Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[Nicholas]

Derek Edmund - who was on YouTube with Paul Capaldi claims to have gone to school with Mitchell - he reckons he was ‘very articulate, well spoken & polite’ then bizarrely the pair of them start referring to the ‘idiot’ Steven Avery

Seems Derek is being used as the stand in forensic expert by Paul

And it’s possible Derek is one of Sandra Leans right hand men

Am speculating - which Derek says people mustn’t do - but it defo looks like he’s involved in the ‘campaigning’ side of things

Yep - Dereks an Admin on the group FB page by the sounds of it

At around 1:02:49 - Derek goes on to refer to articles published by the daily record and sounds completely deluded by his comments

Even Paul seems to pick up on this but says nothing

Derek and Paul are staunch Avery & Dassey supporters

Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?

[Nicholas]

Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?

If so - someone pls tell her to publish Luke Mitchell’s police statements - or maybe Corrine Mitchell will publish them if Sandra Lean refuses to



‘Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.

Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'

Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'

Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.

'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465

[Angelo222]

Anyone know if Sandra Lean is doing a live chat with MaM superfan Paul Capaldi later today?

Who cares, she cannot answer a straight question anyway.

[faithlilly]

If so - someone pls tell her to publish Luke Mitchell’s police statements - or maybe Corrine Mitchell will publish them if Sandra Lean refuses to



‘Donald Findlay reads a statement given by Janine to police in the early hours of July 1 in which she said that 'everyone was in hysterics'.

Under cross-examination, Janine says: 'The only time Luke showed any emotion was when he was on the phone to the police and we started shouting at him and then he started to raise his voice.'

Findlay asks: 'Are you saying the police have written something wrong in the statement.'

Janine answers: 'I may have phrased it wrong. They may have taken it down wrong. I didn't mean everyone was in hysterics.

'As I said, the police have misrepresented it.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+'We+heard+Luke+shouting+there+was+something...-a0126045465

The telephone operator who took Luke’s call after finding the body said something along the lines of ‘ there’s a boy on the phone in an awful state’.

Janine said in court that the police had ‘misinterpreted’ her comment. They seemed to have made a habit of it as they also seemed to have ‘ misinterpreted’ the claim in her first statement that ‘Mia lead Luke to the wall’  to ‘Luke went straight to the wall’ in court. Indeed it as if the police were the Scottish version of the Keystone Cops as they seemed to have also  ‘misinterpreted’ SK and AW’s statements too in exactly the same way, from Mia alerting to the wall to Luke simply going to it.

[Angelo222]

The telephone operator who took Luke’s call after finding the body said something along the lines of ‘ there’s a boy on the phone in an awful state’.

Janine said in court that the police had ‘misinterpreted’ her comment. They seemed to have made a habit of it as they also seemed to have ‘ misinterpreted’ the claim in her first statement that ‘Mia lead Luke to the wall’  to ‘Luke went straight to the wall’ in court. Indeed it as if the police were the Scottish version of the Keystone Cops as they seemed to have also  ‘misinterpreted’ SK and AW’s statements too in exactly the same way, from Mia alerting to the wall to Luke simply going to it.

Mia finding the body was a set-up.  Mia would have scented the body on her way up the path to meet the Jones family. Mitchell needed to have witnesses with him when he found the body, the entire thing was staged by Luke Mitchell imo.

[faithlilly]

Mia finding the body was a set-up.  Mia would have scented the body on her way up the path to meet the Jones family. Mitchell needed to have witnesses with him when he found the body, the entire thing was staged by Luke Mitchell imo.

So you are second guessing witnesses who, in their first statements, said that it was Mia who alerted to the v in the wall?

[Nicholas]

I disagree. Sandra is the only source of this sighting and has never provided the witness statement. I think it has been misrepresented somewhat. It was a staff member of Basically Tool Hire who confirmed it was on the path, but demonstrably impossible for him to see if it was "propped at the V riderless" unless he walked past it. Sandra eventually admitted this didn't happen, despite letting people repeat the misinformation for years.  JF also didn't "admit" it was directly at the v point at 5:15 pm. JF couldn't even confirm what time he was on the path, Donald Findlay tripped him up a bit. The cyclist who heard the strangling sound didn't see or hear any moped.

‘Basically tool hire’ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wA5yn11KnoM

Note how the makers of this video don’t comment on not being able to see the ‘V’ in the wall

[Brietta]

There is precedent for the unfair treatment supposedly impartial documentary makers give to Luke Mitchell and his supporters as epitomised by the recent Channel Five documentary.

Impartiality flew out the window when Frontline Scotland had a look at the case ~ "Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?" and reported what seems to have been an unsavoury character as seen from his adoring mother's perspective.

BBC axes 'biased' Mitchell documentary
THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
By The Newsroom
Sunday, 1st April 2007, 1:00 am

https://www.scotsman.com/news/bbc-axes-biased-mitchell-documentary-2510094


It was not considered fit for broadcast as it was because it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and lacked impartiality.
Nor did it give adequate consideration to the right of reply for those criticised in the programme.
The impression given that because Mitchell was appealing the court's decision he must be innocent giving no consideration to the fact that the majority of convicted murderers use the appeal system to escape the consequences of their crime.

Standards for scrutiny were obviously more stringent in 2007 for BBC broadcasts than in 2021 for those of Channel 5.

[Neil Wilby]

Correct. She has dodged my questions over this piece for almost nine months:

https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/

Who cares, she cannot answer a straight question anyway.

[faithlilly]

Correct. She has dodged my questions over this piece for almost nine months:

https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/

I don’t blame her. You do appear to be quite a menace.

[faithlilly]

There is precedent for the unfair treatment supposedly impartial documentary makers give to Luke Mitchell and his supporters as epitomised by the recent Channel Five documentary.

Impartiality flew out the window when Frontline Scotland had a look at the case ~ "Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?" and reported what seems to have been an unsavoury character as seen from his adoring mother's perspective.

BBC axes 'biased' Mitchell documentary
THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
By The Newsroom
Sunday, 1st April 2007, 1:00 am

https://www.scotsman.com/news/bbc-axes-biased-mitchell-documentary-2510094


It was not considered fit for broadcast as it was because it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and lacked impartiality.
Nor did it give adequate consideration to the right of reply for those criticised in the programme.
The impression given that because Mitchell was appealing the court's decision he must be innocent giving no consideration to the fact that the majority of convicted murderers use the appeal system to escape the consequences of their crime.

Standards for scrutiny were obviously more stringent in 2007 for BBC broadcasts than in 2021 for those of Channel 5.

Not considered fit for broadcast, and yet it was broadcast, in it’s entirety.

An interesting article on miscarriages of justice from the New Statesman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not considered fit for broadcast, and yet it was broadcast, in it’s entirety.

An interesting article on miscarriages of justice from the New Statesman.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted

Very interesting, especially this bit

Not everyone who claims to be innocent is telling the truth, especially if the crime is especially heinous. One case which received much publicity was that of Simon Hall, who was convicted in 2003 of the horrific murder of Joan Albert, aged 79. It was taken up by Rough Justice after an active campaign on Hall’s behalf but then, in 2013, he told prison officials that he was guilty. In doing so, he gravely undermined the claims of many of the genuinely innocent. He hanged himself in prison the following year. As the former armed robber Noel “Razor” Smith notes in his wry poem “The Old Lags”, prison is full of people who claim they were wrongly convicted:

Yeah, I been stitched right up

It’s funny you should ask

I’m here for what I didn’t do

I didn’t wear a mask!

[Brietta]

Does anyone know whether or not the immediate furore surrounding the Channel 5 apologia for a murderer has run its course for the time being.

There doesn't seem to be much interest outwith the pages of internet boards such as this one. 

I think the two money grubbing exercises both of which were closed down, may have given people pause for thought.

[Brietta]

Very interesting, especially this bit

Not everyone who claims to be innocent is telling the truth, especially if the crime is especially heinous. One case which received much publicity was that of Simon Hall, who was convicted in 2003 of the horrific murder of Joan Albert, aged 79. It was taken up by Rough Justice after an active campaign on Hall’s behalf but then, in 2013, he told prison officials that he was guilty. In doing so, he gravely undermined the claims of many of the genuinely innocent. He hanged himself in prison the following year. As the former armed robber Noel “Razor” Smith notes in his wry poem “The Old Lags”, prison is full of people who claim they were wrongly convicted:

Yeah, I been stitched right up

It’s funny you should ask

I’m here for what I didn’t do

I didn’t wear a mask!

Wasn't that another of Sandra Lean's "innocents"?

Has she ever managed to be attracted to a murder case which was a bona fide miscarriage of justice?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Isn’t there meant to be a street protest in Scotland somewhere, sometime?