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: William Wallace on April 30, 2021, 12:17:34 AM
-
It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.
The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.
1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed ***** never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was only LM treated as a suspect??
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?
-
It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.
The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.
1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed ***** never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was a key witness and in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?
I'll start with Point No 1. Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?
-
I'll start with Point No 1. Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?
I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.
IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.
-
I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.
IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.
Explain please ? - I am really interested to know what you believe was there and who these certain other people are? That's quite a statement, an assumption you have came too from reading the book?
-
I'll start with Point No 1. Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?
Does anyone have a diagram of where exactly on Jodi’s body testing was carried out
And on what areas exactly testing wasn’t carried out
-
I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.
IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.
There was partial profiles which Luke could have contributed to but so could have a percentage of the population of Dalkeith and surrounding areas. There was, however, two full DNA profiles of two now named individuals near and on Jodi’s body.
-
It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.
The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.
1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed ***** never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was a key witness and in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?
1) He did not defeat any laws - this is fallacy. Based on the pure assumption that LM walked into his house dripping with blood from head to foot - nonsense. Mitchells house was detached. You are making the pure assumption that he even went into his house before removing any outer clothing, footwear and so forth - And you are forgetting there was woodland and the River Esk. Also his house was not accessed until 4 days after this murder.
2) No they did not, this was a blatant lie put out firstly by SL herself. "the search party walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path" The search party did no walk passed YW's, the search party would have had to walk backwards to do so, completely in the opposite direction of this path.
3) Ask Ms Lean to refer to statements again, she has done before, where she states they did. Also everyone knew that Jodi had failed to meet with LM in Newbattle. They were originally heading out to organise a search only, and as with LM, to phone friends. Why did LM not phone any friends? They were told after the call between LM and JuJ at 10.59pm that he was on this path, they headed to meet with him.
4) Absolute nonsense - is this the same stocky man who confessed? who followed Jodi into the path? Be very careful WW, that is some allegation you are making there, as per? Stemming again from that clear cut information Ms Lean touts out?? - we have a witness who identified the stocky man 9 weeks after at an event?? DF must be shaking his head and rolling in laughter at Ms Leans book - she is forgetting he had access to all of this too? It is after all his work she has. Every single piece of information on this stocky man. But as per and on par with the witness who is claimed to have seen this bike at the V. Absolutely no verification - her power of suggestion works wonders with you, that is blatantly obvious.
5) The search trio always said the same thing - That of arriving at the V, which was in complete contrast to LM who claimed they had walked around 40-60ft passed. Interestingly, when he drew the diagram for his FLO he marked the search party as being 40ft down, completely parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side. (His words) And she was 40ft approx down from the V. Exactly at the same spot either side. Apart from this being a complete fabrication - pretty remarkable is it not? - That he also somehow claimed it was at the exact spot. Not for instance near to, exactly. And you wonder why the police were suspicious? Not only did none of search party state ever, they had walked some distance passed this V with LM, he knew all of them and his dog was at the exact same spot?
6) Was he not? Very strange if he were not as you say. Does Ms Lean say he was not cited? - perhaps best to ask her for clarification - she will have a list of the witness's whom testified in court.
7) It was not at the V and there is not a smidgen of evidence to say that it was - the employee gave and estimation of being close to. They were driving. One can not see this V - more blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts.
8) Ask him.
9) Proof?
10+10) We know JF told his gran on the Monday he had been on the path around 4.30pm. It was known at this stage that Jodi had left later than this - whether he knew this or not matters not to his grans advice. They did not continue to lie though, did they. And why is all the information missing upon their arrival home, Why are these witness's not mentioned? And when the appeal did go out - they came forward. JF gave the story of this 4.30pm stuff of his arrival home and the clock. The bike, perhaps one could ask SM, he is a mechanic, dealing no doubt with scrap merchants. Does one pay or do they pay for scrap metal?? Perhaps there was a slump in the market at the time - you like google, find out if scrap merchants were asking for money at the time - far too much ambiguity. What does it say in their statements about this bike, we are not interested in multiple theories based on a 'who done it' book?
11) Gosh, that is very personal - What did he say in his statements of this very personal act? However it was not Jodi's top, was it, it was her sisters. And yet again every area of science screams at us here - of those multiple millions of sperm heads and that abundance of semen they are in. But let us stick to those minute areas of staining, that is correct staining and old stains at that. And sticking being the operative word. What do you make of the female elements of DNA found in semen?
12) Really? - Let's think of eventually here? The police are aware that Jodi wore borrowed clothing from her sister. LM was first testimony to this. You are making an assumption here that she was asked about black t-shirts? When in reality she would of course be asked about clothing being borrowed, and if anything was missing. The trousers may have been an easy item to realise were missing, t-shirts not so much, more so, if one has more than one black one? What does it say in her statements? We, again are not interested in the snip bits - where are the Q&A?
-
Explain please ? - I am really interested to know what you believe was there and who these certain other people are? That's quite a statement, an assumption you have came too from reading the book?
Yes, I''ve read the book. Have you?
Are you really saying that you don't know about the DNA match on Jodi's t shirt?? And about the "excuse" that was made for it, ie Jodi borrowed a t shirt from her sister, who didn't even live at the same address?
Are you saying this is all lies?
-
Yes, I''ve read the book. Have you?
Are you really saying that you don't know about the DNA match on Jodi's t shirt?? And about the "excuse" that was made for it, ie Jodi borrowed a t shirt from her sister, who didn't even live at the same address?
Are you saying this is all lies?
That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated
IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-
JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?
Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not? When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?
The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.
The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct. Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.
-
That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated
JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?
Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not? When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?
The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.
The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct. Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.
At what point in the development of their statements did SK and JaJ accept that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing when killed ‘may’ have been borrowed from JaJ? Who suggested that this may be the case, was it the police or JaJ/SK? Judith Jones suggested that she bought the same t-shirt for both her daughters. Was this the t-shirt Jodi was wearing and how do we know that it wasn’t her own? Was the matter ever confirmed?
-
At what point in the development of their statements did SK and JaJ accept that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing when killed ‘may’ have been borrowed from JaJ? Who suggested that this may be the case, was it the police or JaJ/SK? Judith Jones suggested that she bought the same t-shirt for both her daughters. Was this the t-shirt Jodi was wearing and how do we know that it wasn’t her own? Was the matter ever confirmed?
Asking the wrong person are we not? - If you have been left with all these questions after reading Ms Leans book, does this not highlight just how empty of context 5% of 1000's of words are?. However, one would doubt the police are asking directly, is this your t-shirt then this confirmation that it was. Pretty much here, that they appear to have been asking about missing clothing in the first place. Then perhaps upon realising that clothing was missing, did they ask for confirmation of colour, description and make? As Jodi may have been wearing one of her sisters tops. These "suggestions" from Judith Jones that she bought the same t-shirts? Rather ambiguous is it not? What same t-shirts? Were they pink, yellow, black, multi coloured? Hardly surprising however that a mother should buy her daughters clothes, some which may or not have been the same. But absolutely nothing in what you say, that proves or even shows that this mother bought the two t-shirts the same, in question, one for each, that do however appear to have ultimately belonged to JaJ. Trial? usually people are asked to confirm things when given evidence? We have WW going on about two, then three, now yourself with this girls mother? In short? What does all the statements say around this? -That's correct, you do not know, do you? What is the actual context? In fact it really is rather irrelevant is it not? For it has been shown clearly, time after time, that we can probably go pretty much for the opposite, of what is actually being "suggested" from the evidence at hand from Ms Lean. And what is blatantly obvious, is that upon reading Ms Leans rather odd deciphering of these statements - both you and WW are scratching your heads over what she means? As are most of her readers - which is of course is exactly what she is aiming at, with a chosen audience, is it not? Forget LM, answers are needed for Ms Leans questions.? Do you also believe Jodi Jones was murdered elsewhere? You continuously say that you don't need to talk of others? to disprove the case against LM - still waiting?
Here is a better question - How do you assume these minute leftovers from semen/sperm heads were on multiple areas of clothing? You obviously do not believe a smidgeon of the borrowed t-shirt, or of innocent transfer, or of Mr Kelly's alibi - and you question everything of these others but not LM? We know, and it has been shown that Ms Lean does not have everything and for some that she may have, she dismisses as not having? Or that she can not divulge? But can divulge pretty much anything she chooses to. But not the actual relevant parts, that would actually cut out, most of the long winded suggestions she gives on it? And people are most definitely prone to adding some very disturbing arms and legs, are they not? This search trio having to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path? Of the V being hard to see? but easy to see from a motorist from Basically Tool Hire? Of one cutting of their hair to impersonate themselves? Of Ms Lean stating JF gave a wrong description of himself? Of LM's denial of frequenting this woodland, these claims that it's the size of a football field, easy not to have been in all of it? - Just ignore all those witness's. That's correct, it's exactly what one has to do.
-
Asking the wrong person are we not? - If you have been left with all these questions after reading Ms Leans book, does this not highlight just how empty of context 5% of 1000's of words are?. However, one would doubt the police are asking directly, is this your t-shirt then this confirmation that it was. Pretty much here, that they appear to have been asking about missing clothing in the first place. Then perhaps upon realising that clothing was missing, did they ask for confirmation of colour, description and make? As Jodi may have been wearing one of her sisters tops. These "suggestions" from Judith Jones that she bought the same t-shirts? Rather ambiguous is it not? What same t-shirts? Were they pink, yellow, black, multi coloured? Hardly surprising however that a mother should buy her daughters clothes, some which may or not have been the same. But absolutely nothing in what you say, that proves or even shows that this mother bought the two t-shirts the same, in question, one for each, that do however appear to have ultimately belonged to JaJ. Trial? usually people are asked to confirm things when given evidence? We have WW going on about two, then three, now yourself with this girls mother? In short? What does all the statements say around this? -That's correct, you do not know, do you? What is the actual context? In fact it really is rather irrelevant is it not? For it has been shown clearly, time after time, that we can probably go pretty much for the opposite, of what is actually being "suggested" from the evidence at hand from Ms Lean. And what is blatantly obvious, is that upon reading Ms Leans rather odd deciphering of these statements - both you and WW are scratching your heads over what she means? As are most of her readers - which is of course is exactly what she is aiming at, with a chosen audience, is it not? Forget LM, answers are needed for Ms Leans questions.? Do you also believe Jodi Jones was murdered elsewhere? You continuously say that you don't need to talk of others? to disprove the case against LM - still waiting?
Here is a better question - How do you assume these minute leftovers from semen/sperm heads were on multiple areas of clothing? You obviously do not believe a smidgeon of the borrowed t-shirt, or of innocent transfer, or of Mr Kelly's alibi - and you question everything of these others but not LM? We know, and it has been shown that Ms Lean does not have everything and for some that she may have, she dismisses as not having? Or that she can not divulge? But can divulge pretty much anything she chooses to. But not the actual relevant parts, that would actually cut out, most of the long winded suggestions she gives on it? And people are most definitely prone to adding some very disturbing arms and legs, are they not? This search trio having to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path? Of the V being hard to see? but easy to see from a motorist from Basically Tool Hire? Of one cutting of their hair to impersonate themselves? Of Ms Lean stating JF gave a wrong description of himself? Of LM's denial of frequenting this woodland, these claims that it's the size of a football field, easy not to have been in all of it? - Just ignore all those witness's. That's correct, it's exactly what one has to do.
I suggest you read Judith Jones’s statement in which she tells police that she bought her two daughters both the same black t-shirts. From the statement it’s obvious she means the one Jodi was wearing on the night that she was murdered.
As to the police...you can’t imagine the police asking a leading question such as ‘ do you think it’s possible that Jodi borrowed your t-shirt? Really? It appears that Janine didn’t mention until the 16th of July that Jodi ‘may’ have borrowed her t-shirt.
And was it not Janine who claimed that she didn’t know where Roan’s dyke path was until that night but her gran suggested taking it because ‘ it was the route Jodi would have taken to Luke’s’ ?
-
I suggest you read Judith Jones’s statement in which she tells police that she bought her two daughters both the same black t-shirts. From the statement it’s obvious she means the one Jodi was wearing on the night that she was murdered.
As to the police...you can’t imagine the police asking a leading question such as ‘ do you think it’s possible that Jodi borrowed your t-shirt? Really? It appears that Janine didn’t mention until the 16th of July that Jodi ‘may’ have borrowed her t-shirt.
And was it not Janine who claimed that she didn’t know where Roan’s dyke path was until that night but her gran suggested taking it because ‘ it was the route Jodi would have taken to Luke’s’ ?
Not going to answer my question then around SK? the sperm and so forth?
Let's look at this, of how it most likely did happen:
As you state, probably around the 16th of July - that will be after the DNA testing, of SK's presence of it? Correct?
But lets think of what the police will have obtained first here, before and along with trying to ascertain if the clothing was borrowed, or if was Jodi's and so forth. Those actual DNA results, what they do show and of the advice asked and given on this from these forensic experts. Results first and expertise on them.
What was actually there, which of course can not be changed, it matters not the insinuation and guess work around it, is very minute traces of 1) semen staining, 2) 2-3 sperm heads of which they managed to obtain a profile from.
3) some areas that may have been semen (far too weak to determine) and some areas that were in fact Jodi's own DNA (F)semen. (those elements of DNA in semen that are found in both M & F, which are only applied to being that of semen and from a M upon further testing.) The DNA here was Jodi's. However the book was well and truly written prior to Ms Lean, and to date having any expertise. Knowledge whatsoever around forensics and DNA. Using this (F) source of DNA as proof the forensics were botched??
These extremely weak traces where found in multiple areas - defunct sperm heads included, and again almost next to nil form ejaculation of millions upon millions of sperm heads from x amount of seminal fluid.
These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA. What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.
The t-shirt: Of trying to determine if it could have belonged to her sister, or if the top had been jumbled up with other washing and of how it got on the actual t-shirt itself, which was the prime source for transferal and trace DNA. We already know we are left with those stark facts - that ejaculation did not take place at the time of this murder or after.
Which only left one area - that of determining who this t-shirt belonged to, and it did belong to her sister. There was a t-shirt of hers missing. We are not interested in these wild theories and assumption of what amounts to no more than - one does not like to be proved wrong. One knows that ejaculation did not happen that evening, one must hold onto something though, we can't have SK getting away scot free here, can we? However?
The statements - Of the police asking about missing clothing, everyone it would seem, and/or of who bought the clothes in general - but above all Faithlilly, was this t-shirt produced in court? - to clarify if had belonged to JaJ? Did DF ask about it in his precognitions of the witness's? For these precognitions would have been done, these were important witness's - So rather than faffing around with snip bits from statements - What did these precognitions show?, and was this top produced as evidence to determine if it was JaJ's? - Knives and all else where produced in court, this top would have been too, stands to reason, does it not?
But again, one must go to extraordinary lengths - to prove nothing? 'We do not know if the top was borrowed, as look at these snip bits from statements, we don't know if it was rainwater transferal, as x,y and z, said this, but ultimately one does not believe in science anyway, unless it suits?
And of JaJ, the gran: What does this tell us? - That JaJ knew there was a path, she did not know exactly where this path was? But ultimately, without the twist - The search trio were heading to meet with LM who they knew was on the path. They were not simply just heading to this path. They were heading to meet with LM. Upon arriving at the junction of the paths, JaJ was unsure which one - to which AW, who knew the area, said it will be this one, the one that leads to Newbattle. Ms Lean has discussed this many times, of Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. One which leads into Newtongrange, the other Newbatttle. And obviously armed with one clear piece of information from LM - that Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. The exact reason that AW wanted to search this path, thoroughly - not the woods, the path. Interestingly, these walkways, continue on the other side of Newbattle R'd. Many off shoots into numerous areas of the woodland, directly next to Newbattle Abbey Crescent? - where the Mitchells stayed. Children growing up next to woods, becoming familiar with every inch of them?
-
I'll start with Point No 1. Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?
"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile." BBC
I would like to see a table of loci for myself, or still better, the electropherogram. This statement is open to two kinds of interpretations. I will assume no more that two loci for the sake of simplicity, and I will at first treat the DNA as if there were only one contributor, also for the sake of simplicity.
Interpretation 1: They found a locus for which the alleles were the same as Mr. Mitchell's. A single locus is not a full profile; you might narrow down the number of donors to, say, 10% of the population (it depends greatly on the particulars), but that is nowhere near the full discriminatory power of DNA.
Interpretation 2: They found one locus the same as Mr. Mitchell and one locus that was not the same. If that were true then Mr. Mitchell is excluded as a donor.
But the difficulties in the statement above go beyond this first problem. A three-person mixture is much more difficult to disentangle than a single profile is. Let me quote from an article at NIST (USA). "This illustrates an important point about DNA mixtures: Just because a person’s alleles appear in a mixture does not mean that person contributed to it. The alleles may have come from some combination of other people who, between them, have all the allele types in the suspect’s profile." https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer (https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer). The kind of software mentioned in this article was not, to the best of my knowledge, available at the time of the murder (it was introduced around 2009). This type of software has itself generated controversy, although it also has some potential advantages.
For these reasons Ms. Ure's statement is close to meaningless.
-
Not going to answer my question then around SK? the sperm and so forth?
Let's look at this, of how it most likely did happen:
As you state, probably around the 16th of July - that will be after the DNA testing, of SK's presence of it? Correct?
But lets think of what the police will have obtained first here, before and along with trying to ascertain if the clothing was borrowed, or if was Jodi's and so forth. Those actual DNA results, what they do show and of the advice asked and given on this from these forensic experts. Results first and expertise on them.
What was actually there, which of course can not be changed, it matters not the insinuation and guess work around it, is very minute traces of 1) semen staining, 2) 2-3 sperm heads of which they managed to obtain a profile from.
3) some areas that may have been semen (far too weak to determine) and some areas that were in fact Jodi's own DNA (F)semen. (those elements of DNA in semen that are found in both M & F, which are only applied to being that of semen and from a M upon further testing.) The DNA here was Jodi's. However the book was well and truly written prior to Ms Lean, and to date having any expertise. Knowledge whatsoever around forensics and DNA. Using this (F) source of DNA as proof the forensics were botched??
These extremely weak traces where found in multiple areas - defunct sperm heads included, and again almost next to nil form ejaculation of millions upon millions of sperm heads from x amount of seminal fluid.
These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA. What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.
The t-shirt: Of trying to determine if it could have belonged to her sister, or if the top had been jumbled up with other washing and of how it got on the actual t-shirt itself, which was the prime source for transferal and trace DNA. We already know we are left with those stark facts - that ejaculation did not take place at the time of this murder or after.
Which only left one area - that of determining who this t-shirt belonged to, and it did belong to her sister. There was a t-shirt of hers missing. We are not interested in these wild theories and assumption of what amounts to no more than - one does not like to be proved wrong. One knows that ejaculation did not happen that evening, one must hold onto something though, we can't have SK getting away scot free here, can we? However?
The statements - Of the police asking about missing clothing, everyone it would seem, and/or of who bought the clothes in general - but above all Faithlilly, was this t-shirt produced in court? - to clarify if had belonged to JaJ? Did DF ask about it in his precognitions of the witness's? For these precognitions would have been done, these were important witness's - So rather than faffing around with snip bits from statements - What did these precognitions show?, and was this top produced as evidence to determine if it was JaJ's? - Knives and all else where produced in court, this top would have been too, stands to reason, does it not?
But again, one must go to extraordinary lengths - to prove nothing? 'We do not know if the top was borrowed, as look at these snip bits from statements, we don't know if it was rainwater transferal, as x,y and z, said this, but ultimately one does not believe in science anyway, unless it suits?
And of JaJ, the gran: What does this tell us? - That JaJ knew there was a path, she did not know exactly where this path was? But ultimately, without the twist - The search trio were heading to meet with LM who they knew was on the path. They were not simply just heading to this path. They were heading to meet with LM. Upon arriving at the junction of the paths, JaJ was unsure which one - to which AW, who knew the area, said it will be this one, the one that leads to Newbattle. Ms Lean has discussed this many times, of Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. One which leads into Newtongrange, the other Newbatttle. And obviously armed with one clear piece of information from LM - that Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. The exact reason that AW wanted to search this path, thoroughly - not the woods, the path. Interestingly, these walkways, continue on the other side of Newbattle R'd. Many off shoots into numerous areas of the woodland, directly next to Newbattle Abbey Crescent? - where the Mitchells stayed. Children growing up next to woods, becoming familiar with every inch of them?
Do you have the forensic report to clarify just what the forensics showed? Did it show categorically that SK’s DNA had been transferred during a wash in a washing machine? What washing machine ? The one where SK lived or the one where JaJ lived? Was it ever proved that it was JaJ’s t-shirt? What about the trousers? Surely they would have been a lot easier to identify than one out of many different black tops? What did JaJ say about them? Or was it just the top that was interesting because it had SK’s DNA on it? What about the lack of JaJ’s DNA on the t-shirt that supposedly belonged to her? Was it less hardy than SK’s DNA?
No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi’s body or Jodi’s DNA on Luke and in the end that’s all that really matters in relation to Luke’s innocence. Of course you can speculate this or that but it’s not proof and, in the end, that’s what’s needed.
BTW what about the cell site analysis? Was it ever carried out? If not, why not ? Surely it would have proved conclusively that Luke was in Easthouses that night?
And Luke’s alibi. Did the police ever check with friends if Shane met up with them that night and if so, what time? As he was charged with perverting the course of justice surely the least the police could have done was find out if he had ate his dinner, which his mum couldn’t have cooked as she was at work, and been out and about at 5.30pm.
Is it true that the jury were not told that charges of perverting the course of justice had been dropped against Corrine and Shane ? Why do you think the police did that? Could it be to prejudice their evidence?
-
These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA. What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.
It is a fundamental tenet of forensic DNA profiling that the mere presence of DNA does not give information on how or when it was deposited (one can describe a DNA profile as being degraded or not, but that is not the same thing). Nor can I think of any presumptive or confirmatory test for a common body fluid that provides information on the date of the stain.
-
I'll start with Point No 1. Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?
"The court heard forensic teams had spent 18 months examining hundreds of items, including clothing from Luke Mitchell, in a bid to find DNA clues as to the murderer's identity.
Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure spoke about the work carried out comparing bloodstains found at the murder scene and other reference samples, taken from members of her family and Luke Mitchell. "Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile".
She said: "We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males."
Partial DNA = meaningless. Can be shared with half the population.
-
1) He did not defeat any laws - this is fallacy. Based on the pure assumption that LM walked into his house dripping with blood from head to foot - nonsense. Mitchells house was detached. You are making the pure assumption that he even went into his house before removing any outer clothing, footwear and so forth - And you are forgetting there was woodland and the River Esk. Also his house was not accessed until 4 days after this murder.
2) No they did not, this was a blatant lie put out firstly by SL herself. "the search party walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path" The search party did no walk passed YW's, the search party would have had to walk backwards to do so, completely in the opposite direction of this path.
3) Ask Ms Lean to refer to statements again, she has done before, where she states they did. Also everyone knew that Jodi had failed to meet with LM in Newbattle. They were originally heading out to organise a search only, and as with LM, to phone friends. Why did LM not phone any friends? They were told after the call between LM and JuJ at 10.59pm that he was on this path, they headed to meet with him.
4) Absolute nonsense - is this the same stocky man who confessed? who followed Jodi into the path? Be very careful WW, that is some allegation you are making there, as per? Stemming again from that clear cut information Ms Lean touts out?? - we have a witness who identified the stocky man 9 weeks after at an event?? DF must be shaking his head and rolling in laughter at Ms Leans book - she is forgetting he had access to all of this too? It is after all his work she has. Every single piece of information on this stocky man. But as per and on par with the witness who is claimed to have seen this bike at the V. Absolutely no verification - her power of suggestion works wonders with you, that is blatantly obvious.
5) The search trio always said the same thing - That of arriving at the V, which was in complete contrast to LM who claimed they had walked around 40-60ft passed. Interestingly, when he drew the diagram for his FLO he marked the search party as being 40ft down, completely parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side. (His words) And she was 40ft approx down from the V. Exactly at the same spot either side. Apart from this being a complete fabrication - pretty remarkable is it not? - That he also somehow claimed it was at the exact spot. Not for instance near to, exactly. And you wonder why the police were suspicious? Not only did none of search party state ever, they had walked some distance passed this V with LM, he knew all of them and his dog was at the exact same spot?
6) Was he not? Very strange if he were not as you say. Does Ms Lean say he was not cited? - perhaps best to ask her for clarification - she will have a list of the witness's whom testified in court.
7) It was not at the V and there is not a smidgen of evidence to say that it was - the employee gave and estimation of being close to. They were driving. One can not see this V - more blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts.
8) Ask him.
9) Proof?
10+10) We know JF told his gran on the Monday he had been on the path around 4.30pm. It was known at this stage that Jodi had left later than this - whether he knew this or not matters not to his grans advice. They did not continue to lie though, did they. And why is all the information missing upon their arrival home, Why are these witness's not mentioned? And when the appeal did go out - they came forward. JF gave the story of this 4.30pm stuff of his arrival home and the clock. The bike, perhaps one could ask SM, he is a mechanic, dealing no doubt with scrap merchants. Does one pay or do they pay for scrap metal?? Perhaps there was a slump in the market at the time - you like google, find out if scrap merchants were asking for money at the time - far too much ambiguity. What does it say in their statements about this bike, we are not interested in multiple theories based on a 'who done it' book?
11) Gosh, that is very personal - What did he say in his statements of this very personal act? However it was not Jodi's top, was it, it was her sisters. And yet again every area of science screams at us here - of those multiple millions of sperm heads and that abundance of semen they are in. But let us stick to those minute areas of staining, that is correct staining and old stains at that. And sticking being the operative word. What do you make of the female elements of DNA found in semen?
12) Really? - Let's think of eventually here? The police are aware that Jodi wore borrowed clothing from her sister. LM was first testimony to this. You are making an assumption here that she was asked about black t-shirts? When in reality she would of course be asked about clothing being borrowed, and if anything was missing. The trousers may have been an easy item to realise were missing, t-shirts not so much, more so, if one has more than one black one? What does it say in her statements? We, again are not interested in the snip bits - where are the Q&A?
You've swallowed the Daily Star and Sunday Sport hook, line and sinker. The final straw was when you admitted you are in the.... " he cleaned himself up in the river, threw away his bloodied clothes and then jogged back up the street in the nude camp". There really is no further response necessary to such laughable hogwash. What's next? Did he cover himself with leaves and branches as camouflage to walk back to the house?
-
It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.
The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.
1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed ***** never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was a key witness and in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?
Very easy.
1. Mitchell got cleaned up after the murder them went out on purpose to get mucked up again in the woods. Leaving DNA at the scene of the murder is different from forensics failing to find any.
2. The search party went out looking for Jodi on the oath where she said she was going, it isn't rocket science.
3. Again, the search party went out to look for her on the path as that is where she said she was going.
4. Best ask him.
5. Statements tend to vary after the fact.
6. The police and the COPFS obviously felt he was a non significant witness. If the defence felt he was then they should have called him.
7. Maybe they went off for a smoke...who knows.
8. Getting a haircut isn't a crime.
9. It was probably illegal.
10. They weren't very good at telling the time.
11. Best ask Janine.
12. Who knows, these things happen.
None of which adds anything whatsoever to Mitchell being innocent and never will imho.
-
Not going to answer my question then around SK? the sperm and so forth?
Let's look at this, of how it most likely did happen:
As you state, probably around the 16th of July - that will be after the DNA testing, of SK's presence of it? Correct?
But lets think of what the police will have obtained first here, before and along with trying to ascertain if the clothing was borrowed, or if was Jodi's and so forth. Those actual DNA results, what they do show and of the advice asked and given on this from these forensic experts. Results first and expertise on them.
What was actually there, which of course can not be changed, it matters not the insinuation and guess work around it, is very minute traces of 1) semen staining, 2) 2-3 sperm heads of which they managed to obtain a profile from.
3) some areas that may have been semen (far too weak to determine) and some areas that were in fact Jodi's own DNA (F)semen. (those elements of DNA in semen that are found in both M & F, which are only applied to being that of semen and from a M upon further testing.) The DNA here was Jodi's. However the book was well and truly written prior to Ms Lean, and to date having any expertise. Knowledge whatsoever around forensics and DNA. Using this (F) source of DNA as proof the forensics were botched??
These extremely weak traces where found in multiple areas - defunct sperm heads included, and again almost next to nil form ejaculation of millions upon millions of sperm heads from x amount of seminal fluid.
These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA. What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.
The t-shirt: Of trying to determine if it could have belonged to her sister, or if the top had been jumbled up with other washing and of how it got on the actual t-shirt itself, which was the prime source for transferal and trace DNA. We already know we are left with those stark facts - that ejaculation did not take place at the time of this murder or after.
Which only left one area - that of determining who this t-shirt belonged to, and it did belong to her sister. There was a t-shirt of hers missing. We are not interested in these wild theories and assumption of what amounts to no more than - one does not like to be proved wrong. One knows that ejaculation did not happen that evening, one must hold onto something though, we can't have SK getting away scot free here, can we? However?
The statements - Of the police asking about missing clothing, everyone it would seem, and/or of who bought the clothes in general - but above all Faithlilly, was this t-shirt produced in court? - to clarify if had belonged to JaJ? Did DF ask about it in his precognitions of the witness's? For these precognitions would have been done, these were important witness's - So rather than faffing around with snip bits from statements - What did these precognitions show?, and was this top produced as evidence to determine if it was JaJ's? - Knives and all else where produced in court, this top would have been too, stands to reason, does it not?
But again, one must go to extraordinary lengths - to prove nothing? 'We do not know if the top was borrowed, as look at these snip bits from statements, we don't know if it was rainwater transferal, as x,y and z, said this, but ultimately one does not believe in science anyway, unless it suits?
And of JaJ, the gran: What does this tell us? - That JaJ knew there was a path, she did not know exactly where this path was? But ultimately, without the twist - The search trio were heading to meet with LM who they knew was on the path. They were not simply just heading to this path. They were heading to meet with LM. Upon arriving at the junction of the paths, JaJ was unsure which one - to which AW, who knew the area, said it will be this one, the one that leads to Newbattle. Ms Lean has discussed this many times, of Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. One which leads into Newtongrange, the other Newbatttle. And obviously armed with one clear piece of information from LM - that Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. The exact reason that AW wanted to search this path, thoroughly - not the woods, the path. Interestingly, these walkways, continue on the other side of Newbattle R'd. Many off shoots into numerous areas of the woodland, directly next to Newbattle Abbey Crescent? - where the Mitchells stayed. Children growing up next to woods, becoming familiar with every inch of them?
What do you mean "Ja J was unsure which path ??" Everyone that lives in Easthouses knows the path including all the dogs, everyone who lives there knows it and could find it and negotiate it with a black bin liner over their heads. Do you actually know anything about that area at all? It appears not. AW knew the area lol? There wasn't and still isn't one person in that area that doesn't know Roan's Dyke Path. Why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path. Honestly, I give up.
-
Very easy.
1. Mitchell got cleaned up after the murder them went out on purpose to get mucked up again in the woods. Leaving DNA at the scene of the murder is different from forensics failing to find any.
2. The search party went out looking for Jodi on the oath where she said she was going, it isn't rocket science.
3. Again, the search party went out to look for her on the path as that is where she said she was going.
4. Best ask him.
5. Statements tend to vary after the fact.
6. The police and the COPFS obviously felt he was a non significant witness. If the defence felt he was then they should have called him.
7. Maybe they went off for a smoke...who knows.
8. Getting a haircut isn't a crime.
9. It was probably illegal.
10. They weren't very good at telling the time.
11. Best ask Janine.
12. Who knows, these things happen.
None of which adds anything whatsoever to Mitchell being innocent and never will imho.
Yes he did the murder and cleaned up in the river. Chucked the clothes in and walked back up to the house in the nude?
Yes she said she was going to meet Mitchell, but they phoned no other friends or relatives first before going up a pitch black path. Are you pulling my chain? Nobody would do that. Even more so, they wouldn't walk right past a house she'd been found in before. Nobody would do that either.
Statements can vary yes, but they don't all vary to say the exact same thing.
AO wasn't a significant witness? You're definitely pulling my chain. He was in the house when J apparently went out. He knows who was in the house and who was not. Not a significant witness?
You haven't given credible explanations for any of the other points either I'm afraid.
-
There is also the matter of Luke's dirty fingernails. This suggests that he did not wash.
-
There is also the matter of Luke's dirty fingernails. This suggests that he did not wash.
No it doesn’t
-
There is also the matter of Luke's dirty fingernails. This suggests that he did not wash.
He cleaned them in the brook/house, accounts vary, then got them all dirty again ‘playing’ with the lads afterwards.....or so goes the excuse. Likewise his hair, neck and ankles.
The vital question for me is what was Luke wearing at school? He says the same as that night when he was taken to the police station. Unfortunately the question doesn’t appear to have been asked of his friends or teachers.
It’s almost as if Lothian and Borders police didn’t want to know.
-
What do you mean "Ja J was unsure which path ??" Everyone that lives in Easthouses knows the path including all the dogs, everyone who lives there knows it and could find it and negotiate it with a black bin liner over their heads. Do you actually know anything about that area at all? It appears not. AW knew the area lol? There wasn't and still isn't one person in that area that doesn't know Roan's Dyke Path. Why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path. Honestly, I give up.
Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog" - We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so? And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place. So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.
The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying. As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path? What is evident from this is JaJ, must not have known the area, contrary to your opinion. What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.
And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC?
And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance. - There are of course lots of questions to be answered around the information Ms Lean has touted out is there not?
All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial. The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless. -She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?
And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?
Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying
-
Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog"
8((()*/
-
We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so?
8((()*/
-
And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place.
8((()*/
-
So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case.
8((()*/
-
And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.
The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
and SK’s blood being on Jodi’s T-shirt
-
Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
8((()*/
-
Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying.
8((()*/
-
As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path?
And did Corrine Mitchell initially refuse to allow Luke to go out and search for Jodi ‘not at this time of night you’re not young man’ (JE podcast) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12003.msg646005#msg646005
or did Corrine send him out looking for Jodi - as Luke claimed? ⬇️
“The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.
In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4111441.stm
-
Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog" - We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so? And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place. So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.
Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.
The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
Therefore SK had the same alibi as Luke, family. Out of interest, when did SK’s father give his statement?
Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying. As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path? What is evident from this is JaJ, must not have known the area, contrary to your opinion. What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.
The question is not why Luke would be coming along Lady Path but why were AW, JaJ and SK on the Roan’s Dyke path at all if Jodi was forbidden to go along the path alone and was thought to be ‘mucking about up here’ ? Further why when they knew that Luke had just come down the path did AW insist on going back up it again?
And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC?
And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance. - There are of course lots of questions to be answered around the information Ms Lean has touted out is there not?
The lack of evidence of cell site analysis done by the police? Care to comment? Or missing CCTV? Or missing texts that Jodi may have deleted to stop her mother finding out that she was going to Newbattle? Did the police question Luke’s friends and teachers to find out what Luke was wearing that day to school? Did it match what he was wearing that night? If they didn’t, why not? Could it be because from the very first hour after Jodi’s body was discovered there only ever was one suspect, Luke.
All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial. The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless. -She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?
Conspiracies do happen, look at Hillsborough. Who’d have thought so many policemen could have covered up such a huge lie.....but they did.
And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?
Even Jodi’s time of death was calculated around Luke. That tells you all you need to know.
Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying
-
What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.
8((()*/
-
And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.
8((()*/
-
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed.
8((()*/
-
Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean.
8((()*/
When will the Mitchell’s and Sandra Lean publish the SCCRC’s statement of reasons - apparently it amounted to 200 pages?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-17490661
-
Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC?
And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance.
8((()*/
-
All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial.l
8((()*/
-
The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless.
8((()*/
-
She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?
*&^^&
-
And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?
Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying
8((()*/
-
In reply to, that Ms Lean would not use her own name on this forum.
You are of course correct - the one forum she will not use her own name, is this one. However this is Ms Lean we are talking about. She is renowned for having to be the lead in all discussion of LM. I do not believe she readily sits aside, one will be and is chapping at the proverbial bit continuously? She has a certain way with her, a trade mark. One which is this desire to mock, especially when one is unable to prove a point, the ridicule comes in and the lies - Any means used, to score. This dreek to dreich, pulpit to parapet, poured to pored? rags to broadsheets? The latest lie is that of JuJ, Ms Leans? favourite line of attack. If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie? - Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so. And again we can ask those questions, that will not be answered - What did Jodi's mother say about this path? Why had she banned her daughter? when was this ban put in place? - These are standard questions that would have been asked and answers given - what we get instead is that repetitive empty bias. That 5%.
Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan’s Dyke path alone, Janine, under oath, testified that her motherknew fine well that she did. When DF asked her if she was sure she simply answered ‘yes’....so not quiet as honest as you’d have us believe. As an aside did Judith never ask the three searchers why they were searching the path as Jodi wasn’t allowed to walk there alone?
Those lies to cover up more lies - that misinformation pushed to add weight to the lies?
And that revolving door of nothing - Of every single piece of information in those statements - of why Jodi's family were on Roansdyke path - to meet with LM. Of this period of around 30mins. From LM being on this path to LM shouting out he had found something. - Of this mother and the police filling in this missing person report at the same time. And bang - Jodi is found. Within 10mins of this meet.
And we are being asked - Did Judith never ask the searchers why they were on this path? - Really? if Jodi had been banned from using it? Let's think of those calls - of the police and the report. And of time and communication - One minute we know this mother has been told LM is on this path, looking? heading to Jodi's house. The search trio are also heading to Easthouse's - a search is to be organised. The problem with this, is - When, where, how? JuJ is busy with the police. And Bang - a body has been found. - And you want to ask this ridiculous question, of why she had not asked the searchers why they were on a path Jodi was not supposed to walk? When we know why they were on the path. We know why they headed there. - We know without a shadow of a doubt that this mother had barely time to draw breath, as did the police as did the three members of Jodi's family - All at this point franticly worried about Jodi, after being told she had not been with LM all evening. - Your conspiracy theories have no room here Faithlilly?
No one conspired to put LM on this path - he did that.
No one conspired to make LM climb the wall at the Gino spot - he did that
No one conspired to make LM go over this V upon reaching it - he did that
No one conspired to make LM, with the greatest of ease shout out he had found something - he did that
No one conspired to make up a completely false claim of his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay - he did that
No one made LM and co lie about all and everything - they did that. And that is everything. From that very moment he had stated he had walked some distance passed this V - around 40-60ft. From that moment he made claim to not knowing of it's existence -------------------
The list yet again is endless - And one wants to speed one party up whilst slowing the other down - in an attempt to show that there was more time for LM to have done all he claimed. But one can no slow it down and one can not slow down how ready and prepped LM was. That call at 10.51pm where he offered to search and being on this path by 10.59pm.
Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.
More lies, more misinformation - you are fooling no-one here. It is a well known fact that the Jones family moved to Easthouse's - after the death of Jodi's father. Do you simply just choose to make all and everything up as you go along? - One minute you are reciting Ms Lean to the letter T whilst in the next breath, choosing to leave out the masses of information she has already put out over these years? So we do not buy this "as far as we are aware" Or the missing calls, or the statements or just about much of anything at all - those wares that are peddled continuously? The trouble with lies, with the consistent changes in story and fallacy of reasoning - they just keep coming back to bite you.
-
In reply to, that Ms Lean would not use her own name on this forum.
You are of course correct - the one forum she will not use her own name, is this one. However this is Ms Lean we are talking about. She is renowned for having to be the lead in all discussion of LM. I do not believe she readily sits aside, one will be and is chapping at the proverbial bit continuously?
8((()*/
-
She has a certain way with her, a trade mark. One which is this desire to mock, especially when one is unable to prove a point, the ridicule comes in and the lies - Any means used, to score. This dreek to dreich, pulpit to parapet, poured to pored? rags to broadsheets?
8((()*/
Ps: ‘poured’ wasn’t Jane Hamilton’s error and if any of Sandra leans followers were to carry out their due diligence they will learn from the news article (not the online website) she used the word ‘pored’
-
She has a certain way with her, a trade mark. One which is this desire to mock, especially when one is unable to prove a point, the ridicule comes in and the lies
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg642470#msg642470
Corrine Mitchell: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.
“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?
“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top
“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed
“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister)
“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”
Sandra Lean: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious
“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”
Mr X = SK
-
The latest lie is that of JuJ, Ms Leans? favourite line of attack. If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie? - Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so. And again we can ask those questions, that will not be answered - What did Jodi's mother say about this path? Why had she banned her daughter? when was this ban put in place? - These are standard questions that would have been asked and answers given - what we get instead is that repetitive empty bias. That 5%.
8((()*/
-
Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran.
How old was Sandra Lean’s oldest daughter when she went to live with her dad - JaJ age (14) or younger?
-
He cleaned them in the brook/house, accounts vary, then got them all dirty again ‘playing’ with the lads afterwards.....or so goes the excuse. Likewise his hair, neck and ankles.
The vital question for me is what was Luke wearing at school? He says the same as that night when he was taken to the police station. Unfortunately the question doesn’t appear to have been asked of his friends or teachers.
It’s almost as if Lothian and Borders police didn’t want to know.
Wouldn't he have worn school uniform?
-
8((()*/
Ps: ‘poured’ wasn’t Jane Hamilton’s error and if any of Sandra leans followers were to carry out their due diligence they will learn from the news article (not the online website) she used the word ‘pored’
I read the article first in the newspaper and can confirm the word the journalist used was "pored". I had intended to rectify the error made in the online version when it leapt out at me as I uploaded it, but I forgot.
-
How old was Sandra Lean’s oldest daughter when she went to live with her dad - JaJ age (14) or younger?
I don't know, but, according to SL, her daughters were 12 and 10 at the time of the murder.
Do you (or anyone) know why Janine went to live with her grandmother?
-
I read the article first in the newspaper and can confirm the word the journalist used was "pored". I had intended to rectify the error made in the online version when it leapt out at me as I uploaded it, but I forgot.
I’ve lost count of Sandra lean’s diversions
Referring to people as ‘Trolls’ is another of her diversions
-
I don't know, but, according to SL, her daughters were 12 and 10 at the time of the murder.
Do you (or anyone) know why Janine went to live with her grandmother?
Or why we are told Jodi wanted to join her?
-
I read the article first in the newspaper and can confirm the word the journalist used was "pored". I had intended to rectify the error made in the online version when it leapt out at me as I uploaded it, but I forgot.
Of course you did.
-
I don't know, but, according to SL, her daughters were 12 and 10 at the time of the murder.
Do you (or anyone) know why Janine went to live with her grandmother?
Was it to look after her and keep her company ?
-
I don't know, but, according to SL, her daughters were 12 and 10 at the time of the murder.
Do you (or anyone) know why Janine went to live with her grandmother?
Does anyone know why Sandra Lean’s 12 year old daughter went to live with her dad - unless she was younger than 12 when she went to live with him?
-
Or why we are told Jodi wanted to join her?
What did Jodi’ grandmother think of her granddaughter dating Luke Mitchell and did she have reservations about Luke?
What do her police statements say about him?
Did she trust him?
-
What did Jodi’ grandmother think of her granddaughter dating Luke Mitchell and did she have reservations about Luke?
What do her police statements say about him?
Did she trust him?
And what about AO’s police witness statements? Did he trust Luke?
-
The latest lie is that of JuJ, Ms Leans? favourite line of attack. If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie? - Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so.
8((()*/
-
If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie?
8((()*/
-
Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so. And again we can ask those questions, that will not be answered - What did Jodi's mother say about this path? Why had she banned her daughter? when was this ban put in place? - These are standard questions that would have been asked and answers given - what we get instead is that repetitive empty bias. That 5%.
8((()*/
-
Judith said Jodi never walked the Roan’s Dyke path alone, Janine, under oath, testified that her motherknew fine well that she did. When DF asked her if she was sure she simply answered ‘yes’....so not quiet as honest as you’d have us believe. As an aside did Judith never ask the three searchers why they were searching the path as Jodi wasn’t allowed to walk there alone?
Those lies to cover up more lies - that misinformation pushed to add weight to the lies?
8((()*/
Without full context the ‘yes’ answer can be manipulated to suit
Sandra Lean on JuJ
so not quiet* as honest as you’d have us believe
*Did Sandra Lean originally write ‘quiet’ or ‘quite’ ?
-
In reply to, that Ms Lean would not use her own name on this forum.
You are of course correct - the one forum she will not use her own name, is this one. However this is Ms Lean we are talking about. She is renowned for having to be the lead in all discussion of LM. I do not believe she readily sits aside, one will be and is chapping at the proverbial bit continuously? She has a certain way with her, a trade mark. One which is this desire to mock, especially when one is unable to prove a point, the ridicule comes in and the lies - Any means used, to score. This dreek to dreich, pulpit to parapet, poured to pored? rags to broadsheets? The latest lie is that of JuJ, Ms Leans? favourite line of attack. If anyone dares to mention the abundance of lies with the Mitchells, or the manipulation and lies from Ms Lean/Mitchell - up pops the Jones's. And bang we have, that manipulation and lie? - Jodi's mother had not said that her daughter had never walked this path alone, she had said that she had been banned from doing so. And again we can ask those questions, that will not be answered - What did Jodi's mother say about this path? Why had she banned her daughter? when was this ban put in place? - These are standard questions that would have been asked and answers given - what we get instead is that repetitive empty bias. That 5%.
If you admit that Jodi’s mum knew that Jodi walked the path alone, I’m not sure what your point is. Did Jodi delete the texts herself so her mum didn’t know that she was going down the path to Newbattle? Now there’s a question. Further if JuJ didn’t want Jodi to walk the path did she think that the path was dangerous? If so, why? Had something happened previously?
Those lies to cover up more lies - that misinformation pushed to add weight to the lies?
And that revolving door of nothing - Of every single piece of information in those statements - of why Jodi's family were on Roansdyke path - to meet with LM. Of this period of around 30mins. From LM being on this path to LM shouting out he had found something. - Of this mother and the police filling in this missing person report at the same time. And bang - Jodi is found. Within 10mins of this meet.
What would have happened if Luke hadn’t met the other searchers? When he started out from his home he knew nothing about them. That would have been a bit of a hole in his plan right there.
And we are being asked - Did Judith never ask the searchers why they were on this path? - Really? if Jodi had been banned from using it? Let's think of those calls - of the police and the report. And of time and communication - One minute we know this mother has been told LM is on this path, looking? heading to Jodi's house. The search trio are also heading to Easthouse's - a search is to be organised. The problem with this, is - When, where, how? JuJ is busy with the police. And Bang - a body has been found. - And you want to ask this ridiculous question, of why she had not asked the searchers why they were on a path Jodi was not supposed to walk? When we know why they were on the path. We know why they headed there. - We know without a shadow of a doubt that this mother had barely time to draw breath, as did the police as did the three members of Jodi's family - All at this point franticly worried about Jodi, after being told she had not been with LM all evening. - Your conspiracy theories have no room here Faithlilly?
JuJ knew Jodi used the path, JaJ and AW confirmed it in statements and in court.
No one one conspired to put LM on this path - he did that.
No one conspired to make LM climb the wall at the Gino spot - he did that
No one conspired to make LM go over this V upon reaching it - he did that
No one conspired to make LM, with the greatest of ease shout out he had found something - he did that
No one conspired to make up a completely false claim of his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay - he did that
No one made LM and co lie about all and everything - they did that. And that is everything. From that very moment he had stated he had walked some distance passed this V - around 40-60ft. From that moment he made claim to not knowing of it's existence -------------------
Why do you continue to post such demonstrably dishonest disinformation? It’s all there in the first statements of the searchers.
The list yet again is endless - And one wants to speed one party up whilst slowing the other down - in an attempt to show that there was more time for LM to have done all he claimed. But one can no slow it down and one can not slow down how ready and prepped LM was. That call at 10.51pm where he offered to search and being on this path by 10.59pm.
More lies, more misinformation - you are fooling no-one here. It is a well known fact that the Jones family moved to Easthouse's - after the death of Jodi's father. Do you simply just choose to make all and everything up as you go along? - One minute you are reciting Ms Lean to the letter T whilst in the next breath, choosing to leave out the masses of information she has already put out over these years? So we do not buy this "as far as we are aware" Or the missing calls, or the statements or just about much of anything at all - those wares that are peddled continuously? The trouble with lies, with the consistent changes in story and fallacy of reasoning - they just keep coming back to bite you.
When did the Joneses move to Easthouses? JaJ was 9 when her father died....she was 14 when she left home to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to claim that she didn’t know the path before that night.
-
And that revolving door of nothing - Of every single piece of information in those statements - of why Jodi's family were on Roansdyke path - to meet with LM.
Jodi’s family went to meet 14 year old Luke because his mother Corrine had sent him out searching alone
-
I’ve lost count of Sandra lean’s diversions
Referring to people as ‘Trolls’ is another of her diversions
Some of the people she refers to as ‘troll’s are even labelled ‘special’
-
Of this period of around 30mins. From LM being on this path to LM shouting out he had found something. - Of this mother and the police filling in this missing person report at the same time.
Has Sandra Lean ever commented on whether or not the timings on the missing persons report were recorded accurately?
Or did they resemble something like the timings on the Bamber case files?
-
I read the article first in the newspaper and can confirm the word the journalist used was "pored". I had intended to rectify the error made in the online version when it leapt out at me as I uploaded it, but I forgot.
I do have a copy of the news article (not the website version) where it clearly states ‘pored’ NOT ‘poured’ but I’m unable to upload anything to the forum
-
I do have a copy of the news article (not the website version) where it clearly states ‘pored’ NOT ‘poured’ but I’m unable to upload anything to the forum
With regards Jane Hamilton’s latest news article - where Sandra Lean makes the false claim on her Facebook page about the ‘pored’ word
Sandra Lean states in a comment in response to those of her followers who chose to pile in
‘actually, may have been a Freudian slip. As in, they poured their lies and misinterpretations over the truth for years.
*&^^&
-
With regards Jane Hamilton’s latest news article - where Sandra Lean makes the false claim on her Facebook page about the ‘pored’ word
Sandra Lean states in a comment in response to those of her followers who chose to pile in
‘actually, may have been a Freudian slip. As in, they poured their lies and misinterpretations over the truth for years.
*&^^&
Sandra Lean’s statement in full reads:
‘actually, may have been a Freudian slip. As in, they poured their lies and misinterpretations over the truth for years. I can’t believe a journalist with so many years experience would have made such a beginners mistake?’
The Freudian slips are all yours Sandra and it is you who is pouring your lies and misinterpretations on the truth!
And Jane Hamilton didn’t make any such ‘beginners mistake’!
-
Whether or not the journalist actually made the typo (and let's face it we all make them from time to time) it's pretty damn pathetic to ridicule the author's entire output based on one easily made mistake, but so typical of the this type of person.
-
Whether or not the journalist actually made the typo (and let's face it we all make them from time to time) it's pretty damn pathetic to ridicule the author's entire output based on one easily made mistake, but so typical of the this type of person.
Do you think it’s really about Jane Hamilton or Sandra Lean?
-
Do you think it’s really about Jane Hamilton or Sandra Lean?
I think the typo thing is being used by Lean and her supporters as a distraction from the points made in the article. I mean it’s not as if Lean’s own supporters aren’t prone to the more than occasional typo themselves, does that mean they can all be dismissed too?
-
If you admit that Jodi’s mum knew that Jodi walked the path alone, I’m not sure what your point is.
[/b]
Why do you continue to post such demonstrably dishonest disinformation?
JaJ was 9 when her father died....she was 14 when she left home to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to claim that she didn’t know the path before that night.
You lied. Plain and simply - this predicative, indicative theme running rife through this campaign. Ran on the basis of someone who has never had all of anything, other than the defence files relating to DF's case of LM V HMA. Which in itself pretty much invalidates just about everything that has ever been pushed out. - Stemming all the way back to when this list of questions was first made up.
Demonstrably false - we know you are. Lying and plying people with all sorts of rubbish?
James Jones died in 1998 - Jodi was 14 when she died in 2003. Were they twins? that both girls were 9yrs old? Of course not. How many years between the two girls? - And yet again more misinformation - JaJ was nearly 16 was she not when she went to stay with granny? She, going by the above was barely 14 when this family moved to Easthouse's?
-
I think the typo thing is being used by Lean and her supporters as a distraction from the points made in the article. I mean it’s not as if Lean’s own supporters aren’t prone to the more than occasional typo themselves, does that mean they can all be dismissed too?
The contents in the article are both misleading and insulting to Mitchell's supporters. If she were really trying to help the Jones family, she showed poor judgment in how to do it.
I also found an article by Ms. Hamilton in which she casts herself as the victim. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822)
I am reading an article which she coauthored with Alasdair Clark. They make the claim that Luke's DNA was found on her bra, a dubious assertion.
-
That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated
JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?
Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not? When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?
The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.
The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct. Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.
Park41 — when did LM say that Jodi had borrowed her sister’s trousers? Do you have a link or a cite? Also, do you still have the links to the analysis/analyses of SK’s DNA ?
Would really appreciate it if you could provide these.
Thanks.
-
Do you think it’s really about Jane Hamilton or Sandra Lean?
Far too much discussion of this case is taken up by discussion of BOTH of them!
-
The contents in the article are both misleading and insulting to Mitchell's supporters. If she were really trying to help the Jones family, she showed poor judgment in how to do it.
I also found an article by Ms. Hamilton in which she casts herself as the victim. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822)
I am reading an article which she coauthored with Alasdair Clark. They make the claim that Luke's DNA was found on her bra, a dubious assertion.
If she has experienced vitriol and insults as a result of speaking her mind then she is entitled to respond to them and call them out IMO. How do you think she should go about trying to help the Jones’ family who as far as I can tell are none too enamoured by the campaign to cast their Jodi’s killer as some wronged innocent?
-
If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there. She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid. Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection. If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims. MOO.
-
If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there. She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid. Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection. If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims. MOO.
Mr Mitchell’s supporters strongly implied that she was stupid. Why is it wrong to mention the Black Dahlia connection if this had been part of the prosecution’s case? Should she seek permission from Dr Lean before expressing her opinions? I don’t see how criticising uncivil supporters really helps the Jones family, I think that would be the very least of their concerns.
-
I think the typo thing is being used by Lean and her supporters as a distraction from the points made in the article. I mean it’s not as if Lean’s own supporters aren’t prone to the more than occasional typo themselves, does that mean they can all be dismissed too?
I agree. It is trivia the usage of which flags up an obvious deflection from the substance ... which by my reckoning flags up the content of the article is spot on and something which has raised concern.
How did Sunday's demonstration at the Scottish parliament go? I can't find a thing about it.
-
If she has experienced vitriol and insults as a result of speaking her mind then she is entitled to respond to them and call them out IMO. How do you think she should go about trying to help the Jones’ family who as far as I can tell are none too enamoured by the campaign to cast their Jodi’s killer as some wronged innocent?
Help the Jones family with what?
Is this the job of a journalist?
I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.
-
Far too much discussion of this case is taken up by discussion of BOTH of them!
From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.
-
I agree. It is trivia the usage of which flags up an obvious deflection from the substance ... which by my reckoning flags up the content of the article is spot on and something which has raised concern.
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
-
Help the Jones family with what?
Is this the job of a journalist?
I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.
Ask Chris, he suggested she should be trying to help the Jones family, I didn’t.
-
From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.
She is the only person who has written a book, and personally, I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to be wrong.
But, she shouldn't be "the case" !!
-
If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there. She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid. Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection. If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims. MOO.
Isn't there a bit of a tradition in a democracy called "Freedom of the press"
-
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
Oh, yes, me too.
-
Help the Jones family with what?
Is this the job of a journalist?
I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.
Sorry, I think your question about 'helping' might be better addressed to Chris who initiated it http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650267#msg650267 VS was responding to that post.
-
She is the only person who has written a book, and personally, I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to be wrong.
But, she shouldn't be "the case" !!
Do you admire her for trying to gain freedom for the other two confirmed murderers too then?
-
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
An “authoritarian “ perspective? Well she is an author, and she was expressing her own view about her own experience, so I’m not sure what other perspective she could have used?
-
IMO a journalist should not be trying to help or to hurt anyone; he or she should report the facts. A writer of Op-Ed pieces has a bit more latitude, although perhaps one should not be going forth and back between the two realms. In this specific instance, I don't see a good reason for any of Mitchell's supporters to take what she has to say seriously; if you insult some people or ignore any legitimate arguments that they have, why should they keep listening? She has done both.
Possibly I inadvertantly led the conversation in the wrong direction when I mentioned helping.
-
An “authoritarian “ perspective? Well she is an author, and she was expressing her own view about her own experience, so I’m not sure what other perspective she could have used?
By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance. I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.
-
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
I have become pretty adept of late at "reading between the lines" and need no instruction in interpreting the written word.
Similarly despite a short acquaintance with Mitchell's supporters as noted by the journalist I require no instruction there either.
I checked out what she had to say in a previous article and my criticism of her writing is only that as far as they are concerned, she was far too subdued in her comments.
-
She is the only person who has written a book, and personally, I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to be wrong.
But, she shouldn't be "the case" !!
I too admire persons of principal. I totally abhor those who are strangers to the truth.
Sandra Lean has gone out of her way to make herself "the case". Her self promotion and media appearances are myriad.
-
Park41 — when did LM say that Jodi had borrowed her sister’s trousers? Do you have a link or a cite?
Thanks.
Luke told the police
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg458404.html#msg458404
What does Sandra Lean say in response to WakeyWakey on the thread ⬆️ about Luke Mitchell’s Freudian slip
-
By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance. I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.
The criminal justice system isn’t always wrong, and having sat through proceedings herself as I understand it, it is quite possible that she arrived at the opinions she holds independently is it not?
-
By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance. I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.
Are you suggesting Jane Hamilton doesn’t recognise a genuine miscarriage of justice when she sees one?
-
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
There aren’t and they should
-
The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread. Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home. I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.
If Sandra Lean can get this wrong - for argument sake what else has she got wrong?
-
You lied. Plain and simply - this predicative, indicative theme running rife through this campaign. Ran on the basis of someone who has never had all of anything, other than the defence files relating to DF's case of LM V HMA. Which in itself pretty much invalidates just about everything that has ever been pushed out. - Stemming all the way back to when this list of questions was first made up.
Demonstrably false - we know you are. Lying and plying people with all sorts of rubbish?
James Jones died in 1998 - Jodi was 14 when she died in 2003. Were they twins? that both girls were 9yrs old? Of course not. How many years between the two girls? - And yet again more misinformation - JaJ was nearly 16 was she not when she went to stay with granny? She, going by the above was barely 14 when this family moved to Easthouse's?
Let us get this straight. If the prosecution had had any more damning evidence than that presented in court they would have included it. It speaks volumes that the police had to submit the evidence that they did have to the PF twice before they got the go ahead to charge Luke. Where was the cell cite analysis, the results of the FBI report requested by L&B police, CCTV from Scotmid? It was a shoddy investigation which lead to a wafer thin circumstantial case that relied almost exclusively on reconstructed statements and juror’s biases.
The local teenagers used the path and the woods behind it. At 14 I’m sure JaJ would have used it too, while she lived with her mother.
BTW who do you think I am?
-
The contents in the article are both misleading and insulting to Mitchell's supporters. If she were really trying to help the Jones family, she showed poor judgment in how to do it.
I also found an article by Ms. Hamilton in which she casts herself as the victim. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822)
A pantomime villian you mean
‘This past week has felt a bit like a pantomime where I’ve found myself cast as the villain of the piece.
Cries of “boo!” have been resounding in my ears while I half expect someone to shout, “Oh no he isn’t” at me in the street.
Standing up against the court of public opinion on the back of a very biased television documentary has seen all manners of slurs, vitriol and downright rudeness slung my way across all forms of social media, telephone calls and emails.
Calls for my sacking, resignation and demands for apologies have been winging their way to Record Towers every day.
Why? What heinous crime have you committed this time, Hamilton?
-
And we are being asked - Did Judith never ask the searchers why they were on this path? - Really? if Jodi had been banned from using it? Let's think of those calls - of the police and the report. And of time and communication - One minute we know this mother has been told LM is on this path, looking? heading to Jodi's house. The search trio are also heading to Easthouse's - a search is to be organised. The problem with this, is - When, where, how? JuJ is busy with the police. And Bang - a body has been found. - And you want to ask this ridiculous question, of why she had not asked the searchers why they were on a path Jodi was not supposed to walk? When we know why they were on the path. We know why they headed there. - We know without a shadow of a doubt that this mother had barely time to draw breath, as did the police as did the three members of Jodi's family - All at this point franticly worried about Jodi, after being told she had not been with LM all evening. - Your conspiracy theories have no room here Faithlilly?
8((()*/
-
No one conspired to put LM on this path - he did that.
No one conspired to make LM climb the wall at the Gino spot - he did that
No one conspired to make LM go over this V upon reaching it - he did that
No one conspired to make LM, with the greatest of ease shout out he had found something - he did that
No one conspired to make up a completely false claim of his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay - he did that
No one made LM and co lie about all and everything - they did that. And that is everything. From that very moment he had stated he had walked some distance passed this V - around 40-60ft. From that moment he made claim to not knowing of it's existence -------------------
The list yet again is endless - And one wants to speed one party up whilst slowing the other down - in an attempt to show that there was more time for LM to have done all he claimed. But one can no slow it down and one can not slow down how ready and prepped LM was. That call at 10.51pm where he offered to search and being on this path by 10.59pm.
8((()*/
and when Luke spoke to the police he told them it was his mother Corrine who had suggested he go looking for Jodi after receiving that text from JuJ
-
Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.
More lies, more misinformation - you are fooling no-one here. It is a well known fact that the Jones family moved to Easthouse's - after the death of Jodi's father. Do you simply just choose to make all and everything up as you go along? - One minute you are reciting Ms Lean to the letter T whilst in the next breath, choosing to leave out the masses of information she has already put out over these years? So we do not buy this "as far as we are aware" Or the missing calls, or the statements or just about much of anything at all - those wares that are peddled continuously? The trouble with lies, with the consistent changes in story and fallacy of reasoning - they just keep coming back to bite you.
8((()*/
-
You lied. Plain and simply - this predicative, indicative theme running rife through this campaign. Ran on the basis of someone who has never had all of anything, other than the defence files relating to DF's case of LM V HMA. Which in itself pretty much invalidates just about everything that has ever been pushed out. - Stemming all the way back to when this list of questions was first made up.
Demonstrably false - we know you are. Lying and plying people with all sorts of rubbish?
James Jones died in 1998 - Jodi was 14 when she died in 2003. Were they twins? that both girls were 9yrs old? Of course not. How many years between the two girls? - And yet again more misinformation - JaJ was nearly 16 was she not when she went to stay with granny? She, going by the above was barely 14 when this family moved to Easthouse's?
8((()*/
-
If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there. She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid. Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection. If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims. MOO.
They are
Someone called ‘Tony’ has commented on Sandra Lean’s Facebook post about JH
He states,
’Jane Hamilton is a lemming Sandra or a sheep who can’t think for herself who accepts the moon is made out of cheese...’
He goes on,
‘’And this is the point that everyone who believes he killed Jodi is missing. As in the cases you highlighted in ‘No
Smoke’ there was no evidence to prove guilt in all of the cases but all were convicted...’
*&^^&
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html?PHPSESSID=sljd04ii39egugt61kku3vhik7
-
Mr Mitchell’s supporters strongly implied that she was stupid. Why is it wrong to mention the Black Dahlia connection if this had been part of the prosecution’s case? Should she seek permission from Dr Lean before expressing her opinions? I don’t see how criticising uncivil supporters really helps the Jones family, I think that would be the very least of their concerns.
It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side. Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable. The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family. The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.
Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread: Let's start with the appeals process. Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened. Failure to win on appeal does not mean that one is certainly guilty. Second, the investigation had several oversights. Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others. Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory. Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds. Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.
Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.
-
The criminal justice system isn’t always wrong, and having sat through proceedings herself as I understand it, it is quite possible that she arrived at the opinions she holds independently is it not?
It is possible to believe that Luke Mitchell is guilty, yet that the criminal justice system treated him and his family in an unprofessional and unethical manner. I will offer just one example for now, namely the manner of Shane Mitchell's arrest. Likewise, one might believe him guilty and still see areas where the investigation wasn't handled well (the management of the crime scene, for example). Yet there is no hint of these issues in the articles of hers that I have read.
-
Are you suggesting Jane Hamilton doesn’t recognise a genuine miscarriage of justice when she sees one?
That is not what I said or meant. What I am saying is that she is not able to keep her opinions and her reporting separate. That's on her and her editor.
-
It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side. Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable. The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family. The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.
Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread: Let's start with the appeals process. Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Yet several top arson investigators have said that there was no evidence of arson. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened. Second, the investigation had several oversights. Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others. Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory. Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds. Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.
Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.
I’m afraid Miss Hamilton is not awfully concerned with either truth or balance. She does, however, know her audience and writes accordingly.
-
Ask Chris, he suggested she should be trying to help the Jones family, I didn’t.
I did not actually say that she should.
-
A pantomime villian you mean
‘This past week has felt a bit like a pantomime where I’ve found myself cast as the villain of the piece.
Cries of “boo!” have been resounding in my ears while I half expect someone to shout, “Oh no he isn’t” at me in the street.
Standing up against the court of public opinion on the back of a very biased television documentary has seen all manners of slurs, vitriol and downright rudeness slung my way across all forms of social media, telephone calls and emails.
Calls for my sacking, resignation and demands for apologies have been winging their way to Record Towers every day.
Why? What heinous crime have you committed this time, Hamilton?
She is claiming the moral high ground and in effect claiming to be a collateral victim.
-
From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.
The campaign is all about Sandra Lean
-
The campaign is all about Sandra Lean
That’s because you make it all about her.
It is quite possible to debate the facts of the case without even mentioning Dr Lean.
Perhaps you should try it?
-
It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side. Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable. The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family. The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.
Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread: Let's start with the appeals process. Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened. Failure to win on appeal does not mean that one is certainly guilty. Second, the investigation had several oversights. Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others. Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory. Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds. Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.
Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.
Likewise Sandra Lean’s documentary presented a very one-sided case for the defence, one which after I had watched it utterly convinced me that Mitchell had been stitched up. Now that I know a bit more about the case I can see just how biased her documentary was but I don’t see you criticising her for it.
-
I have not seen the documentary yet.
-
I have not seen the documentary yet.
I look forward to your critique as and when you do then.
-
I have not seen the documentary yet.
It could have been better though I’m not sure why everyone is surprised it was pro Mitchell....that was the point.
Of course it only went a small way to redressing the damage that the media’s misinformation has done to Luke and his family for over 18 years. I didn’t hear anyone demand balance then.
If you haven’t seen it already can I also recommend the Frontline Scotland programme on the case. You’ll find it on YouTube.
-
Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.
That's how I felt when I saw the recent documentary.
When something is that one-sided, I immediately smell a rat.
-
How do you feel about Ms. Hamilton's reporting?
-
Did she stay in Easthouse's? - I thought she stayed in Mayfield? We know the gran stays next to Scots Caravans in the very bottom of Mayfield, she stayed with her gran, did she not? - this lie branded about for many years by Mitchells mother (JE podcast) of the search party leaving from the very top of Mayfield, where it seems Ms Lean stayed? We know the lie is used to slow the search trio down, whilst other lies are used to speed LM up? "he was fit and very fast behind a very fast dog" - We also have the added lies from Lean and Mitchells mum, which you yourself are spreading also. That this search trio had walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to this path. Yet we know that the search party would have had to walk backwards, completely in the opposite direction of this path to do so? And to add to this we have a further insinuation/lie - that AW was somewhat ancient and riddled with arthritis - This lady had been the village post lady, renowned it would seem for her fitness, of marching up and down the place. So there we have three blatant lies, complete misrepresentation of the actual facts of the case. And there is more. We know from the statements of AW and so forth that friends/family had been called, yet it is being touted, and insinuated that this is lies - as, Ms Lean says the record/log of these calls are not in the defence case files - Which in itself is on par with the call to Jodi's aunt that evening from AW, after she had seen the body of her grand-daughter. That Ms Lean insinuates that this call was also a lie as it is not in the defence case files - those phone logs.
The problem with this - with Ms Lean only having the defence case files. Of the evidence built up by DF to use in the case of LM V HMA. That some calls would naturally be missing, some not answered. - there was simply no need for them to be inclusive. It is however, due to the amount of lies and misinformation that has been touted out- Difficult to determine if they are or not in fact there? But what we do have to add in here, is of how the defence builds up their case - and of evidence used by the Crown, namely of prime witness's. That the defence does this by way of precognitions. Ms Lean touted for years that SK was only alibied by his girlfriend JaJ, when Ms Lean was pulled up on this, (2018) of this being a lie, that SK had in fact also been in the company of his father. That predictive proverbial buck, that we are more than familiar with was passed over - that she claimed the statement from SK's father was not in the defence papers, which again may be the very case. As why would it be? SK was not on trial, but again, it will be in his statements, and of those precognitions - The SCCRC let Ms Lean know about this statement (2014)? - which tells us one thing clearly, that Ms Lean had also put claim into the SCCRC that SK and JaJ may have been lying as that SK had no corroborated alibi. And of course he did.
Yet again, we are left with what Ms Lean actually does have, and why not everything will be in those defence case files. They are not hidden, they are not missing and above all these witness's are not lying. As with ending up on this path that evening - it is clear in those statements as to why they met with LM. As you point out yourself - why would anyone think Mitchell would be coming along Lady Path? What is evident from this is JaJ, must not have known the area, contrary to your opinion. What does is say further in those statements?, remember, we are talking about that time of around 11.20pm? We are not interested in this constant 5% of what amounts to nothing. That empty context.
And the elimination of people in this investigation - as with the statements from Mr Kelly, those phone records and other areas of this investigation - We know these people were investigated, we are given multiple areas of information, answers and reasoning behind this. But Ms Lean does not know how in depth this may have been. But Ms Lean will not be privy to everything as DF will not have included everything in the defence case he took forward of LM V HMA. Why on earth would he start talking about their alibi's and so forth - to highlight to the Jury, the opposite of what he was trying to use, as way of another/s perhaps being responsible other than LM? Clever man, sticking to the DNA on the top, and the boys on the bike being at the path, the lies they told - he did not want to go into the realms of other areas - that he knew the prosecution would have had firmly in their hands.
What are we left with. Lots of assumption, hypothetical scenarios, masses of misinformation touted out in the year leading up to "No Smoke" being written. Then the book with the same as above, and with that same proviso? of having "all" knowledge of this case. But she did not have, and the book is massively flawed. Then we have the POA and the submission to the SCCRC with lots of the above also inclusive?, and lots of correction given on this back to Ms Lean. Then Ms Lean still touted out lots of misinformation did she not? on the basis of what she did not have, she was free to make many claims and assumptions around not having those calls, statements, and all of the work done in the investigation by the police. Then another book has been written, podcasts and so forth - on the basis of not having all of the evidence, again laden with a massive amount of mis-information? The book was probably half written before the submission came back from the SCCRC?
And ultimately - all of those questions needing answered, that if the police, DF and so forth had did their job properly? (and there you really do have it, those Jack of all trades and master of none) - we would not be left with all of these 'same' question 18yrs later - And that is actually the biggest lot of ?? ever. These are Ms Lean questions. Based around her manipulation of the facts in this case. Based around her claimed missing statements, phone records and so forth. They hold absolutely no substance. - There are of course lots of questions to be answered around the information Ms Lean has touted out is there not?
All of those get out clauses - that 95% of missing information. The actual context of all and everything. And of Chris Haldikes, and "Evidence is Evidence" - I could not agree more. The evidence against LM is in abundance. And that is why he stood trial. The only shoddy work that would have been done in this case - is if the Police and prosecution services were to turn have turned a blind eye, as Ms Lean and co does - That "half a mars bar" situ. And this is reason why LM has failed at every avenue - it is not because of some major cover up, these mad conspiracy theories. And they are mad - we have proof in abundance of how mad they are - those who follow Ms Lean blindly, of the possibility that Jodi Jones was killed elsewhere, of stocky man being SK no it's [Name removed], of JF being LM, of MK being LM, Of the aunt having high up connections the list is endless. -She does a startling Job does she not? Leading those seeking Fools Gold - there are no riches in any of what Ms Lean touts out - This self proclaimed know it all?
And we are still waiting - where is the proof in anything that LM claimed? Outwith those 15-20 mins 6pm-6.20pm and 7.30pm until 9pm?
Every other claim has always been shown - beyond reasonable doubt - that LM and co were lying
Easthouses/Mayfield does it matter? They're 1minute and 45 seconds apart in a car. People in both areas know the path well. Ja J knew the path and the area. That is one of the few things that is 100% certain.
-
How do you feel about Ms. Hamilton's reporting?
Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.
It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.
-
Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.
It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.
I think the most important question is not if Luke is innocent but was his guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you think it was?
-
Not sure if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway.
I didn't read Ms Hamilton's report as it was in the Daily Record, which I won't read, but I believe it was a retort against the recent documentary - I'm glad someone did.
It really doesn't matter - you missed my point, which is that it works both ways.
The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it. In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work. Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary. Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.
-
The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it. In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work. Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary. Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.
Of course they didn't.
I have read most of her articles on LM online, and she says exactly what the "detractors" would want her to say!
-
The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it. In addition I read and summarized more than one article in considering her work. Her recent articles went well beyond a discussion of the recent documentary. Yet none of Mr. Mitchell's detractors acknowledged her shortcomings as a journalist.
If you say that Hamilton's piece is one-sided, I'm happy to take your word for it.
The point I'm making is that it works both ways.
-
If you say that Hamilton's piece is one-sided, I'm happy to take your word for it.
The point I'm making is that it works both ways.
Yes, I would say you make a fair point!
-
The entire article can be found on page 3 of the Victim Jodi Jones thread; there is no need to go elsewhere to read it.
⬇️
Luke Mitchell was found guilty - slinging mud at Jodi Jones' family is desperate
Record columnist Jane Hamilton says those peddling half-truths about Jodi's murder are just adding to her family's heartache.
By Jane Hamilton
04:30, 1 MAY 2021
I’m loath to revisit this issue again because I feel the family of Jodi Jones have had enough but I’ll say it again for the hard of thinking – Luke Mitchell was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.
It shouldn’t need repeating.
But next Saturday there will be a protest by Mitchell’s supporters yet again demanding he be declared innocent.
For the family of Jodi, this is nothing more than a heartbreaking attack on his victim’s memory.
They have spoken to the Daily Record this week to plead that those peddling half-truths and slurs take a step back and consider the facts of the case.
Once more for those at the back – collectively, the Scottish justice system believes it has the right person for the crime he was charged with and is serving his time.
Four FAILED appeals including an independent Miscarriage of Justice investigation. Case closed. Done, dusted, finished.
And for the people who accuse journalists of turning a blind eye to the plight of an “innocent man” banged up for a crime he didn’t do, let me say this (yet again) – we have examined the case a gazillion times over the years and come up with nothing new.
There is no smoking gun, no “eureka” moment of uncovering a startling bit of new evidence that exonerates him.
The “new evidence” put forward by Luke’s supporters has been pored over time and again – but the conclusion remains the same.
Potential other people of interest were a factor of the original investigation and alternative suspects were traced, interviewed and eliminated from having the potential to be culpable.
Accusations of police corruption, collusion and personal insults have been winging their way to Daily Record towers daily.
Trust me, if you want a journalist to take your claims or suspicions seriously, here’s a wee tip - aggression, angst, insults and threats is not the way to do it.
Slinging mud at the innocent family of a murder victim to see if it sticks is also not a good way to change hearts or minds. If anything, it makes you look pathetically desperate.
The comments I’ve seen directed at the Jones family make me despair for the human race at times.
Where is the compassion and empathy for what they have been through?
Why can’t the supporters of Mitchell articulate their support for him and his family without dragging the Jones family down?
Oh yeah, because they’re among the dozens of suspects being bandied about by the Facebook sleuths. [Insert rolling eye emoji here].
But, hey, we live in a democracy and the beauty of that is we are free to have our own opinions and thoughts.
We can demonstrate and exercise our right to freedom of speech.
If you believe a miscarriage of justice has been done, you’re well within your rights to set up petitions, marches, videos and take to social media to put forward your case.
Such is our freedom that even a convicted murderer is allowed to protest his innocence on national television and take a lie detector test.
Nobody is denying you the right to bang your drum about your cause or your beliefs.
With social media, everyone can shout into the void – but while you’re screaming about innocence remember he had the best legal counsel in the country who did their damnedest for him and he has had the privilege of multiple legal options to have his case reviewed.
The life and voice of Jodi Jones has been lost to the world forever – remember that.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568
-
⬇️
What's that? An article by the highly regarded "journalist" of a tabloid lol? I challenged people to explain the 12 points credibly. I'm still waiting.
-
I challenged people to explain the 12 points credibly. I'm still waiting.
Did your miss this ⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650073#msg650073
-
Did your miss this ⬇️
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650073#msg650073
None of those answers are credible explanations. I don't think any rational person would say that they are whether one thinks Mitchell did it or not.
-
None of those answers are credible explanations. I don't think any rational person would say that they are whether one thinks Mitchell did it or not.
I don’t consider this to be from a rational person
⬇️
‘I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.
This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond.
Mr Middleton was acquitted.
Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.
I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted. I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.
How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.
Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton?
Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.
Shame on you, Mr Beck.
It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.
Sandra Lean
-
I don’t consider this to be from a rational person
⬇️
‘I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.
This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond.
Mr Middleton was acquitted.
What's sandra Lean got to do with me? Oh and you didn't answer the 12 points. 8)--))
Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.
I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted. I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.
How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.
Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton?
Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.
Shame on you, Mr Beck.
It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.
Sandra Lean