skirt" "feral little bleeps"
That none of the boys from the Abbey were witnesses in court - yes they were.
All mistakes?
Attempts at trying to do the same as AT in court - when he displayed CM's character of lying and doing pretty much as her son demanded of her?
He however had evidence to back this up - there is a difference between evidence and ones own narrative of opinion?
And when you have been asked time and again to provide cites from official sources you refuse to do so. It’s simply not good enough to say something is untrue while refusing to provide evidence to refute it.
-
Apparently? Expand please?
-
Apparently? Expand please?
There were also bottle of urine found on 14 April 2004
-
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell urinated into empty fizzy drinks bottles prior to the murder
And para 131 from the CoA judgement appears to indicate such
‘....he had started urinating in bottles because one time he had fallen off his bed when he got up to go to the toilet during the night, that he had hurt his head and had woken everyone up in the house
Mitchell was apparently sleeping on one of the sofas downstairs by the 1st July 2003 therefore the above statement suggests he allegedly hit his head and woke the family up before the 1st July 2003
Ergo not linked to OCD following the murder as Sandra Lean has suggested
-
Did the parents or parent allow these teenagers that you know to do these things?
I doubt the parent(s) knew, to be honest.
-
I hope you found something fun to do during those long days you were waiting, futile though it was and will continue to be.
Luke was a child and just because others chose not to treat him as they would a child doesn’t make it less true.
That’s what I find so truly appalling about this case, before this CHILD was even arrested he was vilified in a way that would destroy a grown man, let alone a boy and anyone defending his treatment need to give their moral compass a bit of a reset....if they have one.
You make demands of others providing sources, but it seems you are above those very same demands.
-
There were also bottle of urine found on 14 April 2004
In the CoA document the bottles of urine are described as ‘ several’ and ‘a number’. Where did you get the figure 20?
-
I'm not interested in your tittle tattle. You make demands of others providing sources, but it seems you are above those very same demands. Debaters like you are ten a penny regarding this case over the years. Apologists and Sandra parrots like you are best ignored.
Have you read SM’s testimony to the court? I’ll give you a taste.
“The policeman put his hand up, told me to stop. And at that instant, the car was surrounded by police. There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road. They ripped my keys off me and were shouting and screaming.”
Donald Findlay asked for clarification.
“ They dragged you out of the car? Were you resisting getting out of the car in any way?”
No, not at all....they ripped the keys out of the ignition then they started shouting and screaming at me at the top of their voice asking where my f..king house keys were”
Mr Findlay replied.
“Well, where were your f..king house keys?”
It’s all there in the court transcripts.
-
In the CoA document the bottles of urine are described as ‘ several’ and ‘a number’. Where did you get the figure 20?
Mitchell was apparently sleeping on one of the sofas downstairs by the 1st July 2003 therefore the above statement suggests he allegedly hit his head and woke the family up before the 1st July 2003
Ergo not linked to OCD following the murder as Sandra Lean has suggested
And para 131 from the CoA judgement
‘....he had started urinating in bottles because one time he had fallen off his bed when he got up to go to the toilet during the night, that he had hurt his head and had woken everyone up in the house
-
There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road.
Interesting - Hidden? Not quite hidden though if he not only saw them but knew there were 4/5 of them?
Interesting also that you can instantly produce documentation from the court transcripts.
Poor Mr Mitchel, terrible police brutality. Much like showing him pictures of this poor girl, dead and mutilated.
Wait though? DF showed those same pictures to SK. Did he not? or do you not have access to those transcripts?
-
Have you read SM’s testimony to the court? I’ll give you a taste.
“The policeman put his hand up, told me to stop. And at that instant, the car was surrounded by police. There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road. They ripped my keys off me and were shouting and screaming.”
Donald Findlay asked for clarification.
“ They dragged you out of the car? Were you resisting getting out of the car in any way?”
No, not at all....they ripped the keys out of the ignition then they started shouting and screaming at me at the top of their voice asking where my f..king house keys were”
Mr Findlay replied.
“Well, where were your f..king house keys?”
It’s all there in the court transcripts.
Court transcripts that only Sandra (and some of her favoured acolytes) havr access to it would seem. You could of course br making the whole thing up, without access to the documents ourselves it’s impossible to tell.
-
Interesting - Hidden? Not quite hidden though if he not only saw them but knew there were 4/5 of them?
Interesting also that you can instantly produce documentation from the court transcripts.
Poor Mr Mitchel, terrible police brutality. Much like showing him pictures of this poor girl, dead and mutilated.
Wait though? DF showed those same pictures to SK. Did he not? or do you not have access to those transcripts?
He was indeed...well done you, a claim that is backed up by some actual evidence. SK was warned that he was going to be shown the photographs, SM was not. SK had also seen the body already so would know what to expect.
-
So for the time being let’s go along with your take on the urine bottles.
We have a reason why Luke started weeing in bottles...to an adult a disgusting habit but to a mucky, teenager maybe not so much and certainly far from unusual.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-my-son-keep-soda-bottles-filled-with-piss-under-his-bed
Should this have been allowed in court? It’s pejorative value would suggest not....as it was in no way linked to the murder of Jodi and it really does speak to the paucity of the Crown’s case.
-
Amazing the overwhelming catalogue of reprehensible behaviour Mitchell supporters are able to excuse and minimise. Just imagine if this was (say for example) the father of a missing child who was a knife carrying, dope-smoking, satan-worshipping, urine-hoarding individual we were discussing....
-
Court transcripts that only Sandra (and some of her favoured acolytes) havr access to it would seem. You could of course br making the whole thing up, without access to the documents ourselves it’s impossible to tell.
It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed". I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up! I very much doubt Sandra is, either. We all have access to this book, if we agree to buy it!
-
Amazing the overwhelming catalogue of reprehensible behaviour Mitchell supporters are able to excuse and minimise. Just imagine if this was (say for example) the father of a missing child who was a knife carrying, dope-smoking, satan-worshipping, urine-hoarding individual we were discussing....
I expect he would be an immediate suspect----just as Luke was.
-
It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed". I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up! I very much doubt Sandra is, either.
A book that the publisher’s legal department would have checked from front to back for inaccuracies.
-
A book that the publisher’s legal department would have checked from front to back for inaccuracies.
"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John [Name removed], Gordon [Name removed], his father, David [Name removed], Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"
This is an extract from "No Smoke" Therefore NO, the publishers legal departments do not check for inaccuracies.
-
It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed". I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up! I very much doubt Sandra is, either. We all have access to this book, if we agree to buy it!
I'll buy a book when someone without an agenda except to bring an unbiased account of the facts writes one. Until then, as some people pick and choose what to believe in, particularly if it's a second-hand account and especially if money is involved (which it is in the case of this book, being up for sale as it is), then I think it's only fair to play those people at their game and rubbish the book as just a money-making cash in by a hustler out to make a buck.
-
I expect he would be an immediate suspect----just as Luke was.
If it were true...or unusual.
Luke smoked cannabis, as did Jodi, as did many of their friends. At autopsy Jodi had cannabis in her blood stream.
Satan-worshiping? Have we really not moved on from Salem and the satanic panic? People who actually cite this as evidence against Luke really do reveal a certain lack of sophistication and, dare I say it, education.
Urine stored under the beds of teenagers...not unusual. Bile inducing for adults but not, it would appear, to many teenagers.
Knife carrying...yes, but there is no evidence, media aside, that Luke ever threatened anyone with it.
-
This is an extract from "No Smoke" Therefore NO, the publishers legal departments do not check for inaccuracies.
Don’t be silly now. That SK’s name slipped through the net is hardly evidence that publishers don’t scrupulously check books that they are publishing for libel. BTW did SK sue?
Are you asking us to believe that the extracts from court testimony and official police documents are simply ‘made up’ even though they would be easily checkable? Really?
-
Don’t be silly now. That SK’s name slipped through the net is hardly evidence that publishers don’t scrupulously check books that they are publishing for libel. BTW did SK sue?
Are you asking us to believe that the extracts from court testimony and official police documents are simply ‘made up’ even though they would be easily checkable? Really?
It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.
Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.
-
If it were true...or unusual.
Luke smoked cannabis, as did Jodi, as did many of their friends. At autopsy Jodi had cannabis in her blood stream.
Satan-worshiping? Have we really not moved on from Salem and the satanic panic? People who actually cite this as evidence against Luke really do reveal a certain lack of sophistication and, dare I say it, education.
Urine stored under the beds of teenagers...not unusual. Bile inducing for adults but not, it would appear, to many teenagers.
Knife carrying...yes, but there is no evidence, media aside, that Luke ever threatened anyone with it.
A perfect example of a Mitchell supporter minimising and downplaying extremely disturbing behaviour as demonstrated by a fourteen year old "child".
-
It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.
Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.
This was excused as Ms Lean claimed not having access to the case papers at the time of writing "No Smoke" but saw fit to write some damming things in respect of others before having "all" the information to hand. As she says below, before she knew if things were actually, "factually correct
I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.
Yet in this very same book - "No Smoke" Ms Lean makes the following statement?
"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."
What is actually true? she did or did not have access before writing the book - is all well with Ms Leans memory?
Now, after an independent review by the SCCRC Ms Lean wants another Independent review? - as;
Ms Lean wants disclosure, access to everything - so do we, yet again have "Innocence Betrayed" written on the basis of not having all of the evidence?
Ms Lean had claimed for years that SK's only had the alibi of his then girlfriend JaJ, the fact was that SK was also in the company of his father.
Ms Lean excuses this as being unknown to the defence at the time of trial, it was only when the independent review by the SCCRC shod light to Ms Lean that there was indeed a statement 'In the case files' from Mr Kelly.
Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?
That claim would have been made known to the defence - Simply by means of precognition.
Yet again we have Ms Lean, putting out claims of fact - on the basis that she most certainly has not taking it from "all" of the case files.
-
It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.
Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.
DD gave a statement that he was in the woodland with his dogs that night and the ‘mystery man’ ie Stocky man was also seen by a witness, statement in police files.
-
It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed". I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up! I very much doubt Sandra is, either. We all have access to this book, if we agree to buy it!
We do not have to buy anything "fair use" will allow a quote from a book to be used without infringement of copyright.
"Have you read SM’s testimony to the court? I’ll give you a taste." without providing a link which can be followed to the source is an example of nothing more than an irrelevance which may at best be misleading.
It most certainly does not comply with transparency or forum guidance for provenance. Just because an individual makes a statement in part whether in a book or a podcast without indication of context my opinion is that it is neither to be trusted or relied upon.
-
In the words of the online followers - "best to ignore the trolls"
Interests me the responses given when someone can't disprove a point, or indeed when one disproves theirs.
"you sound like a right bellend" - maybe true though?
In the words of CM from her podcast "feral little bleeps" - there must be an abundance of pride in that narrative, now that it fits most of these online supporters to a 'T'
Best line of defence being attack and all that - What is abundantly clear is that mental block of denial.
The "black is white" scenario.
You can ask away Faithlilly - You know it is all true, having every single thing that has come from Ms Lean implanted firmly in your mind?
Remembering here of course. That just because Ms Lean says something in the narrative/self opinion she gives, does not make it true?
Let us think on the reality of that - 6 words from a statement used to back up 2000 words of narrative/opinion Used in an attempt to put forward a compelling story, her personal take on the evidence she has seen/heard and so forth.
Trying very hard to dismantle that extremely compelling narrative that was given in the case against LM - which had an abundance of evidence to back it up.
In her attempt to do the same - picking and choosing points, however, unlike the prosecution, who's fitted wonderfully together in sequence, Ms Leans for the most part does not fit together, anywhere, as she has nothing to back it up bar a few words verbatim and opinion.
She can not understand why the SCCRC would not take all of her points and add them together, one is scratching their head here?, I wonder why this was the case? Perhaps a jumble of mismatched theories and opinion without being able to mislead nor lie make mistakes? left it completely where it should be "dead in the water"
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2820 on: October 03, 2015, 10:17:AM »
One last point for now - how can the story "add up" when so much of it was never made public? If you pick and choose points, you can stitch them together to make what looks like a compelling narrative, so long a no-one comes along and ruins the story by pointing out all of the"missed out" bits that make a nonsense of it
Indeed?
For example - that none of search trio said the same as LM, that his dog had reacted "parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side" That they had all walked some distance past this V. - perhaps one of the very reasons why suspicion fell upon LM, they hardly became suspicious because they were singing in harmony?
It is ever so easy to "hoodwink" those who instantly put blind faith in anything irrespective of right/wrong.
When a person takes on the role of Judge and Jury - I have the power, "He Man?"
Anyhow - back to "Why suspicion fell upon LM, why the police could not eliminate him from their enquiries?
Demand away Faithlilly - unlike the innocence campaign, I have nothing I need to prove - merely having a discussion.
Word play/power of suggestion, fascinates me.
-
We do not have to buy anything "fair use" will allow a quote from a book to be used without infringement of copyright.
"Have you read SM’s testimony to the court? I’ll give you a taste." without providing a link which can be followed to the source is an example of nothing more than an irrelevance which may at best be misleading.
It most certainly does not comply with transparency or forum guidance for provenance. Just because an individual makes a statement in part whether in a book or a podcast without indication of context my opinion is that it is neither to be trusted or relied upon.
The quote came from the court transcripts via Miss Lean’s book, as verified by mrswah.
If you are saying the Miss Lean is making up the quote ie lying, that is libel and also against forum rules. Please substantiate your claim or withdraw it.
-
In the words of the online followers - "best to ignore the trolls"
Interests me the responses given when someone can't disprove a point, or indeed when one disproves theirs.
"you sound like a right bellend" - maybe true though?
In the words of CM from her podcast "feral little bleeps" - there must be an abundance of pride in that narrative, now that it fits most of these online supporters to a 'T'
Best line of defence being attack and all that - What is abundantly clear is that mental block of denial.
The "black is white" scenario.
You can ask away Faithlilly - You know it is all true, having every single thing that has come from Ms Lean implanted firmly in your mind?
Remembering here of course. That just because Ms Lean says something in the narrative/self opinion she gives, does not make it true?
Let us think on the reality of that - 6 words from a statement used to back up 2000 words of narrative/opinion Used in an attempt to put forward a compelling story, her personal take on the evidence she has seen/heard and so forth.
Trying very hard to dismantle that extremely compelling narrative that was given in the case against LM - which had an abundance of evidence to back it up.
In her attempt to do the same - picking and choosing points, however, unlike the prosecution, who's fitted wonderfully together in sequence, Ms Leans for the most part does not fit together, anywhere, as she has nothing to back it up bar a few words verbatim and opinion.
She can not understand why the SCCRC would not take all of her points and add them together, one is scratching their head here?, I wonder why this was the case? Perhaps a jumble of mismatched theories and opinion without being able to mislead nor lie make mistakes? left it completely where it should be "dead in the water"
Indeed?
For example - that none of search trio said the same as LM, that his dog had reacted "parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side" That they had all walked some distance past this V. - perhaps one of the very reasons why suspicion fell upon LM, they hardly became suspicious because they were singing in harmony?
It is ever so easy to "hoodwink" those who instantly put blind faith in anything irrespective of right/wrong.
When a person takes on the role of Judge and Jury - I have the power, "He Man?"
Anyhow - back to "Why suspicion fell upon LM, why the police could not eliminate him from their enquiries?
Demand away Faithlilly - unlike the innocence campaign, I have nothing I need to prove - merely having a discussion.
Word play/power of suggestion, fascinates me.
Ah the ‘troll’ argument....always the go to when intelligent adult discussion proves too difficult.
On both the Frontline Scotland documentary and Murder in a Small town we have expert after expert ( not the two policemen, IMO they really added nothing to the sum of our knowledge) giving their opinion that the conviction was unsafe based on the evidence presented. This is not my opinion, or yours, but actual, real life experts who do this for a living. Isn’t it interesting that they agree with me rather than you though to be honest I haven’t heard one expert on any aspect of this case, even the Crown’s pathologist, who has endorsed the Crown’s case. Perhaps I’ve missed one so perhaps you can enlighten me?
So apart from your obvious hatred of SL and name calling, and the constantly debunked nonsense about the v in the wall, do you really have anything new to add to the sum of everyone’s knowledge?
BTW did SK ever sue SL? I would have.
ETA. From Wikipedia ‘ The documentary also challenged the theory that Mitchell was an obsessive Marilyn Manson fan and had a keen interest in the Black Dahlia murder. The documentary stated that there is no evidence that Mitchell knew of the Dahlia case until after the murder. In the documentary Professor Anthony Busuttil, when asked about the similarities between Jones's and Short's injuries said, "there were major dissimilarities.’
Lest we forget Professor Busuttil was a prosecution witness.
-
Ah the ‘troll’ argument....always the go to when intelligent adult discussion proves too difficult.
On both the Frontline Scotland documentary and Murder in a Small town we have expert after expert ( not the two policemen, IMO they really added nothing to the sum of our knowledge) giving their opinion that the conviction was unsafe based on the evidence presented. This is not my opinion, or yours, but actual, real life experts who do this for a living. Isn’t it interesting that they agree with me rather than you though to be honest I haven’t heard one expert on any aspect of this case, even the Crown’s pathologist, who has endorsed the Crown’s case. Perhaps I’ve missed one so perhaps you can enlighten me?
So apart from your obvious hatred of SL and name calling, and the constantly debunked nonsense about the v in the wall, do you really have anything new to add to the sum of everyone’s knowledge?
BTW did SK ever sue SL? I would have.
Faithlilly, what about the experts in the court and appeal courts who upheld the conviction - do those experts not count?
-
Verbatim usage is not being disputed - it is context.
I gave an example of that once before on a forum - using part of a whole chapter, swiftly pounced on with cries of "that is not what was meant"
Showing how easy it is to manipulate a handful of words and add your own context.
Another thing that strikes me, re - suspicion falling upon LM is demeanor.
When police are investigating a crime, along with what is being stated they do use the power of sense, in ascertaining if the person giving the account appears to be truthful.
Tone, expression etc.
How was the witnesses demeanor when giving those very first accounts of what had happened that evening?
Who's demeanor appeared to be odd?
-
Verbatim usage is not being disputed - it is context.
I gave an example of that once before on a forum - using part of a whole chapter, swiftly pounced on with cries of "that is not what was meant"
Showing how easy it is to manipulate a handful of words and add your own context.
Another thing that strikes me, re - suspicion falling upon LM is demeanor.
When police are investigating a crime, along with what is being stated they do use the power of sense, in ascertaining if the person giving the account appears to be truthful.
Tone, expression etc.
How was the witnesses demeanor when giving those very first accounts of what had happened that evening?
Who's demeanor appeared to be odd?
Let’s not investigate then. Let’s just be guided by policemen’s hunches.
-
Out of interest why were none of these many, many real life experts who claim Mitchell is the victim of a miscarriage of justice wheeled out for Sandra's programme?
-
Excerpts taken from Luke Mitchell school jotters
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
(Source: https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/)
According to Sandra Lean there were ‘education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience’
What were the names of these ‘educational professionals’ and did they ever receive further training
-
Sandra Lean stated,
‘....it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] *&^^&
What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?
-
Sandra Lean stated,
‘....it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] *&^^&
What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?
Nimmo also said that Luke had been influenced by paintings of the black dahlia....paintings he had never seen.
-
Sandra Lean stated,
‘...it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] *&^^&
What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?
Lord Nimmo Smith did not refer to ‘right or wrong’ as Sandra Lean stated above he referred to ‘fantasy and reality’
Lord Nimmo Smith
"I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug
In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments."
-
Nimmo also said that Luke had been influenced by paintings of the black dahlia....paintings he had never seen.
How can anyone state with certainty that Luke Mitchell had never seen paintings of the Black Dahlia?
-
Excerpts taken from Luke Mitchell school jotters
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
(Source: https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/)
According to Sandra Lean there were ‘education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience’
What were the names of these ‘educational professionals’ and did they ever receive further training
I wonder to what extent the almost daily cannabis abuse contributed to this behaviour?
-
Let’s not investigate then. Let’s just be guided by policemen’s hunches.
Quite - absolutely awful if police solely went on a hunch with no evidence. Thankfully we have a prosecution service to determine if there is enough evidence that merits a trial.
Of course I simply did not mean that demeanor would in itself warrant suspicion. Rather silly notion.
Just, that when you are actually present, hearing and seeing this information put forward - Can hold a shed more light than that of simply reading it.
Common sense does tell us however - that LM was not simply "set up" He was not tried for being a "goth" his taste in music or that he stored bottles of urine in his room.
Now that really would be silly to think along those lines - would it not?
Did his defence not try to portray him as some sweet little laddie, immaculate bedroom with lovely pictures of horses on his wall?
Thus and possibly the main reason as to why other pictures and evidence were produced to show how unkempt he really was?
Yes, of course I am not saying this makes him a murderer - merely pointing out the usage of such evidence to counteract that produced by the defence?
-
Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?
-
Quite - absolutely awful if police solely went on a hunch with no evidence. Thankfully we have a prosecution service to determine if there is enough evidence that merits a trial.
Of course I simply did not mean that demeanor would in itself warrant suspicion. Rather silly notion.
Just, that when you are actually present, hearing and seeing this information put forward - Can hold a shed more light than that of simply reading it.
Common sense does tell us however - that LM was not simply "set up" He was not tried for being a "goth" his taste in music or that he stored bottles of urine in his room.
Now that really would be silly to think along those lines - would it not?
Did his defence not try to portray him as some sweet little laddie, immaculate bedroom with lovely pictures of horses on his wall?
Thus and possibly the main reason as to why other pictures and evidence were produced to show how unkempt he really was?
Yes, of course I am not saying this makes him a murderer - merely pointing out the usage of such evidence to counteract that produced by the defence?
Glad we settled that then.
-
Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?
They got a conviction on a shaky, circumstantial case. I’d call that a result.
-
Excerpts taken from Luke Mitchell school jotters
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
(Source: https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/)
According to Sandra Lean there were ‘education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience’
What were the names of these ‘educational professionals’ and did they ever receive further training
Has Sandra Lean or anyone else done anything with these claims by the ‘education professionals’ - like for example - reported them?
-
Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?
Mitchell's defence was 'Alibi' which did not stand up to scrutiny so in effect he condemned himself from his own mouth without the necessity of being 'set up' by anyone.
It might have been an idea for his mother and him to follow Shane's lead not to overegg the pudding alibi which was just never going to work anyway.
-
She also claimed in that very same podcast, that JF stepped over the body twice.
Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015
‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.
According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668
Or maybe JF’s description of where he walked weren’t ‘broadly correct’ ?
-
Mitchell's defence was 'Alibi' which did not stand up to scrutiny so in effect he condemned himself from his own mouth without the necessity of being 'set up' by anyone.
It might have been an idea for his mother and him to follow Shane's lead not to overegg the pudding alibi which was just never going to work anyway.
Indeed, the 3 of them could never get their stories straight. Huge red flag.
-
Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015
‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.
According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668
*&^^&
-
Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015
‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.
According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668
And it doesn’t tell us ‘two things’ as Sandra Lean suggests
It’s possible the condom was moved by a squirrel or a fox or any other wild animal
It’s also possible the ‘exact route’ used wasn’t the same as the description given. Not because JF lied but because his route has been misinterpreted or misrepresented
-
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2820 on: October 03, 2015, 10:17:AM »
One last point for now - how can the story "add up" when so much of it was never made public? If you pick and choose points, you can stitch them together to make what looks like a compelling narrative, so long a no-one comes along and ruins the story by pointing out all of the"missed out" bits that make a nonsense of it
Word play/power of suggestion, fascinates me.
Sandra Lean
’Quoting information out of context leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, and it's better if people don't do that if they genuinely want to discuss the case factually and accurately.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331842.html#msg331842
⬇️ *&^^&
Sandra Lean stated,
‘....it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)
Lord Nimmo Smith did not refer to ‘right or wrong’ as Sandra Lean stated above he referred to ‘fantasy and reality’
Lord Nimmo Smith
"I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug
In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments."
-
Indeed, the 3 of them could never get their stories straight. Huge red flag.
In what way didn’t they get their stories straight?
-
In what way didn’t they get their stories straight?
Are you for real? Shane Mitchell's evidence clearly casts doubt on his brother's alibi and that is a hurdle Sandra Lean or any of his supporters will ever surmount. IMHO, this fact alone was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the jury was concerned.
The open invitation to Shane Mitchell still stands by the way, always assuming he wishes to dispute his reported position and set the record straight once and for all. I'm sure Sandra would relish such an opportunity but I suspect this will never happen for all the reasons previously discussed.
-
Are you for real? Shane Mitchell's evidence clearly casts doubt on his brother's alibi and that is a hurdle Sandra Lean or any of his supporters will ever surmount. IMHO, this fact alone was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the jury was concerned.
The open invitation to Shane Mitchell still stands by the way, always assuming he wishes to dispute his reported position and set the record straight once and for all. I'm sure Sandra would relish such an opportunity but I suspect this will never happen for all the reasons previously discussed.
After the way Shane was treated, he may want to stay out of it all completely, IMO. I really dont blame him.
How close were Shane and Luke? Does anyone know? There was a big age gap between them, after all.
-
Has Sandra Lean explained yet why Corrine or Shane Mitchell didn’t go out with Luke to look for Jodi Jones?
-
How close were Shane and Luke? Does anyone know? There was a big age gap between them, after all.
Not ‘close enough’ for Shane to have gone along with Luke to search for [Name removed]
-
I think Luke and Corrine drew attention to themselves by their behaviour around the time of Jodi's funeral and possibly sent any suspicion the police might have already harboured into overdrive.
Their behaviour in posing at Jodi's grave was extraordinary and I for one will never forget the tactile television interview given by the pair.
At that time it wasn't about Luke and appearing to be milking Jodi's death for self publicity as well as going out of their way to push in where they weren't wanted was in bad taste.
-
Are you for real? Shane Mitchell's evidence clearly casts doubt on his brother's alibi and that is a hurdle Sandra Lean or any of his supporters will ever surmount. IMHO, this fact alone was the straw that broke the camel's back as far as the jury was concerned.
The open invitation to Shane Mitchell still stands by the way, always assuming he wishes to dispute his reported position and set the record straight once and for all. I'm sure Sandra would relish such an opportunity but I suspect this will never happen for all the reasons previously discussed.
Yes I am for real but often wonder if you are? Inviting Shane to post on here. Why would he? You obviously think this forum is more important than it actually is in the real world. He has nothing to say to you, that’s obvious and I can only commend him for his decision.
As to the straw that broke the camel’s back? Not for at least some of the jurors who didn’t vote for a conviction. As some paint it here, an open goal and the prosecution still couldn’t get all the team onside.
-
Interesting piece from the Telegraph Just found an interesting old report from the Telegraph of the 16 Jul 2003
“Detectives hunting the killer of Jodi Jones have received reports of the first possible sightings of the teenager on the night she died.
Jodi's body was discovered by a wooded path near her home on the outskirts of Dalkeith, Midlothian, 16 days ago. Two independent witnesses have now contacted police about seeing a girl who fits Jodi's description on Monday June 30.
They also told police they saw a man walking closely behind the girl along Easthouses Road towards the entrance to a path where Jodi's body was later found.
One witness told police they had seen the same person a week later on the night of a police reconstruction. Detectives are eager to trace the man, who they say could be a key witness in their investigation.
De Insp Tom Martin, one of the lead officers in the case, said: "This is a significant development for the inquiry team. We now have two independent witnesses who have given us good statements about seeing a young woman who is similar in description to Jodi.
Both witnesses saw the girl walking in Easthouses Road towards the entrance to the Roman Dyke pathway at around 5pm and both also noticed a man walking closely behind the girl.
"Interestingly, one of the witnesses believes he then saw the same man again on Monday July 7, one week later, the night of the police reconstruction. If this is the case, we need to trace this person as a matter of urgency as he may have seen something important on the night that Jodi died."
The man who police are keen to trace is white, stocky, 5ft 7in to 5ft 10in tall and appeared to be in his late teens or early 20s. He had short, tidy brown or ginger hair, perhaps curly or wavy on top.
The witnesses said he appeared to be in his late teens or early 20s and was wearing a dark-coloured sweatshirt top, with maybe a hood, and dark trousers, possibly jogging bottoms. He may also have been carrying a backpack on his shoulder.”
The man identified at the reconstruction was traced but he had an alibi. I wonder who this person was because he certainly wasn’t Luke, also he has never come forward...much like the AB couple.
-
Yes I am for real but often wonder if you are? Inviting Shane to post on here. Why would he? You obviously think this forum is more important than it actually is in the real world. He has nothing to say to you, that’s obvious and I can only commend him for his decision.
As to the straw that broke the camel’s back? Not for at least some of the jurors who didn’t vote for a conviction. As some paint it here, an open goal and the prosecution still couldn’t get all the team onside.
That post says it all really. The truth is there for all but the blinkered to see.
This forum has always been on the side of truth and justice and has been instrumental in exposing many false innocence campaigns going back numerous years. The fact you appear to fear Shane speaking out publicly after all these years is interesting. Could be the best thing he has ever done imo and could very well put an end to the nonsense being promoted on behalf of Luke Mitchell. Is that the real reason you are against it?
-
This thing about the police shouting at a 14 year old boy, and surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:
I'm pretty sure it's a regular tactic to shout at suspects to elicit a response - good cop, bad cop - LM seems to have been able to withstand it as well.
LM has been in jail for years, which is far worse and much more serious than being shouted at by a few police officers.
Also, I imagine any police officer viewing the horrendous sights at the crime scene would be upset and outraged - if you were interviewing a suspect having not long seen that, I think it would be difficult to maintain your composure.
Given the horrific nature of the crime, surrounding the car of a key witness is understandable.
I sometimes think people forget that this was much more than a murder - near decapitation and post mortem mutilation - whoever did this is a maniac.
-
That post says it all really. The truth is there for all but the blinkered to see.
This forum has always been on the side of truth and justice and has been instrumental in exposing many false innocence campaigns going back numerous years. The fact you appear to fear Shane speaking out publicly after all these years is interesting. Could be the best thing he has ever done imo and could very well put an end to the nonsense being promoted on behalf of Luke Mitchell. Is that the real reason you are against it?
I’m not for it, I’m not against it. What I am against is people being badgered to speak when it is obvious that they don’t want to.
Exposing false innocence campaigns? Which ones? Didn’t you support Simon Hall?
-
I’m not for it, I’m not against it. What I am against is people being badgered to speak when it is obvious that they don’t want to.
Exposing false innocence campaigns? Which ones? Didn’t you support Simon Hall?
I investigated it and yes, found it to be yet another false innocence campaign.
As for Shane Mitchell not speaking out, it is clear. If he really thought his brother was innocent he would have joined his campaign to get justice years ago.
Just on that very point, I can well understand Shane Mitchell's misgivings, my own brother to whom you recently referred also had his court testimony twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media. He at least has set that record straight and has been unequivocal in his support of my own fight for justice.
-
This thing about the police shouting at a 14 year old boy, and surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:
I'm pretty sure it's a regular tactic to shout at suspects to elicit a response - good cop, bad cop - LM seems to have been able to withstand it as well.
LM has been in jail for years, which is far worse and much more serious than being shouted at by a few police officers.
Also, I imagine any police officer viewing the horrendous sights at the crime scene would be upset and outraged - if you were interviewing a suspect having not long seen that, I think it would be difficult to maintain your composure.
Given the horrific nature of the crime, surrounding the car of a key witness is understandable.
I sometimes think people forget that this was much more than a murder - near decapitation and post mortem mutilation - whoever did this is a maniac.
It was indeed a brutal murder, an almost decapitation, a feature of the murder which until very recently has been kept secret from the public for 17 years. Why now is this fact being bandied about do you think?
-
It was indeed a brutal murder, an almost decapitation, a feature of the murder which until very recently has been kept secret from the public for 17 years. Why now is this fact being bandied about do you think?
I read that on a public forum over 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s been kept from the public, maybe just a bit too graphic to go into to much maybe?
-
I read that on a public forum over 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s been kept from the public, maybe just a bit too graphic to go into to much maybe?
The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see. Could this have been intentional, an attempt to depict the crime as something a kindly 14-year-old innocent docile schoolboy from Newbattle would not have been capable of?
-
The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see.
There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.
-
I investigated it and yes, found it to be yet another false innocence campaign.
As for Shane Mitchell not speaking out, it is clear. If he really thought his brother was innocent he would have joined his campaign to get justice years ago.
Just on that very point, I can well understand Shane Mitchell's misgivings, my own brother to whom you recently referred also had his court testimony twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media. He at least has set that record straight and has been unequivocal in his support of my own fight for justice.
Yet you posted this:
‘ What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't’
Were you in court or have you seen the full court transcripts? Don’t you think that it’s possible that Shane’s testimony, like your brother’s, could have been twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media?
Has your brother set the record straight publicly in the media or on a forum with regard to your case?
-
There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.
It was a pretty unprofessional effort by Channel 5, they knew exactly what they were doing in showing [Name removed] name on a computer screen.
-
There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.
I think the ex detectives were particularly unnecessary. I think though you can understand it being a little one sided as this was Luke’s story, a story we’ve never really heard before.
-
Yet you posted this:
‘ What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't’
Were you in court or have you seen the full court transcripts? Don’t you think that it’s possible that Shane’s testimony, like your brother’s, could have been twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media?
Has your brother set the record straight publicly in the media or on a forum with regard to your case?
We know from those who attended the proceedings what was actually said in court, we don't need to rely entirely on sensational press headlines.
Publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
-
This thing about the police shouting at a 14 year old boy, and surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:
I'm pretty sure it's a regular tactic to shout at suspects to elicit a response - good cop, bad cop - LM seems to have been able to withstand it as well.
LM has been in jail for years, which is far worse and much more serious than being shouted at by a few police officers.
Also, I imagine any police officer viewing the horrendous sights at the crime scene would be upset and outraged - if you were interviewing a suspect having not long seen that, I think it would be difficult to maintain your composure.
Given the horrific nature of the crime, surrounding the car of a key witness is understandable.
I sometimes think people forget that this was much more than a murder - near decapitation and post mortem mutilation - whoever did this is a maniac.
I imagine this would have caused quite a stushie at the time ~ where was it reported?
-
I think the ex detectives were particularly unnecessary. I think though you can understand it being a little one sided as this was Luke’s story, a story we’ve never really heard before.
Yeah totally, it was about Luke and they did a good job but a more in-depth one would be great to see.
-
The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see. Could this have been intentional, an attempt to depict the crime as something a kindly 14-year-old innocent docile schoolboy from Newbattle would not have been capable of?
From what I know of the case the documentary was so one sided and biased it was risible.
-
We know from those who attended the proceedings what was actually said in court, we don't need to rely entirely on sensational press headlines.
Publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Those who attended proceedings? Who? Was their recollection verbatim? Were they partisan?
And the question about your brother?
-
There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.
I think that has all been adequately dealt with by the courts. It will be a sorry day for Scotland if justice is determined by who can shout the loudest and the longest on television programmes.
-
Those who attended proceedings? Who? Was their recollection verbatim? Were they partisan?
And the question about your brother?
Attendees including Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean so pretty non partisan.
I asswered you other off topic question in my last post ie publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
-
I think that has all been adequately dealt with by the courts. It will be a sorry day for Scotland if justice is determined by who can shout the loudest and the longest on television programmes.
I totally agree on that one Brietta but it is often the case that shouting the loudest gets one heard and that appears to be the agenda with Sandra given the SCCRC rejection of her Application.
If you look at the Petition you will see that it was boosted by the Ch5 documentary but hasn't moved since. Power of the national media?
-
Yeah totally, it was about Luke and they did a good job but a more in-depth one would be great to see.
Yes the case IMO is far too complex to cover all angles in two hours.
-
Yes the case IMO is far too complex to cover all angles in two hours.
Let's be honest, this was an attempt to exonerate Luke Mitchell and to blame AN Others, it had Sandra Lean's paw marks all over it. It wasn't an impartial production by any stretch of the imagination so attracted rightful criticism from the police and many other quarters.
It was a WHO DUN IT from start to finish.
-
Attendees including Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean so pretty non partisan.
I asswered you other off topic question in my last post ie publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Could I have cites your first sentence please and apologies I missed your second response. Didn’t you say though that the media twisted what your brother said so with the greatest respect how can we know what he said? Has he in the media or on a forum supported you publicly? Apologies again as I know little about your case but does your conviction still stand?
-
Let's be honest, this was an attempt to exonerate Luke Mitchell and to blame AN Others, it had Sandra Lean's paw marks all over it. It wasn't an impartial production by any stretch of the imagination so attracted rightful criticism from the police and many other quarters.
It was a WHO DUN IT from start to finish.
Do you think Sandra’s that powerful?
-
I totally agree on that one Brietta but it is often the case that shouting the loudest gets one heard and that appears to be the agenda with Sandra given the SCCRC rejection of her Application.
If you look at the Petition you will see that it was boosted by the Ch5 documentary but hasn't moved since. Power of the national media?
I noted that her book purchases from Amazon benefitted from the documentary too, although recent purchasers hadn't bothered to read it only leaving a record of their names but no reviews. Maybe they'll have got round to reading it by now. I found that quite odd to leave a note of intention to read a book you've purchased where a review would normally be.
-
It was indeed a brutal murder, an almost decapitation, a feature of the murder which until very recently has been kept secret from the public for 17 years. Why now is this fact being bandied about do you think?
Who can say, eh?
I actually heard about that aspect of the murder anecdotally at the time of the trial or one of the appeals - can't remember from where, tbh - just on the local grapevine of interested observers.
-
I imagine this would have caused quite a stushie at the time ~ where was it reported?
Which bit?
I'm not sure that everything was reported at the time, but people talk and word spread locally.
-
Which bit?
I'm not sure that everything was reported at the time, but people talk and word spread locally.
In other words ~ there is no provenance for the tale you and others have posted.
-
Do you think Sandra’s that powerful?
More influential than powerful.
-
More influential than powerful.
Influential enough to influence a television company?
Care to answer my previous questions?
-
In other words ~ there is no provenance for the tale you and others have posted.
What are you on about?
-
More influential than powerful.
We live in the internet age where for every event there is an associated conspiracy theory. I think Sandra Lean is an "influencer" using the opportunity allowed by the internet to publicise her views to a wide audience. I think her views on Jodi's murder are flawed because it is impossible for her to have access to all the necessary information the police used to build their case.
She cannot have knowledge of what evidence corroborates what.
Was the information she imparted in the Channel 5 Documentary accurate? It went through unchallenged and a lot of opinions have been formed as a result.
-
What are you on about?
Please mind your manners.
You posted ... "This thing about the police ... ... ... surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:"
Do you have an independent cite supporting the narrative regarding Shane Mitchell?
-
Please mind your manners.
You posted ... "This thing about the police ... ... ... surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:"
Do you have an independent cite supporting the narrative regarding Shane Mitchell?
I think folk are getting a wee bit carried away demanding 'cites' for every post - this isn't a court of law, it's a forum for discussion.
I also don't think anyone is going to blow this case wide open by spotting something in transcripts that have already been been pored over a thousand times.
If you're looking for a 'cite' for any claims that SM's car was surrounded by half a dozen cop cars, you'll find it in this very forum.
If you're saying that that incident never happened, read my post where I say that it's not important whether it happened or not - it's incidental - the important thing is that SM - a key witness, was apprehended.
I genuinely don't know where you're going with this.
-
I think folk are getting a wee bit carried away demanding 'cites' for every post - this isn't a court of law, it's a forum for discussion.
I also don't think anyone is going to blow this case wide open by spotting something in transcripts that have already been been pored over a thousand times.
If you're looking for a 'cite' for any claims that SM's car was surrounded by half a dozen cop cars, you'll find it in this very forum.
If you're saying that that incident never happened, read my post where I say that it's not important whether it happened or not - it's incidental - the important thing is that SM - a key witness, was apprehended.
I genuinely don't know where you're going with this.
I want to know where the story about the police 'raid' on Shane Mitchell originated.
You may not appreciate the requirement for the accuracy of the information contained in posts on this forum but it is a requirement ... and in my opinion this is a story which requires a cite as I think does your statement above that "the important thing is that SM - a key witness, was apprehended."
Was he?
Where did you get that information from?
Where I am going with this is that I want you to share the source of your information with me and the forum. Shouldn't be too difficult. If you are stating it you must know where it originates from.
-
I think folk are getting a wee bit carried away demanding 'cites' for every post - this isn't a court of law, it's a forum for discussion.
I also don't think anyone is going to blow this case wide open by spotting something in transcripts that have already been been pored over a thousand times.
If you're looking for a 'cite' for any claims that SM's car was surrounded by half a dozen cop cars, you'll find it in this very forum.
If you're saying that that incident never happened, read my post where I say that it's not important whether it happened or not - it's incidental - the important thing is that SM - a key witness, was apprehended.
I genuinely don't know where you're going with this.
While I agree with much of your post I think how SM was apprehended is not incidental to what later transpired in the interview room but absolutely crucial, not only to that interview but his evidence in court.
He was 21, had never been in trouble with the police AFAIAA and while going about his daily business was stopped and, mob handed, the police apprehended him as if he was a major criminal, took him to a police station and aggressively interviewed him for 6 hours without legal representation. Further he was then charged with perverting the course of justice, a conviction which carries a jail sentence. Put yourself in his shoes. How would you have reacted?
-
While I agree with much of your post I think how SM was apprehended is not incidental to what later transpired in the interview room but absolutely crucial, not only to that interview but his evidence in court.
He was 21, had never been in trouble with the police AFAIAA and while going about his daily business was stopped and, mob handed, the police apprehended him as if he was a major criminal, took him to a police station and aggressively interviewed him for 6 hours without legal representation. Further he was then charged with perverting the course of justice, a conviction which carries a jail sentence. Put yourself in his shoes. How would you have reacted?
I would have made sure I told the truth in such a situation. Did he, if so what did he say after being subject to such intense questioning?
-
I want to know where the story about the police 'raid' on Shane Mitchell originated.
You may not appreciate the requirement for the accuracy of the information contained in posts on this forum but it is a requirement ... and in my opinion this is a story which requires a cite as I think does your statement above that "the important thing is that SM - a key witness, was apprehended."
Was he?
Where did you get that information from?
Where I am going with this is that I want you to share the source of your information with me and the forum. Shouldn't be too difficult. If you are stating it you must know where it originates from.
I already told you - it's been posted in this very forum - I'm not going to go trawling for the post.
Faithlilly seems to think it happened - perhaps she can provide a 'cite'.
What I'm saying is that IF this did happen, it was entirely in keeping with the seriousness of the case.
-
While I agree with much of your post I think how SM was apprehended is not incidental to what later transpired in the interview room but absolutely crucial, not only to that interview but his evidence in court.
He was 21, had never been in trouble with the police AFAIAA and while going about his daily business was stopped and, mob handed, the police apprehended him as if he was a major criminal, took him to a police station and aggressively interviewed him for 6 hours without legal representation. Further he was then charged with perverting the course of justice, a conviction which carries a jail sentence. Put yourself in his shoes. How would you have reacted?
If SM was arrested in this way, I would say that if it was absolutely in keeping with the seriousness of the crime.
For the benefit of Brietta, can you confirm that this arrest was carried out in this way?
-
I already told you - it's been posted in this very forum - I'm not going to go trawling for the post.
Faithlilly seems to think it happened - perhaps she can provide a 'cite'.
What I'm saying is that IF this did happen, it was entirely in keeping with the seriousness of the case.
It has indeed been posted on the forum and it seems I'm not the first to ask for provenance.
Hi there. It has been a while since I have posted, been a bit of a lurker. But this post has made me come out from hibernation.
Few questions regarding this.
You say these are facts.
Can you forward me to sources that back what you are saying up?
I'm especially interested, in Shane being stopped.
By how many police cars? Was it 4 or 5?
How many police were in each car?
Where in Midlothian did this stop happen?
Was this stop, witnessed by any members of the public?
Is Shane, the source of this information? When has he come out and stated of his experience's from his treatment from the police. If not, who is? And can you link me to it.
Also, a 6-hour interrogation of relentless questions. What exactly was asked of him? How do you know this? And is this information online? I will take news clippings, any kind of impartial information, that suggests this was the case.
Thank you.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12003.msg645344#msg645344
There is a plethora of factoids which have taken over the narrative of this case and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is just another of them.
-
It has indeed been posted on the forum and it seems I'm not the first to ask for provenance.
Hi there. It has been a while since I have posted, been a bit of a lurker. But this post has made me come out from hibernation.
Few questions regarding this.
You say these are facts.
Can you forward me to sources that back what you are saying up?
I'm especially interested, in Shane being stopped.
By how many police cars? Was it 4 or 5?
How many police were in each car?
Where in Midlothian did this stop happen?
Was this stop, witnessed by any members of the public?
Is Shane, the source of this information? When has he come out and stated of his experience's from his treatment from the police. If not, who is? And can you link me to it.
Also, a 6-hour interrogation of relentless questions. What exactly was asked of him? How do you know this? And is this information online? I will take news clippings, any kind of impartial information, that suggests this was the case.
Thank you.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12003.msg645344#msg645344
There is a plethora of factoids which have taken over the narrative of this case and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is just another of them.
Originating from Faithlilly.
-
If SM was arrested in this way, I would say that if it was absolutely in keeping with the seriousness of the crime.
For the benefit of Brietta, can you confirm that this arrest was carried out in this way?
What was the immediate danger that made an apprehension in this way necessary? SM said that he was quite willing to assist the police. In fact he had willing gone to the police station to change his statement.
SM’s arrest was carried it out in the way it was to intimidate. That’s the bald truth.
And yes, as far as I can verify, SM’s arrest was carried out in this way.
-
Originating from Faithlilly.
Therefore until a cite is produced there is no independent provenance for this allegation meaning in effect this incident just did not happen as it has been portrayed.
-
It has indeed been posted on the forum and it seems I'm not the first to ask for provenance.
There is a plethora of factoids which have taken over the narrative of this case and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is just another of them.
Which is why I'm discounting it.
-
What was the immediate danger that made an apprehension in this way necessary? SM said that he was quite willing to assist the police. In fact he had willing gone to the police station to change his statement.
SM’s arrest was carried it out in the way it was to intimidate. That’s the bald truth.
And yes, as far as I can verify, SM’s arrest was carried out in this way.
1 - that's a question for the police - is it not the case that SM was later sectioned at his own request?
2 - You have no way of knowing why it was carried out that way.
3 - thank you - I have no reason do disbelieve that it went down that way - we disagree as to it's importance, though,
-
"He was a wee laddie, in the dark on his own, in a rush to get up and off this path as quickly as possible"
CM "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog"
LM "I said to JuJ that I would go to the path to search for Jodi, if I did not find her I would make my way to her house"
What does Sandra Lean say about Luke Mitchell’s police statements in relation to him out walking with Mia when he received JuJ’s 10.38 text message ?
Where was Mitchell when he was out walking Mia for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
What route did he tell police he took that night when he was allegedly out with Mia to ‘save his mums legs’ and what timings did he give?
Corrine states:
“So it’s must have been his curfew was 10 same as herself it must have been around about 9ish or something like that and he arrived home and I went gosh you’re early and he went has Jodi not been and I went no has she phoned no ugh wonder where the hell she is I went Luke she’s a young girl she’ll be in somebodies house yipping and completely forgot I said boyfriends come way down the line when it comes to wee girls talking um um eh
So then he got a phone call from Jodi’s mother and no he got a text right toad get up the road you’re grounded because by this time it’s past her curfew so he phoned her and said she’s not here so she said what do you mean she’s not here she never came down he said I’ve been with my friends and she’s never come down my mum says she’s not been at the door so she went well I’m gonna phone round all her friends and all the rest of it so left it at that and then there was another phone call and Luke came to me and went mum erm Judas organising a search party were going out looking for her I went not at this time of night you’re not young man
and he went I’m going out looking for her end of no argument so I went well you’re taking the dog so cos this time it was late so off he went and
he’d taken Mia out cos I said go and save your mums old legs and take madam out for her last pee for the evening and he was away two seconds of course by this time he’d got the phone call from Judy
(Starts at approx 6:00 during James English interview)
-
Which is why I'm discounting it.
Good thinking but the problem is that there are those who do accept what they are told without giving it too much thought and form what could be far reaching conclusions
-
Good thinking but the problem is that there are those who do accept what they are told without giving it too much thought and form what could be far reaching conclusions
What do the police records say with regards Shane Mitchell’s arrest?
Were 4 or 5 police cars really involved or was this a figment of Shane Mitchell’s imagination or of the originating author?
-
What does Sandra Lean say about Luke Mitchell’s police statements in relation to him out walking with Mia when he received JuJ’s 10.38 text message ?
Where was Mitchell when he was out walking Mia for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
What route did he tell police he took that night when he was allegedly out with Mia to ‘save his mums legs’ and what timings did he give?
Or are these yet more fabrications?
-
What do the police records say with regards Shane Mitchell’s arrest?
Were 4 or 5 police cars really involved or was this a figment of Shane Mitchell’s imagination or of the originating author?
I don't think Shane has said much about anything apart from sticking to the truth in the witness box and not the original narrative he and his mother had discussed.
His silence speaks volumes.
-
I don't think Shane has said much about anything apart from sticking to the truth in the witness box and not the original narrative he and his mother had discussed.
His silence speaks volumes.
Yet according to BBC News (Jan 2005) ‘The court heard the statements made by Mr Mitchell on 3 and 7 July were both very lengthy’[/i]
‘Mr Mitchell said he could not remember exactly what was discussed in the first interview and said: "It covered everything from years ago up until the weekend previously."
Mr Turnbull asked if he later contacted police. "I think so. It is a long time ago and a lot has passed.
"I believe I wanted to make a second statement as there were errors in my first one."
The court also heard that in April last year - on the day Luke Mitchell, 16, was arrested and charged - his older brother was also questioned by police.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting, said: "You were told during the course of that interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier on in the inquiry."
Mr Mitchell replied: "Yes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4162549.stm
-
Or are these yet more fabrications?
Luke couldn't provide an explanation for calling the speaking clock from his mobile at a time when he told the police he was at home cooking the dinner. So no fabrication there just no reason given.
-
I don't think Shane has said much about anything apart from sticking to the truth in the witness box and not the original narrative he and his mother had discussed.
His silence speaks volumes.
Did Shane Mitchell turn to drugs following the murder?
Jan 2005
“Shane Mitchell had earlier told the court that he had discussed with his mother what he should tell the police in the days after Jodi's death.
He said he was extremely shaken up and could not remember a single thing about the day Jodi was killed.
Mr Mitchell said his memory had been affected after a problem with drugs a few years ago.
Was ‘a few years ago’ in reference to around the time of the murder?
-
Therefore until a cite is produced there is no independent provenance for this allegation meaning in effect this incident just did not happen as it has been portrayed.
In fact that’s not true. The provenance is the court transcripts. Whether you believe them or not is entirely up to you.
-
Which is why I'm discounting it.
Which is your right. I however call it cherrypicking the facts that suit your narrative.
-
Luke couldn't provide an explanation for calling the speaking clock from his mobile at a time when he told the police he was at home cooking the dinner. So no fabrication there just no reason given.
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
What does Sandra Lean say in her book about this?
-
1 - that's a question for the police - is it not the case that SM was later sectioned at his own request?
2 - You have no way of knowing why it was carried out that way.
3 - thank you - I have no reason do disbelieve that it went down that way - we disagree as to it's importance, though,
1. Do you have a cite? You know Brietta insists on a cite.
2. There is nothing to suggest that SM was any danger and was, from all we know, cooperating fully with the police.
3. Are you suggesting that being arrested in the way SM was couldn’t possibly have had an effect on his psyche when later questioned?
-
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
What does Sandra Lean say in her book about this?
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
-
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
Do you know the answer or not?
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
And has Corrine introduced this story since her interview with James English in 2019?
There is no mention of this in Sandra Lean’s book ‘No Smoke’
-
1. Do you have a cite? You know Brietta insists on a cite.
2. There is nothing to suggest that SM was any danger and was, from all we know, cooperating fully with the police.
3. Are you suggesting that being arrested in the way SM was couldn’t possibly have had an effect on his psyche when later questioned?
1 - I don't have a cite - I'm asking in case anyone wants to confirm or deny it - do you have a cite for this?
2 & 3 - There is, of course, a possibility that the alleged way SM was arrested had an effect - the fact is that the police felt that they needed to question him urgently, and pulled him in.
I think the suggestion might be that, if SM did have a history of sectioning himself, the cops maybe wanted to nab him quick.
-
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
If you're going to insist on punting your mum's book, there's a thread dedicate to it - you could use that.
-
I think the suggestion might be that, if SM did have a history of sectioning himself, the cops maybe wanted to nab him quick.
‘Sectioning himself’ ?
-
Do you know the answer or not?
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
And has Corrine introduced this story since her interview with James English in 2019?
There is no mention of this in Sandra Lean’s book ‘No Smoke’
Yes I do thank you. I read it in SL’s book.
-
Yes I do thank you. I read it in SL’s book.
What page in Sandra Lean’s book does she describe Luke Mitchell taking Mia out for a walk to ‘save his mums legs’ around the time he received JuJ’s text message at 10.38?
-
If you're going to insist on punting your mum's book, there's a thread dedicate to it - you could use that.
Exactly what I think. Been trolling for years.
-
1 - I don't have a cite - I'm asking in case anyone wants to confirm or deny it - do you have a cite for this?
2 & 3 - There is, of course, a possibility that the alleged way SM was arrested had an effect - the fact is that the police felt that they needed to question him urgently, and pulled him in.
I think the suggestion might be that, if SM did have a history of sectioning himself, the cops maybe wanted to nab him quick.
1. I don’t have a cite and tbh it’s the first time I’ve heard the claim. Can I ask where you heard it? Was it locally?
2&3 The questions asked of SM suggest that they did not see him as an imminent threat and that fact that he was questioned, or should have been, with regard to perverting the course of justice and not murder further suggests this.
I would agree with your last sentence, if his mental health history had suggested a violent element. Did it?
That DF seems to have set great store on the aggressive way SM was arrested tends to suggest that there was no justification for it.
-
What reason did Luke Mitchell have for turning up to school in September 2003 ‘smoking, wearing a bandana and not wearing school uniform’?
And what did Sandra Lean says about this in her book?
According to a news report from around the time one parent said,
‘I was upset that he had shown up like that so I complained to the deputy head. She told me several ptger parents had already got in there before me’
-
Exactly what I think. Been trolling for years.
You really are no detective.
I’ve been a member of this forum since 2013 I believe. Have almost exclusively posted on the Madeleine McCann thread.
The reason I mentioned SL’s book is simply because Nicholas constantly asks for information from it.
If I’m a troll then I’ve been deep, deep undercover for many years.
Absolutely hilarious.
-
3 days before the murder Kimberly Thompson sent Luke Mitchell a text message reading “Love U”
What did Mitchell’s text message in response say?
-
1. I don’t have a cite and tbh it’s the first time I’ve heard the claim. Can I ask where you heard it? Was it locally?
I would agree with your last sentence, if his mental health history had suggested a violent element. Did it?
Again, it's something that's been talked about locally for years - I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned on here.
It may not be true, of course - Moderators/Admin can of course remove it if deemed inappropriate.
I wasn't making a claim, btw - just asking whether or not anyone could confirm or deny it.
I've heard anecdotally from folk who knew him that SM could be a bit of a strange lad, but I don't think I've heard any suggestions that he could be violent.
I definitely have heard anecdotally from parents of LM's schoolmates that LM could be violent, and that he was regularly involved in fights.
A pal of mine went to speak to CM about LM's behaviour, and CM wasn't interested, and closed the door in their face - it seems LM could do no wrong in CM's eyes.
-
Again, it's something that's been talked about locally for years - I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned on here.
It may not be true, of course - Moderators/Admin can of course remove it if deemed inappropriate.
I wasn't making a claim, btw - just asking whether or not anyone could confirm or deny it.
I've heard anecdotally from folk who knew him that SM could be a bit of a strange lad, but I don't think I've heard any suggestions that he could be violent.
I definitely have heard anecdotally from parents of LM's schoolmates that LM could be violent, and that he was regularly involved in fights.
A pal of mine went to speak to CM about LM's behaviour, and CM wasn't interested, and closed the door in their face - it seems LM could do no wrong in CM's eyes.
These anecdotes that you heard, were they before or after the murder? What did your friend talk to CM about?
I notice even anecdotes, rumour and gossip are accepted as as fact without the need for provenance here but only when those anecdotes, rumours and gossip paint Luke or his family in a bad light.
-
These anecdotes that you heard, were they before or after the murder? What did your friend talk to CM about?
I notice even anecdotes, rumour and gossip are accepted as as fact without the need for provenance here but only when those anecdotes, rumours and gossip paint Luke or his family in a bad light.
After the murder - I'd never heard of LM before that, and I only met my mate around the same time.
My pal went to see CM after LM had set their dog on my pal's kids.
Another friend of mine told me that his son was attacked by LM at school.
In this case it's not rumour or gossip - it's direct info from very good friends whom I trust implicitly.
I notice that you'll accept anything that supports LM & SL.
-
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
£20?! That's daylight robbery!!
-
You really are no detective.
I’ve been a member of this forum since 2013 I believe. Have almost exclusively posted on the Madeleine McCann thread.
The reason I mentioned SL’s book is simply because Nicholas constantly asks for information from it.
If I’m a troll then I’ve been deep, deep undercover for many years.
Absolutely hilarious.
What is puzzling why you've kept your righteous anger about Luke Mitchell's plight under wraps for all these years, and are only now crusading for justice on his behalf. Have you realised your quest to get the McCanns banged up is a fruitless one at long last?
-
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
What does Sandra Lean say in her book about this?
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
Do you know the answer or not?
Did Corrine Mitchell fabricate the story of Luke taking Mia out for her ‘last pee for the evening’?
And has Corrine introduced this story since her interview with James English in 2019?
There is no mention of this in Sandra Lean’s book ‘No Smoke’
Sandra Lean had access to both Luke and Corrine Mitchell for around 4 years by the time ‘No Smoke’ was published
There is no mention of Luke having taken Mia out for a walk around the time he received JuJ’s text message at around 10.41
Why not ?
-
Can I suggest you buy it? £20 from all good retailers.
Why did Sandra Lean choose to not revise her first flawed and misleading book on the Luke Mitchell & other cases?
-
After the murder - I'd never heard of LM before that, and I only met my mate around the same time.
My pal went to see CM after LM had set their dog on my pal's kids.
Another friend of mine told me that his son was attacked by LM at school.
In this case it's not rumour or gossip - it's direct info from very good friends whom I trust implicitly.
I notice that you'll accept anything that supports LM & SL.
Of course it was after the murder. I’m sure everyone had a tale to tell once Luke’s photograph started appearing in the media.
Did your friend report the attack by the dog on his children to the police? I would have, especially if my concerns had been ignored by the dog’s owner.
As to the attack at school, do we know the precise details or was it a teenage spat made more important with hindsight?
And no I don’t believe SL and LM implicitly but neither do I implicitly believe that they are lying.
-
Of course it was after the murder. I’m sure everyone had a tale to tell once Luke’s photograph started appearing in the media.
Did your friend report the attack by the dog on his children to the police? I would have, especially if my concerns had been ignored by the dog’s owner.
As to the attack at school, do we know the precise details or was it a teenage spat made more important with hindsight?
And no I don’t believe SL and LM implicitly but neither do I implicitly believe that they are lying.
It was known before Mitchell’s murder trial the schools deputy head Marion Docherty had concerns re his behaviour
And Mitchell’s solicitor Nigel Beaumont commented on this publicly on 13th Sept 2003 (Herald Scotland)
Beaumont stated,
“He had a difficult relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi’s murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour”
-
It was known before Mitchell’s murder trial the schools deputy head Marion Docherty had concerns re his behaviour
And Mitchell’s solicitor Nigel Beaumont commented on this publicly on 13th Sept 2003 (Herald Scotland)
Beaumont stated,
“He had a difficult relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi’s murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour”
Note: It was reported in March 2011 Luke Mitchell was planning to sue Nigel Beaumont for “negligence and misrepresentation”
The source for the above was said to be an ‘insider’ at Shotts Prison - they also referred to Mitchell as ‘deluded’
‘Mr Beaumont, who built the defence case, led by Donald Findlay QC, said: “Mr Mitchell’s case was conducted with the utmost maximum care.
“All possible avenues were investigated in terms of the evidence led.
“I refute and suggestion that myself, or any other member of Mr Mitchell’s defence team, were negligent.”
-
Of course it was after the murder. I’m sure everyone had a tale to tell once Luke’s photograph started appearing in the media.
Did your friend report the attack by the dog on his children to the police? I would have, especially if my concerns had been ignored by the dog’s owner.
As to the attack at school, do we know the precise details or was it a teenage spat made more important with hindsight?
And no I don’t believe SL and LM implicitly but neither do I implicitly believe that they are lying.
Aye - of course, I heard about the attacks after the murder - like I say, before the murder, I hadn't heard of LM., so that's entirely logically - also, I didn't know these friends before 2003, so it wouldn't have been possible for them to tell me anything.
The actual attacks, though, took place before the murder.
The details of the attack at the school are that LM attacked a fellow student who is now a policeman - LM would have kept attacking him had people not pulled him off - that's about as precise as I can be without asking my friend or his son.
As for the dog attack - again, I'd have to ask.
I think you do believe LM,CM and SL implicitly.
-
Why did Sandra Lean choose to not revise her first flawed and misleading book on the Luke Mitchell & other cases?
‘She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.”
P.88/89 ‘No Smoke’ by Sandra Lean
‘The DNA on her underwear, shown to be from semen, belonged to Stephen Kelly, her sister’s fiancé. This was explained away thus: Jodi had borrowed her sister’s T-shirt, and the DNA had transferred from the T-shirt to her bra. The only proof this was the case is the word of Janine Jones and Stephen Kelly himself’
P.96
‘When it emerged that DNA belonging to Stephen Kelly has been found on Jodi’s T-shirt and underwear, the explanation given was that Jodi had been wearing her sister Janine’s T-shirt. Yet we only have Stephen Kelly (who is implicated by the presence of his DNA) and Janine (his fiancé)’s word that this was, in fact, the case.
-
Aye - of course, I heard about the attacks after the murder - like I say, before the murder, I hadn't heard of LM., so that's entirely logically - also, I didn't know these friends before 2003, so it wouldn't have been possible for them to tell me anything.
The actual attacks, though, took place before the murder.
The details of the attack at the school are that LM attacked a fellow student who is now a policeman - LM would have kept attacking him had people not pulled him off - that's about as precise as I can be without asking my friend or his son.
As for the dog attack - again, I'd have to ask.
I think you do believe LM,CM and SL implicitly.
LM attacked a fellow student? Now a serving policeman? A Midlothian policeman? Okay. Who started the fight? Was it Luke or your friend’s son? Did Luke simply get the better of your friend’s son? Hard to admit for your friend I’d imagine.
You said Luke was regularly involved in fights. How many? When? With who?
As to the dog attack...it was anecdotal to begin with but now you admit that you know little about it. Hardly damning.
As to you last sentence, that is your prerogative and I would imagine that there’s nothing I could say to change your mind so do you mind if I don’t even try?
-
LM attacked a fellow student? Now a serving policeman? A Midlothian policeman? Okay. Who started the fight? Was it Luke or your friend’s son? Did Luke simply get the better of your friend’s son? Hard to admit for your friend I’d imagine.
You said Luke was regularly involved in fights. How many? When? With who?
As to the dog attack...it was anecdotal to begin with but now you admit that you know little about it. Hardly damning.
As to you last sentence, that is your prerogative and I would imagine that there’s nothing I could say to change your mind so do you mind if I don’t even try?
Luke attacked the lad, ergo he started it - it's really quite simple.
Luke was regularly involved in fights.
How many? Lots.
When? All the time.
With who? (surely you mean with whom) - Lots of people.
The dog attack - I know it happened, because my friend (who has nothing to gain from saying so) said so.
I know my friends very well, and they have nothing to gain by lying - we're close mates - I trust and believe them for all sorts of valid reasons.
I doubt you know LM at all, but you believe every word he says.
You may know CM somewhat. and you believe every word she says.
You know SL very well, and believe every word he says.
It's just black or white for you - there are shades of grey, but you can't see them because you don't want to - that's your prerogative.
Logic is everything.
-
Something that linked him to the scene? What like DNA? Well he certainly scrubbed the scene well and managed to leave the DNA of others
What DNA of others?
Let's for examples sake say that one of the partial profiles obtained. Scrub that. Let's try to make this easy.
If (and I am not saying there is, just an example) forensics use 10 markers from a profile to determine accuracy from whom it came, out of say 15 markers. That's (for example again) 15 boxes along a strip numbered 1-15.
let's take 15 letters A-O , that out of those 15 letters you could obtain 0-infinity profiles depending on where the letters are placed in the 15 marker boxes of 1-15
Let's say (for example again) LM's profile is a straight A-0 in sequence along those 15 markers.
First partial profile is extracted and in boxes 1-8 there is the straight sequence of A-H, It is a partial match to LM but we can not say it is his, rightly so as those remaining (missing) markers could be any combination of I-O
Rather like the lottery?
However - If (for example) there are 50 partial profiles obtained and 40 of those with only 8 markers obtained in each, fit the sequence of LM's then the odds that they now can be from multiple different males changes dramatically.
So 40 partial profiles - different combination in each extracted, 8 markers in different places but all of them in the same place as the markers of LM's profile .. For example again - The 2nd partial profile obtained has the letters B(marker 2),D(marker 4), F(marker 6), I(marker 9), K(marker 11, L(marker 12) and M (marker 13) yet again we can not say this is LM's profile as those missing markers yet again could be any combination of A,C,E,G,H,J, N and O.
Thus my reference to the Lottery - the odds of a syndicate putting on 50 lines and winning a tenner on 40 of them.?
This could also be applied to 10 lines being put on and winning on 8 of them.
Is this therefore what Craig Dobbie meant when he stated there was "no DNA unaccounted for?"
That whilst they could not pin point with certainty that all of these partials belonged to LM they most certainly did not belong to 10% of the population. - this would be ludicrous, considering the small area in question that this DNA was obtained from.
Thus, common sense would tell us that - there most definitely was no DNA that pointed to this being a "stranger" murder. An another.
Would DF simply have missed this? - NO.
Is Ms Leans deciphering of all the evidence greater than that of "everyone else" - no.
The blood spray on the wall is a prime example of this as it has been claimed that - "Yet again we are left with the real possibility that Jodi was killed elsewhere" - ??
There were of course - multiple partial profiles obtained
One can not of course, add them to try and make the point that they came from the same male - each and everyone would have to be debated on, individually - reason as to why perhaps, there was an agreement made between the Crown and the defence? - Even after debating each and every one of them - that of innocent transfer would be suggested..
So whilst there have been an abundance of claims over the years of there being DNA of LM's at the scene, there has been absolutely nothing to disprove this - quite the opposite, multiple DNA that with the "Law of probability" almost certainly did come from one individual.
We are of course discussing the reasons as to why this agreement was made - it was not on the basis of not discussing DNA in it's entirety, it was on the basis of these partials. We know this as SK's DNA was discussed, from those two full profiles of his that were obtained. That is two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions.
Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true. What we are left with is the "old chestnut" of holding "all" of the evidence which conveniently can not be disclosed for all to see. The DNA result being yet another area, some over time have been shown - but not all of them, much like the "cherry picking" of small excerpts of multiple statements that are then badly stitched together. - it certainly has drawn support for LM, from those who choose not to be critical of that which is being pushed out, which in itself shows the actual/factual interest in the "truth".
-
Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true.
A total lack of understand as;
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #5493 on: Yesterday at 12:52 PM »
Sandra has never claimed that semen was on the body! Where was it she said that? There is only two full profiles for identified males. The dna is so f..ked up there is even 1 labelled semen female sample!! There are a number of unidentified profiles and the problem with them is there’s no way of knowing how accurate these profiles are unless there matched to an individual, they may be all from the same male that have become contaminated and can be of no use
[/color].
"f..ked up" - indeed? as;
Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.
[/color]
Intellect and common sense it would seem do not go hand in hand, when one has tunnel vision - When one ultimately takes the firm stance of Innocence first and foremost - then subsequently attempts to dismantle the evidence without expertise.
-
Luke attacked the lad, ergo he started it - it's really quite simple.
Luke was regularly involved in fights.
How many? Lots.
When? All the time.
With who? (surely you mean with whom) - Lots of people.
The dog attack - I know it happened, because my friend (who has nothing to gain from saying so) said so.
I know my friends very well, and they have nothing to gain by lying - we're close mates - I trust and believe them for all sorts of valid reasons.
I doubt you know LM at all, but you believe every word he says.
You may know CM somewhat. and you believe every word she says.
You know SL very well, and believe every word he says.
It's just black or white for you - there are shades of grey, but you can't see them because you don't want to - that's your prerogative.
Logic is everything.
You’re right, logic is everything. Sometimes distance lends perspective though.
You seem not to have known LM before Jodi’s murder so everything you’ve heard or been told has been acquired through that filter. That can never be a good roadmap for the development of an objective opinion. I came to the case years later and am not local so have not been influenced by local prejudice or gossip.
Most of your information seems to have been second hand and while I’m sure that your friends aren’t lying, attaching a greater significance to events than was at the time they happened is human nature when something as horrific as Jodi’s murder happens.
You accuse me of believing every word of those who are campaigning for Luke yet you discount easily checkable court testimony simply because of your view of the honesty of the source. SL has made mistakes in the past with regard to facts, though this seems to have happened before she had access to the case files and after 18 years it would be astonishing if she hadn’t, but as far as I can see she’s corrected those mistakes at the first opportunity.
I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.
-
You’re right, logic is everything. Sometimes distance lends perspective though.
You seem not to have known LM before Jodi’s murder so everything you’ve heard or been told has been acquired through that filter. That can never be a good roadmap for the development of an objective opinion. I came to the case years later and am not local so have not been influenced by local prejudice or gossip.
Most of your information seems to have been second hand and while I’m sure that your friends aren’t lying, attaching a greater significance to events than was at the time they happened is human nature when something as horrific as Jodi’s murder happens.
You accuse me of believing every word of those who are campaigning for Luke yet you discount easily checkable court testimony simply because of your view of the honesty of the source. SL has made mistakes in the past with regard to facts, though this seems to have happened before she had access to the case files and after 18 years it would be astonishing if she hadn’t, but as far as I can see she’s corrected those mistakes at the first opportunity.
I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.
You seem to be suggesting that the less you knew the protagonists, the area, the locals etc the better position you are to pronounce on their innocence or guilt So, if you only get your info from a book, the newspapers and a woman whose made it her life's work to get this man released the better you are in a position to know what happened. Interesting theory.
-
What DNA of others?
Let's for examples sake say that one of the partial profiles obtained. Scrub that. Let's try to make this easy.
If (and I am not saying there is, just an example) forensics use 10 markers from a profile to determine accuracy from whom it came, out of say 15 markers. That's (for example again) 15 boxes along a strip numbered 1-15.
let's take 15 letters A-O , that out of those 15 letters you could obtain 0-infinity profiles depending on where the letters are placed in the 15 marker boxes of 1-15
Let's say (for example again) LM's profile is a straight A-0 in sequence along those 15 markers.
First partial profile is extracted and in boxes 1-8 there is the straight sequence of A-H, It is a partial match to LM but we can not say it is his, rightly so as those remaining (missing) markers could be any combination of I-O
Rather like the lottery?
However - If (for example) there are 50 partial profiles obtained and 40 of those with only 8 markers obtained in each, fit the sequence of LM's then the odds that they now can be from multiple different males changes dramatically.
So 40 partial profiles - different combination in each extracted, 8 markers in different places but all of them in the same place as the markers of LM's profile .. For example again - The 2nd partial profile obtained has the letters B(marker 2),D(marker 4), F(marker 6), I(marker 9), K(marker 11, L(marker 12) and M (marker 13) yet again we can not say this is LM's profile as those missing markers yet again could be any combination of A,C,E,G,H,J, N and O.
Thus my reference to the Lottery - the odds of a syndicate putting on 50 lines and winning a tenner on 40 of them.?
This could also be applied to 10 lines being put on and winning on 8 of them.
Is this therefore what Craig Dobbie meant when he stated there was "no DNA unaccounted for?"
That whilst they could not pin point with certainty that all of these partials belonged to LM they most certainly did not belong to 10% of the population. - this would be ludicrous, considering the small area in question that this DNA was obtained from.
Thus, common sense would tell us that - there most definitely was no DNA that pointed to this being a "stranger" murder. An another.
Would DF simply have missed this? - NO.
Is Ms Leans deciphering of all the evidence greater than that of "everyone else" - no.
The blood spray on the wall is a prime example of this as it has been claimed that - "Yet again we are left with the real possibility that Jodi was killed elsewhere" - ??
There were of course - multiple partial profiles obtained
One can not of course, add them to try and make the point that they came from the same male - each and everyone would have to be debated on, individually - reason as to why perhaps, there was an agreement made between the Crown and the defence? - Even after debating each and every one of them - that of innocent transfer would be suggested..
So whilst there have been an abundance of claims over the years of there being DNA of LM's at the scene, there has been absolutely nothing to disprove this - quite the opposite, multiple DNA that with the "Law of probability" almost certainly did come from one individual.
We are of course discussing the reasons as to why this agreement was made - it was not on the basis of not discussing DNA in it's entirety, it was on the basis of these partials. We know this as SK's DNA was discussed, from those two full profiles of his that were obtained. That is two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions.
Simply, that when someone uses the stance ultimately that LM is Innocent - "all" of those partial profiles are automatically claimed to be from "stranger" DNA - this simply is not true. What we are left with is the "old chestnut" of holding "all" of the evidence which conveniently can not be disclosed for all to see. The DNA result being yet another area, some over time have been shown - but not all of them, much like the "cherry picking" of small excerpts of multiple statements that are then badly stitched together. - it certainly has drawn support for LM, from those who choose not to be critical of that which is being pushed out, which in itself shows the actual/factual interest in the "truth".
The only fact that matters is there was no definitive DNA that put Luke at the scene of the murder or the Crown would have used it. There was, however, a full DNA profile of SK.
-
A total lack of understand as;
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #5493 on: Yesterday at 12:52 PM »
.
"f..ked up" - indeed? as;
Intellect and common sense it would seem do not go hand in hand, when one has tunnel vision - When one ultimately takes the firm stance of Innocence first and foremost - then subsequently attempts to dismantle the evidence without expertise.
Or guilt.
Couldn’t agree more.
-
The only fact that matters is there was no definitive DNA that put Luke at the scene of the murder or the Crown would have used it. There was, however, a full DNA profile of SK.
Quite so - thus the agreement that was made between the Crown and the defence. It is a far cry however from stating as fact that there was 100% NO DNA of LM's at the scene. That there was DNA from multiple others when the simple fact is;
The Defence would have been all over it. They were not. Yet Ms Lean is? It certainly paints a harrowing picture though to those who accept without question all that is said? - the naive amongst us?
And yes there was of SK, I did of course mention this. "those two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions"
Or guilt.
Couldn’t agree more.
Definitely - thus why I took the stance of scrutinizing "all" of the available information.
Interested primarily in the power of suggestion, use of word play - Came across multiple blatant lies in the process. Which begged the question for me, why? If indeed there is "all" this evidence to show that LM is indeed innocent - why lie?
So I started at the beginning, asking one simple question - "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?"
So much misinformation on more suitable candidates for the role? Therefore, why Luke?
It is a good place to start - if interested enough of course?
-
Quite so - thus the agreement that was made between the Crown and the defence. It is a far cry however from stating as fact that there was 100% NO DNA of LM's at the scene. That there was DNA from multiple others when the simple fact is;
The Defence would have been all over it. They were not. Yet Ms Lean is? It certainly paints a harrowing picture though to those who accept without question all that is said? - the naive amongst us?
And yes there was of SK, I did of course mention this. "those two strong swimmers out of ejaculation of millions"
Definitely - thus why I took the stance of scrutinizing "all" of the available information.
Interested primarily in the power of suggestion, use of word play - Came across multiple blatant lies in the process. Which begged the question for me, why? If indeed there is "all" this evidence to show that LM is indeed innocent - why lie?
So I started at the beginning, asking one simple question - "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?"
So much misinformation on more suitable candidates for the role? Therefore, why Luke?
It is a good place to start - if interested enough of course?
Firstly I don’t speak for SL. If you want to converse with her can I suggest that you email her? Give her the right to reply at least.
Secondly, it’s suspicious that SK’s DNA was there at all.
As to why suspicion fell on Luke, I think that is the wrong question. The question should be why did suspicion fall on Luke so early in the investigation? The treatment of him by the police in comparison to the rest of the searchers is stark in its contrast and certainly suggests that from the very first hours of the investigation, before there was any hard evidence on which to base an opinion, Luke was in the frame.
-
I don’t expect anyone to believe my view of the case, I simply refer them to the sources which have informed my opinion, none of it local gossip.
It's not gossip - it's testimony - anecdotal evidence.
Two young lassies come forward saying LM had a knife at their throats - you dismiss it.
A knife is found in LM's possession at cadet camp - you dismiss it.
You're given examples of LM being aggressive and violent, and CM not caring - you're not interested.
Your lack of balance is akin to that of the recent shoddy one-sided documentary.
The 'sources that have informed your opinion' are selective.
-
It's not gossip - it's testimony - anecdotal evidence.
Two young lassies come forward saying LM had a knife at their throats - you dismiss it.
A knife is found in LM's possession at cadet camp - you dismiss it.
You're given examples of LM being aggressive and violent, and CM not caring - you're not interested.
Your lack of balance is akin to that of the recent shoddy one-sided documentary.
The 'sources that have informed your opinion' are selective.
Two boys in a fight, one gets the better of the other. Of course the dad of the boy who came out worst is going to be miffed.
Luke, allegedly, sets his dog on some children. Was your friend there? Did the dog simply start growling? What were the children’s injuries? Did your friend inform the police or was he not concerned enough for that?
Luke got into lots of fights? Where’s the evidence, beyond local gossip?
The alleged knife attacks I dismiss because the girls appear to have gone to the papers before the police. The Crown had an excellent witness who could prove that Luke threatened his girlfriends with knives but they didn’t call her. Why?
The knife incident I did not dismiss. I merely question it’s importance. Luke was known to carry knives when camping ect. Surely it was not unusual for him to take a knife to the sea cadets? It was against the rules no doubt but it certainly wasn’t a big enough issue to get him banned.
I give you direct quotes from court testimony but you dismiss it because it simply does not fit your narrative so please do not accuse me of being selective in my opinion.
-
Two boys in a fight, one gets the better of the other. Of course the dad of the boy who came out worst is going to be miffed.
Luke, allegedly, sets his dog on some children. Was your friend there? Did the dog simply start growling? What were the children’s injuries? Did your friend inform the police or was he not concerned enough for that?
Luke got into lots of fights? Where’s the evidence, beyond local gossip?
The alleged knife attacks I dismiss because the girls appear to have gone to the papers before the police. The Crown had an excellent witness who could prove that Luke threatened his girlfriends with knives but they didn’t call her. Why?
The knife incident I did not dismiss. I merely question it’s importance. Luke was known to carry knives when camping ect. Surely it was not unusual for him to take a knife to the sea cadets? It was against the rules no doubt but it certainly wasn’t a big enough issue to get him banned.
I give you direct quotes from court testimony but you dismiss it because it simply does not fit your narrative so please do not accuse me of being selective in my opinion.
Absolutely pointless engaging with you.
You can't accept the fact that SM didn't give LM an alibi, and you ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda.
If you try to remove the blinkers and open your mind, that will probably make you a nicer person.
Probably.
-
Absolutely pointless engaging with you.
You can't accept the fact that SM didn't give LM an alibi, and you ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda.
If you try to remove the blinkers and open your mind, that will probably make you a nicer person.
Probably.
Are we back in the playground?
The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.
I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.
‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.
This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.
They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.
I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.
-
The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.
I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.
‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.
This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.
SM has had years to come forward - the fact that he hasn't come forward in all that time suggests that he's happy with what he said.
-
Are we back in the playground?
The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.
I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.
‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.
This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.
They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.
I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.
Direct from court transcripts - verbatim? Who was Shane arguing with?
AD - "On that evening, about 4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?"
Shane - "No one at that time"
AD - "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?"
Shane "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there"
-
Are we back in the playground?
The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.
I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.
‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.
This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.
They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.
I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.
Is the excerpt in bold (black) from Sandra Leans book?
-
SM has had years to come forward - the fact that he hasn't come forward in all that time suggests that he's happy with what he said.
He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?
-
Direct from court transcripts - verbatim? Who was Shane arguing with?
AD - "On that evening, about 4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?"
Shane - "No one at that time"
AD - "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?"
Shane "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there"
Where did this come from?
-
He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?
Shane could support his brother and mother - which he appears to not be doing
A conclusion to be drawn from his lack of public support could be he’s of the view his brother Luke committed the murder
-
He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?
What did Shane Mitchell say in his police statements and evidence during his brothers murder trial regarding the torch Luke apparently borrowed from him?
-
Shane could support his brother and mother - which he appears to not be doing
A conclusion to be drawn from his lack of public support could be he’s of the view his brother Luke committed the murder
It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.
-
It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.
Do you know what Shane told police with regards the torch Luke apparently borrowed from his brother just before going out to search for Jodi or not?
Corrine told James Matthews Luke borrowed the torch just before going out to search for Jodi - even though it appears from her explanation during the podcast (approx 7.30 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4) Luke had just come in from being outside - approx 10.41
-
It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.
Look, a distraction!
-
‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.
Is the excerpt in bold (black) from Sandra Leans book?
Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?
From "No Smoke" Claimed to have been written prior to having access to the court transcripts. Yet that very same way of wording as above.
Shane did not claim that Luke "had not been at home between 5pm and 5.45pm." He said that he did not know if Luke had been at home, and that he had thought he (Shane) was alone "in the house," a subtle, but very important difference.
-
He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?
Are you not alleging that SM was intimidated into saying what he said?
-
Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?
‘He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him...’
The above is bizarre
-
It was known before Mitchell’s murder trial the schools deputy head Marion Docherty had concerns re his behaviour
And Mitchell’s solicitor Nigel Beaumont commented on this publicly on 13th Sept 2003 (Herald Scotland)
Beaumont stated,
“He had a difficult relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi’s murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour”
What were then school deputy head Marion Docherty’s concerns re Mitchell’s suicide idealisations?
-
What were then school deputy head Marion Docherty’s concerns re Mitchell’s suicide idealisations?
And isn’t this the same person Corrine Mitchell referred to when chatting with James English as ‘hitler in a skirt’
-
And isn’t this the same person Corrine Mitchell referred to when chatting with James English as ‘hitler in a skirt’
So a deputy head teacher shows concern for Luke Mitchell’s behaviour - which was clearly concerning ⬇️
”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’
and Corrine Mitchell mocked them for this *&^^&
-
Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?
From "No Smoke" Claimed to have been written prior to having access to the court transcripts. Yet that very same way of wording as above.
They same way of wording? In what way?
-
And isn’t this the same person Corrine Mitchell referred to when chatting with James English as ‘hitler in a skirt’
I’ve heard her called worse from pupils who were under her care.
-
Are you not alleging that SM was intimidated into saying what he said?
I thought you weren’t engaging?
But yes I am alleging that. The judge didn’t call Shane’s interrogation’ unfair’ for nothing. The ‘perverting the course of justice’ charge was laid for exactly the same reason, otherwise they’d have had to have treated him as a witness rather than arrest him as a suspect. Strange that the charge was dropped at Luke’s trial when it had served it’s purpose.
You must be absolutely blind or thoroughly dishonest not to appreciate how SM’s treatment by the police tainted the evidence that was obtained.
-
I thought you weren’t engaging?
But yes I am alleging that. The judge didn’t call Shane’s interrogation’ unfair’ for nothing. The ‘perverting the course of justice’ charge was laid for exactly the same reason, otherwise they’d have had to have treated him as a witness rather than arrest him as a suspect. Strange that the charge was dropped at Luke’s trial when it had served it’s purpose.
You must be absolutely blind or thoroughly dishonest not to appreciate how SM’s treatment by the police tainted the evidence that was obtained.
I won't make a habit of it.
If my brother was about to be imprisoned, and I knew he couldn't have been guilty because he was in the same house as me at the time of the murder, no amount of intimidation would make me say otherwise.
Moreover, if I knew my brother had been imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, I'd come forward at every opportunity to clear his name and try to secure his release - the fact is that SM hasn't done this.
I really doubt that SM allowed his brother to go to jail because a few folk intimidated him, and he still hasn't spoken out after all this time.
If SM knows his brother is innocent, and could prove that, but chooses not to, then that would be very strange.
-
I’ve heard her called worse from pupils who were under her care.
When do you intend on answering any of the questions ?
[Name removed] was in a controlling relationship with Luke Mitchell regardless of their ages
Her father had died by suicide and it seemed Mitchell used threats of suicide as a control tactic with Jodi
”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’
And Mitchell appears to have used these threats in an attempt to control others also
-
I won't make a habit of it.
If my brother was about to be imprisoned, and I knew he couldn't have been guilty because he was in the same house as me at the time of the murder, no amount of intimidation would make me say otherwise.
Moreover, if I knew my brother had been imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, I'd come forward at every opportunity to clear his name and try to secure his release - the fact is that SM hasn't done this.
I really doubt that SM allowed his brother to go to jail because a few folk intimidated him, and he still hasn't spoken out after all this time.
If SM knows his brother is innocent, and could prove that, but chooses not to, then that would be very strange.
The owner of this forum is in a similar position. His brother has made no public statement with regard to his conviction and doesn’t appear to support his campaign. Does that make his conviction safe too?
If you, if you, if you....but SM isn’t you and he was not simply intimidated but faced a lengthy prison sentence. Has that happened to you?
-
The owner of this forum is in a similar position. His brother has made no public statement with regard to his conviction and doesn’t appear to support his campaign. Does that make his conviction safe too?
If you, if you, if you....but SM isn’t you and he was not simply intimidated but faced a lengthy prison sentence. Has that happened to you?
he was told he faced a lengthy jail sentence if he lied. So he was intimidated into telling the truth?
-
The owner of this forum is in a similar position. His brother has made no public statement with regard to his conviction and doesn’t appear to support his campaign. Does that make his conviction safe too?
If you, if you, if you....but SM isn’t you and he was not simply intimidated but faced a lengthy prison sentence. Has that happened to you?
I really wish folk would stop referring to other cases in LM threads.
You're saying that SM allowed his brother to be imprisoned for a murder he knows he didn't commit because he was intimidated - anything's possible, but I don't buy it - not for a second.
-
I really wish folk would stop referring to other cases in LM threads.
You're saying that SM allowed his brother to be imprisoned for a murder he knows he didn't commit because he was intimidated - anything's possible, but I don't buy it - not for a second.
What I’m saying is that SM tried to explain on the stand what had happened during his interrogation, an extract of which I have already posted. The judge called this interrogation unfair. SM wasn’t simply intimidated, he was charged with perverting the course of justice, a charge , which if convicted, carries a sentence of up to life imprisonment. His life would have been destroyed.
‘ Perverting the course of justice is a serious criminal offence that can carry a sentence of up to life in prison and whilst life imprisonment is unlikely, it is unusual for the court to impose a penalty other than a prison sentence.’
-
What I’m saying is that SM tried to explain on the stand what had happened during his interrogation, an extract of which I have already posted. The judge called this interrogation unfair.
Your writing is Sandra Lean - esque
-
Your writing is Sandra Lean - esque
Thank you.
-
Hope everybody had a great weekend, and not rotting away on a forum, morning noon & night 8@??)(
Anyway, it always did puzzle me why there was never a reward. Anyone know why? Very localized town & very localized path, only locals would have known about this path. I'm sure a 10 grand reward would have enticed the 2 seen at the Easthouses end to come forward. That is of course, one of those is sadly no longer with us & the other is in jail. I would have gave some-one the keys to my house for information.
Why no reward?
-
Hope everybody had a great weekend, and not rotting away on a forum, morning noon & night 8@??)(
Anyway, it always did puzzle me why there was never a reward. Anyone know why? Very localized town & very localized path, only locals would have known about this path. I'm sure a 10 grand reward would have enticed the 2 seen at the Easthouses end to come forward. That is of course, one of those is sadly no longer with us & the other is in jail. I would have gave some-one the keys to my house for information.
Why no reward?
Perhaps a straightforward appeal would have sufficed? I don’t remember seeing anything in the media. Was there ever such an appeal?
-
Hope everybody had a great weekend, and not rotting away on a forum, morning noon & night 8@??)(
Anyway, it always did puzzle me why there was never a reward. Anyone know why? Very localized town & very localized path, only locals would have known about this path. I'm sure a 10 grand reward would have enticed the 2 seen at the Easthouses end to come forward. That is of course, one of those is sadly no longer with us & the other is in jail. I would have gave some-one the keys to my house for information.
Why no reward?
No need...they got their man.
-
No need...they got their man.
They didn’t charge Luke for 10 months....so hardly a slam dunk.
Part of the argument for the AB sighting being Luke and Jodi is that no other individuals have come forward to say it was them but why would they if no appeal was made for them to do so?
AB reported her sighting of two young people on the Easthouses Road on 1st of July, the day after Jodi’s murder. She was not asked to identify either one of that couple until 14th of August, over 6 weeks later. Yet in all those weeks there appears to have been no appeals for the couple to come forward to be eliminated. Why?
The AB sighting would only have become public knowledge at the trial and by the time of the trial who would remember if they had been on the Eastlouses Road on 30th June 2003?
Of course AB originally also put her sighting at around 5.40-5.45, far too late for it to have been Luke and Jodi if Jodi had been killed at 5.15 but that’s for another post.
-
No need...they got their man.
Exactly. I was thinking more why CM, Lean and others, never offered up a reward. It would have been better, then blowing money on some fake science gimmicks.
-
Exactly. I was thinking more why CM, Lean and others, never offered up a reward. It would have been better, then blowing money on some fake science gimmicks.
And how do you think that information obtained through the promise of money would be treated by the police?
No, better that the police did their job properly in the first place, like appealing for the AB couple to come forward.
Do you know that the police for at least two weeks after Jodi’s body was found said that there had been no positive sightings of her after she had left home, despite the fact that AB had reported her sighting on the 1st of July? Seems at the beginning even the police didn’t think that AB had seen Luke and Jodi. I wonder what changed? Was the evidence against Luke so thin on the ground that information that had been previously discounted was brought back in to play?
-
What? Police did appeal for that couple to come forward. The same way they did with stocky man, the girl pushing the buggy, etc on the basis of having potential "information." Obviously they weren't referring to it as a sighting of Luke and Jodi at that stage, or they wouldn't be asking any couple to come forward, would they?! You've been misled by Sandra, it's not your fault. I saw the live stream too lol.
-
What? Police did appeal for that couple to come forward. The same way they did with stocky man, the girl pushing the buggy, etc on the basis of having potential "information." Obviously they weren't referring to it as a sighting of Luke and Jodi at that stage, or they wouldn't be asking any couple to come forward, would they?! You've been misled by Sandra, it's not your fault. I saw the live stream too lol.
Right on que.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12536756.vital-witness-in-hunt-for-jodis-killer-comes-forward/
But aye the police never made any appeals @)(++(*
-
Right on que.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12536756.vital-witness-in-hunt-for-jodis-killer-comes-forward/
But aye the police never made any appeals @)(++(*
You may want to read my previous post properly before you start congratulating each other.
I posted ‘ No, better that the police did their job properly in the first place, like appealing for the AB couple to come forward’ NOT that the police didn’t make appeals.
Inadvertently you have made my point for me. The police did make appeals for stocky man, the girl with the buggy etc but despite AB contacting the police on the 1st of July no appeal, certainly in the first weeks, was made for the couple and AB wasn’t even asked to look at photographs for 6 weeks.
From their actions it doesn’t seem, certainly in the first weeks, that the couple seen by AB was in any way important from an investigation prospective.
Another appeal.
‘Officers want to trace two youths spotted on Monday night on a motorbike near the Roman Dyke pathway where Jodi's bloodied and partially dressed body was found in undergrowth. Police do not believe the pair are directly linked to the incident, but they want to know what - if anything - they saw.’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/ukcrime.scotland
-
What? Police did appeal for that couple to come forward. The same way they did with stocky man, the girl pushing the buggy, etc on the basis of having potential "information." Obviously they weren't referring to it as a sighting of Luke and Jodi at that stage, or they wouldn't be asking any couple to come forward, would they?! You've been misled by Sandra, it's not your fault. I saw the live stream too lol.
The police knew about the couple from the 1st of July. Why wouldn’t they ask for them directly to come forward to be eliminated from their enquiries? Could it be that the time AB originally told the police that she had seen the couple and the clothes the couple were wearing ruled them out but 6 weeks later and with no credible sightings the police had become desperate?
-
The police knew about the couple from the 1st of July. Why wouldn’t they ask for them directly to come forward to be eliminated from their enquiries? Could it be that the time AB originally told the police that she had seen the couple and the clothes the couple were wearing ruled them out but 6 weeks later and with no credible sightings the police had become desperate?
Perhaps it was, what it was - an investigation. Why would the police simply pounce on this sighting prior to clarifying statements from the main witness's. Emphasis there on the word "clarifying" - It's called being thorough.
As more information was coming in further appeals were put out - looking for anyone who may have seen this girl.
You can try as hard as you like to try and thwart AB's sighting -
The girls top in the first description was that of being very dark, possibly navy with lighter coloured trousers possibly Jeans/cords, bootcut perhaps. Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with dark blue cords that were baggy around the bottom of her legs. They were lighter in colour than that of the top. Not bad at all, eh? She further described the girls hair being very dark possibly black and it appeared to be contained. Jodi had long dark hair with a hair fastener. The male was described as having sticky out hair, shoulder length, wearing a green fishing style jacket with what appeared to be a bulging pocket. He had his palms facing forward as if beckoning the girl. AB was driving, the actions of the male are what caught her attention, it was his face she remembered with that sticky out hair. LM was ID'd from a photo fit of 12 pictures of males. No doubt AB had saw LM in the papers many times leading up to the trial, what we had of LM by the time it got to trial was a youth whom had aged by almost 18months, he had very long hair, severely tied back in a ponytail. These are the only pictures that show LM to have the appearance of "poker straight hair" AB could have simply said, yes and picked him out in court, but this male was not the same looking as the one she had seen 18months prior. How different would the debate be now if she had -'how could she possibly pick him out as the same person, he looked nothing like the boy in the photo fit' - that is fact.
The court document clearly states that exhibit 146 was a "black or very dark navy hooded top"
the trousers were lighter in colour than the jumper. (The description of the jumper was consistent with what the deceased was wearing when she left home; her trousers were dark in colour and of a "baggy" type). "
Transcript of Interview, 4th July 2003:
After discussing what Luke was wearing on Monday night at page 44, and then some discussion about whether or not Luke and Jodi wore school uniform (they didn’t).
At P45, after discussing who bought both Luke and Jodi’s clothes, the following discussion is recorded:
DC: Oh, right, OK. Was Jodi the same, did she buy her
LM: She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.
DC: Mm-mm and eh what else was she wearing on Monday?
LM: Eh, a black Deftones, it was like this, it had the zip, but it was black and it had Deftones written across the back, and there, and there
DC: Aye
LM: It had sort of, a sort of distorted sort of circley oval, it had sort of, it was like a yellowy orange
DC: Yeah
LM: Band sort of thing.
DC: anything else that you can, that strikes oot or...
LM: I can’t remember the top, I mean she had her hoody zipped up most of the time so..
DC: Oh, right, aye
LM: She had her sort of navy blue DCs on- DC trainers
DC: Right
ADS: When was this, sorry?
LM: This was Monday.
-
Perhaps it was, what it was - an investigation. Why would the police simply pounce on this sighting prior to clarifying statements from the main witness's. Emphasis there on the word "clarifying" - It's called being thorough.
As more information was coming in further appeals were put out - looking for anyone who may have seen this girl.
You can try as hard as you like to try and thwart AB's sighting -
The girls top in the first description was that of being very dark, possibly navy with lighter coloured trousers possibly Jeans/cords, bootcut perhaps. Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with dark blue cords that were baggy around the bottom of her legs. They were lighter in colour than that of the top. Not bad at all, eh? She further described the girls hair being very dark possibly black and it appeared to be contained. Jodi had long dark hair with a hair fastener. The male was described as having sticky out hair, shoulder length, wearing a green fishing style jacket with what appeared to be a bulging pocket. He had his palms facing forward as if beckoning the girl. AB was driving, the actions of the male are what caught her attention, it was his face she remembered with that sticky out hair. LM was ID'd from a photo fit of 12 pictures of males. No doubt AB had saw LM in the papers many times leading up to the trial, what we had of LM by the time it got to trial was a youth whom had aged by almost 18months, he had very long hair, severely tied back in a ponytail. These are the only pictures that show LM to have the appearance of "poker straight hair" AB could have simply said, yes and picked him out in court, but this male was not the same looking as the one she had seen 18months prior. How different would the debate be now if she had -'how could she possibly pick him out as the same person, he looked nothing like the boy in the photo fit' - that is fact.
It certainly was an investigation, although a shoddy one, and that investigation appealed for witnesses in the first few days which may have been peripheral to that investigation, the boys with the moped, the girl with the buggy, stocky man. Not one appeal though for the couple seen by AB and I think this is why.
AB’s first and second statements put her sighting around 5.40 to 5.45pm. This was the breakdown of those times.
4.05pm Picked up children from school.
4.15pm Arrived at supermarket
4.45pm Left supermarket ( time on receipt)
5.50pm Arrived home after viewing a house for sale ( sighting took place after viewing the house)
6.17pm Received a phone call ‘about half an hour after she returned home’
The route AB took to get home from and the unloading of the shopping etc would have taken about 10 minutes which would put the sighting at around 5.40pm, 25 minutes after the police estimated that Jodi was murdered.
IMO this is why there was no appeal for the couple to come forward, the time the sighting took place was simply too late for it to be Jodi and Luke.
As to what the female was wearing you said:
‘The girls top in the first description was that of being very dark, possibly navy with lighter coloured trousers possibly Jeans/cords, bootcut perhaps. Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with dark blue cords that were baggy around the bottom of her legs. They were lighter in colour than that of the top. Not bad at all, eh?’
This is however was not what AB claimed in her first statements. She described the girl as having very dark, shoulder length hair...Jodi’s hair was auburn and AB didn’t mention a bobble. She was wearing a plain, navy hooded top.... Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with a large yellow Deftones logo on the back ( as can be seen from the reconstruction). She was wearing lighter blue, bootcut jeans ( no mention of cords)....Jodi was wearing black, baggy trousers ( as, again, can be seen from the reconstruction).
As to what the male was wearing you said:
‘The male was described as having sticky out hair, shoulder length, wearing a green fishing style jacket with what appeared to be a bulging pocket. He had his palms facing forward as if beckoning the girl.’
AB stated that the male was white, early 20s, average height and build with very thick sandy brown hair that appeared to be sticking up in a clump at the back. He wore a green, waist length fishing style jacket with a high collar and a bulging pocket on the arm ( AB was adamant that it was not a parka) with lots of pockets and matching trousers. She said that she could not estimate the length of the youth’s hair because of the high collar. She could not describe his face.
So AB described completely different clothes to those known to have been worn by Jodi on the day and stated that she saw the couple at a time incompatible with Jodi’s murder at 5.15pm.
No wonder the sighting appears to have been dismissed in the first weeks of the investigation.
-
AB’s first and second statements put her sighting around 5.40 to 5.45pm. This was the breakdown of those times.
4.05pm Picked up children from school.
4.15pm Arrived at supermarket
4.45pm Left supermarket ( time on receipt)
5.50pm Arrived home after viewing a house for sale ( sighting took place after viewing the house)
6.17pm Received a phone call ‘about half an hour after she returned home’
The route AB took to get home from and the unloading of the shopping etc would have taken about 10 minutes which would put the sighting at around 5.40pm, 25 minutes after the police estimated that Jodi was murdered
Oh dear - What do you suppose is missing from the information you have provided Faithilly?
You have 1hr and 5mins for viewing a house, why do you suppose that is? Or rather what it is you have included but chosen to leave out? I'll let you know.
You have included the time from the shop receipt (omitted the cashline one) also that AB simply drove past the house, she did not actually do a viewing. Therefore you can cancel those 65mins out. She had only intended to have a good look at the house from the outside and neighbourhood, but her children were playing up.
The breakdown of the times - were done accurately upon the shop receipt, (remember also that the time of the receipt was wrong at first, there was and error in the mechanism, bank receipt used as well) the route she had driven and the sighting being between 4.50 - 5pm , you see, this investigation did not simply take her word for it, did they? That would be shoddy. They did not make up the timing of her journey, it was timed by the actual route she HAD taken. So we go from those first brief accounts given, to more detailed, verified ones. The problem only arises when someone comes along and tries to stitch, rather badly, little excerpts from multiple statements.
Further more - Again the wheat from the chaff. JuJ did not give an exact time of her daughter leaving, only that it had been after her husband returned home. They did not simply take her word for it, or any ones for that matter, did they? They sought to verify timings by other means. Mr Ovens on CTV at Tesco and so forth. The time he had arrived home and of Jodi leaving the house whilst he was in the loo.
Are you implying AB was manipulated by the police, along with everyone else? - Shoddy thinking perhaps on behalf of the person whom continually makes these claims - don't you think?
-
This is however was not what AB claimed in her first statements. She described the girl as having very dark, shoulder length hair...Jodi’s hair was auburn and AB didn’t mention a bobble. She was wearing a plain, navy hooded top.... Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with a large yellow Deftones logo on the back ( as can be seen from the reconstruction). She was wearing lighter blue, bootcut jeans ( no mention of cords)....Jodi was wearing black, baggy trousers ( as, again, can be seen from the reconstruction).
No one said AB mentioned a bobble, she said that her hair was possibly "contained" also revert back to description from court exhibit of "very dark black or navy top" That the trousers were "lighter" blue not light blue - they were lighter than the top.
Clarification yet again is sought of the colouring/type - In which AB states that the top was very dark in colour and that the trousers were slightly lighter than the top, that they were baggy around the bottom, possibly bootcut. cord/jeans as they did not appear to be just trousers.
Jodi was wearing dark blue cord which were lighter in colour to that of the black/navy top. Hooded.
What colours are Newbattle high school tops Faithlilly? - I'll let you know, they are quite a bright shade of blue. Most definitely not Navy.
Why do you assume Ms Lean makes reference to the school colours whilst attempting to fool her viewers into thinking it could have been a pupil AB saw? As she stated AB said the "top was blue" in her first statement? That AB said the girl had light blue jeans on? When nowhere in any of the statements does AB say this? - Blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts? from someone whom has all of the statements?
Why do you think the police left out this "red hair bobble" in the reconstruction? - shoddy police work?
-
Oh dear - What do you suppose is missing from the information you have provided Faithilly?
You have 1hr and 5mins for viewing a house, why do you suppose that is? Or rather what it is you have included but chosen to leave out? I'll let you know.
You have included the time from the shop receipt (omitted the cashline one) also that AB simply drove past the house, she did not actually do a viewing. Therefore you can cancel those 65mins out. She had only intended to have a good look at the house from the outside and neighbourhood, but her children were playing up.
The breakdown of the times - were done accurately upon the shop receipt, (remember also that the time of the receipt was wrong at first, there was and error in the mechanism, bank receipt used as well) the route she had driven and the sighting being between 4.50 - 5pm , you see, this investigation did not simply take her word for it, did they? That would be shoddy. They did not make up the timing of her journey, it was timed by the actual route she HAD taken. So we go from those first brief accounts given, to more detailed, verified ones. The problem only arises when someone comes along and tries to stitch, rather badly, little excerpts from multiple statements.
Further more - Again the wheat from the chaff. JuJ did not give an exact time of her daughter leaving, only that it had been after her husband returned home. They did not simply take her word for it, or any ones for that matter, did they? They sought to verify timings by other means. Mr Ovens on CTV at Tesco and so forth. The time he had arrived home and of Jodi leaving the house whilst he was in the loo.
Are you implying AB was manipulated by the police, along with everyone else? - Shoddy thinking perhaps on behalf of the person whom continually makes these claims - don't you think?
Do you have a scintilla of evidence for any of that? I’m guessing the answer is no.
AB got home. She received a call ‘about half an hour afterwards’...her phone said 6.17. The sighting therefore must have been at approx 5.40.
Nice attempt though.
Well done
-
Do you have a scintilla of evidence for any of that? I’m guessing the answer is no.
AB got home. She received a call ‘about half an hour afterwards’...her phone said 6.17. The sighting therefore must have been at approx 5.40.
Nice attempt though.
Well done
Was her sighting ruled out in court on the basis of the time of the phone call she received?
-
No one said AB mentioned a bobble, she said that her hair was possibly "contained" also revert back to description from court exhibit of "very dark black or navy top" That the trousers were "lighter" blue not light blue - they were lighter than the top.
Clarification yet again is sought of the colouring/type - In which AB states that the top was very dark in colour and that the trousers were slightly lighter than the top, that they were baggy around the bottom, possibly bootcut. cord/jeans as they did not appear to be just trousers.
Jodi was wearing dark blue cord which were lighter in colour to that of the black/navy top. Hooded.
What colours are Newbattle high school tops Faithlilly? - I'll let you know, they are quite a bright shade of blue. Most definitely not Navy.
Why do you assume Ms Lean makes reference to the school colours whilst attempting to fool her viewers into thinking it could have been a pupil AB saw? As she stated AB said the "top was blue" in her first statement? That AB said the girl had light blue jeans on? When nowhere in any of the statements does AB say this? - Blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts? from someone whom has all of the statements?
Why do you think the police left out this "red hair bobble" in the reconstruction? - shoddy police work?
But the fact is that you don’t have all the statements so forgive me if I believe the individual who does.
If the sighting wasn’t Jodi, it wasn’t Jodi. It’s not incumbent on me, or indeed Miss Lean, to provide an alternative.
Black can be mistaken for navy but a bright yellow Deftones logo can be mistaken for nothing but a bright yellow Deftones logo. That hurdle can never be gotten over.
And the trousers, lighter than navy but definitely not black, the colour of Jodi’s trousers....just watch the reconstruction.
Another hurdle I’m afraid.
Anyway, back to the main question. Why, if the police publicly appealed for stocky man, moped boys, blonde buggy woman ( what was her sighting) they didn’t appeal for the couple by the path?
I’m guessing that the times didn’t fit.
-
Do you have a scintilla of evidence for any of that? I’m guessing the answer is no.
AB got home. She received a call ‘about half an hour afterwards’...her phone said 6.17. The sighting therefore must have been at approx 5.40.
Nice attempt though.
Well done
"The till receipt (originally) was timed at 16.45" however "police investigators "discovered" the time on the till receipt was wrong" - it should have read 4.32pm.
Sound familiar? - I'll help you out with, as to why they realised the till receipt time had to be wrong. AB had also used the ATM. But you know all of this of course, unless'
If you want to imply Ms Lean is lying about the evidence from the court transcripts, that is your personal choice to do so. I wouldn't however. I have made it perfectly clear that Ms Lean uses small excerpts, from multiple statements and attempts to stitch them together to make some rather futile points. That is my opinion of which I am at liberty to give.
-
Sound familiar? - I'll help you out with, as to why they realised the till receipt time had to be wrong. AB had also used the ATM. But you know all of this of course, unless'
If you want to imply Ms Lean is lying about the evidence from the court transcripts, that is your personal choice to do so. I wouldn't however. I have made it perfectly clear that Ms Lean uses small excerpts, from multiple statements and attempts to stitch them together to make some rather futile points. That is my opinion of which I am at liberty to give.
Of course you are at liberty to interpret the evidence in any way you chose but simply posting a quote without a source is not the optimal way of convincing others that your evidence is correct.
For me the till receipt is not the strongest evidence of a later time for the sighting. AB’s statement that she knew when she’d got home because she got a phone call at 6.17 and it was about half an hour after she got home, is.
I notice that you are still dodging the most pertinent question....if AB’s sighting was thought to be important to the investigation why wasn’t there an appeal for the couple to come forward and be eliminated, just as there was with the moped boys, stocky man etc ?
The original times didn’t fit the narrative the police were already cobbling together, that’s why.
-
Of course you are at liberty to interpret the evidence in any way you chose but simply posting a quote without a source is not the optimal way of convincing others that your evidence is correct.
For me the till receipt is not the strongest evidence of a later time for the sighting. AB’s statement that she knew when she’d got home because she got a phone call at 6.17 and it was about half an hour after she got home, is.
I notice that you are still dodging the most pertinent question....if AB’s sighting was thought to be important to the investigation why wasn’t there an appeal for the couple to come forward and be eliminated, just as there was with the moped boys, stocky man etc ?
The original times didn’t fit the narrative the police were already cobbling together, that’s why.
An appeal for Luke & Jodi to come forward ?
-
An appeal for Luke & Jodi to come forward ?
As far as anyone knew at the time AB reported the sighting the people she saw could just have been an ordinary couple talking.
Of course we’ll now never know because there was no appeal for them to come forward and be eliminated.
-
I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?
I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it. From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.
This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.
Just my opinion!!
-
I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?
I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it. From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.
This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.
Just my opinion!!
I think suspicion fell on Luke too quickly for even that kind of intelligence to filter through.
-
I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?
I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it. From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.
This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.
Just my opinion!!
I don't think that would be an immediate result although it is certainly information which might have come to them in intelligence gathering and flagged up concerns. But that would have been later.
Perhaps his demeanour in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Jodi's remains set alarm bells ringing. He certainly was of the opinion he was being treated differently from the other searchers.
-
I don't think that would be an immediate result although it is certainly information which might have come to them in intelligence gathering and flagged up concerns. But that would have been later.
Perhaps his demeanour in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Jodi's remains set alarm bells ringing. He certainly was of the opinion he was being treated differently from the other searchers.
As it did with the McCanns?
Do you no longer believe that all individuals deal differently with trauma?
It is a mute point anyway as Janine told police on that first morning after the murder that ‘everyone was in hysterics’ and the 999 operator’s ‘laddie’ comment reinforces Luke’s demeanour after he found the body.
-
Suspicion fell on LM for many, many reasons. It’s staggering the amount of circumstancial evidence there is against him. Even after only two weeks of looking into the case, further to watching the C5 documentary, I began to realise that LM was guilty (I had a few doubts in between those first two weeks of research into the case — largely brought about by the coincidences of the moped boys, JAMF, SK and MK — but these soon evaporated after gleaning more info).
Anyway, my main reason for ressurecting this thread was to ask a question regarding the evidence from the Mitchells’ neighbours, specifically in relation to fires burning in their back garden. We’re all familiar with neighbours giving evidence of fire and smoke coming from CM’s garden at 1830 and 2200 on 30.06.03, but, I read last night (on a youtube comment) that someone had given evidence of a fire or smoke coming from the Mitchell garden at 0200 hrs in the morning (presumably on 01.07.03). Does anyone know about this? If it’s true, it’s clearly another piece of incriminating evidence against LM. And if a fire had been lit at the aforementioned time, presumably it was the work of SM since his mother and younger brother were both at Dalkeith police at this time being questioned? Of course, another fire may have been lit in the early hours of 02.07.03 or 03.07.03, before the FLO Michelle Lindsay became appointed.
Thoughts?
-
I won't make a habit of it.
If my brother was about to be imprisoned, and I knew he couldn't have been guilty because he was in the same house as me at the time of the murder, no amount of intimidation would make me say otherwise.
Moreover, if I knew my brother had been imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, I'd come forward at every opportunity to clear his name and try to secure his release - the fact is that SM hasn't done this.
I really doubt that SM allowed his brother to go to jail because a few folk intimidated him, and he still hasn't spoken out after all this time.
If SM knows his brother is innocent, and could prove that, but chooses not to, then that would be very strange.
Exactly. Shane not supporting his own brother’s alibi is extremely strange. No amount of intimidation from police would make anyone say otherwise, especially when their own immediate family is involved. Shane’s testimony, I’m sure most would agree, was the most salient evidence of Luke’s guilt.
-
There can be no doubt that Shane admitted in court that he didn’t see Luke in the house between 1650-1730 on 30.06.03 and had been masterbating whilst viewing online pornography . . . he makes it very clear in these articles:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Luke+brother%27s+horror+at+pics+of+Jodi+injuries%3b+THEN+HE+ADMITS+PORN...-a0126989011
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LUKE%27S+BROTHER%3a+I+CHANGED+STORY%3b+%27Errors%27+as+Jodi+trial+halted.-a0126878600
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409308.porn-site-accessed-on-day-jodi-died-trial-told-of-computer-check/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
He clearly states in one of the articles above that a discussion with his mother had affected what he told police in his (ammended) statement to police on 07.07.03, specifically that he saw Luke “mashing tatties”; he said he wouldn’t have been able to give police that information without his mother telling him (red flag, imo). And, of course, the prosecution then totally dismantled this false alibi by getting Shane to finally admit that he never saw his brother (Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."). Huge red flag here, imo. Shane only said “he could have been there” so as to try and not fully drop Luke in the shit and to make himself feel less guilty for ultimately dismantling the alibi (blood is thicker than water, after all). Actually, I wonder why AT just never came out and put Shane on the spot by asking him directly if he saw Luke “mashing tatties”. I suspect SM would’ve said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember (playing it safe, so as to not lie and to try and protect his brother and mother). Anyway, like I said, crucially the Prosecution got a confession from Shane that he didn’t see his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 when CM got home from work (very damning to the accused, imo).
One other point . . . LM’s supporters have this ridiculous notion that because SM was shown pictures of Jodi’s mutilated body in court without warning, that it deeply affected his testimony and evidence. It’s, imo, nonsense. In what way? Like the same way these supporters think that police intimidation made Shane crumble, give in and give a false confession that would be very incriminating for his brother and ruin his brother’s life and destroy his own family? A 22-year-old man would be that much of a pushover for the police, that they That these photos were so traumatic that they woukd cause Shane to lose his mind and say things he didn’t mean? It’s rubbish. There’s no doubt that the photos he was shown would’ve been horrific, but they didn’t render Shane so mentally impaired that he would give evidence that was the opposite of what was really true. No way. Shane simply told the truth, adhering to the mantra that “honesty” is the best policy. If anything, the Prosecution did a stellar job of extracting the truth from Shane in what was a complex and deeply harrowing case. If anything, the Prosecution showing SM these photos without warning was a masterstroke, as it a.) reset Shane’s moral compass if he was previously willing to lie under oath in order to protect his brother and b.) put the fear of god into him that if he didn’t at that moment appreciate how uniquely evil this crime was, he did now and deep down knew the world now knew it was his brother who did it, as he did himself know it was his brother Luke who did it; he was paralysed with fear that he too would be found out in the end, be consequently branded a monster like his brother for being an accessory (which I still believe he was, as I think he helped LM get rid of incriminating evidence). Only Shane will know why he changed his story back to not seeing Luke in the house, but, one thing is certain: it wasn’t because being shown the photos in court messed his head up and made him say things he didn’t want to say.
-
There can be no doubt that Shane admitted in court that he didn’t see Luke in the house between 1650-1730 on 30.06.03 and had been masterbating whilst viewing online pornography . . . he makes it very clear in these articles:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Luke+brother%27s+horror+at+pics+of+Jodi+injuries%3b+THEN+HE+ADMITS+PORN...-a0126989011
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LUKE%27S+BROTHER%3a+I+CHANGED+STORY%3b+%27Errors%27+as+Jodi+trial+halted.-a0126878600
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409308.porn-site-accessed-on-day-jodi-died-trial-told-of-computer-check/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716
He clearly states in one of the articles above that a discussion with his mother had affected what he told police in his (ammended) statement to police on 07.07.03, specifically that he saw Luke “mashing tatties”; he said he wouldn’t have been able to give police that information without his mother telling him (red flag, imo). And, of course, the prosecution then totally dismantled this false alibi by getting Shane to finally admit that he never saw his brother (Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."). Huge red flag here, imo. Shane only said “he could have been there” so as to try and not fully drop Luke in the shit and to make himself feel less guilty for ultimately dismantling the alibi (blood is thicker than water, after all). Actually, I wonder why AT just never came out and put Shane on the spot by asking him directly if he saw Luke “mashing tatties”. I suspect SM would’ve said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember (playing it safe, so as to not lie and to try and protect his brother and mother). Anyway, like I said, crucially the Prosecution got a confession from Shane that he didn’t see his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 when CM got home from work (very damning to the accused, imo).
One other point . . . LM’s supporters have this ridiculous notion that because SM was shown pictures of Jodi’s mutilated body in court without warning, that it deeply affected his testimony and evidence. It’s, imo, nonsense. In what way? Like the same way these supporters think that police intimidation made Shane crumble, give in and give a false confession that would be very incriminating for his brother and ruin his brother’s life and destroy his own family? A 22-year-old man would be that much of a pushover for the police, that they That these photos were so traumatic that they woukd cause Shane to lose his mind and say things he didn’t mean? It’s rubbish. There’s no doubt that the photos he was shown would’ve been horrific, but they didn’t render Shane so mentally impaired that he would give evidence that was the opposite of what was really true. No way. Shane simply told the truth, adhering to the mantra that “honesty” is the best policy. If anything, the Prosecution did a stellar job of extracting the truth from Shane in what was a complex and deeply harrowing case. If anything, the Prosecution showing SM these photos without warning was a masterstroke, as it a.) reset Shane’s moral compass if he was previously willing to lie under oath in order to protect his brother and b.) put the fear of god into him that if he didn’t at that moment appreciate how uniquely evil this crime was, he did now and deep down knew the world now knew it was his brother who did it, as he did himself know it was his brother Luke who did it; he was paralysed with fear that he too would be found out in the end, be consequently branded a monster like his brother for being an accessory (which I still believe he was, as I think he helped LM get rid of incriminating evidence). Only Shane will know why he changed his story back to not seeing Luke in the house, but, one thing is certain: it wasn’t because being shown the photos in court messed his head up and made him say things he didn’t want to say.
I would say that this testimony alone did much to damage Luke Mitchell's claim of innocence.