Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[faithlilly]

Absolutely. 

I don't know why Sandra Lean evokes such hatred, and I don't particularly want to know.

What evidence is there that she hates the Jones family?  I certainly have not picked up on that.

As far as I am aware, Sandra Lean lives in the same locality as do the Jones and Mitchell families. After Jodi's murder, she heard what local people  and the media were saying about Luke, and she thought this was unfair. She was also reviled for speaking up for him. At the same time, she was worried about her own daughters, who were similar ages to Jodi.  What if someone other than Luke had murdered Jodi, and this person remained at large?  I believe Corrinne Mitchell approached her in the first instance, as she had heard that Sandra was viewing Luke's plight more sympathetically than were most others in the locality. As far as I know, they did not previously know each other, or if they did, they were not friends.

It's all in her book. I have no reason to suppose she is lying!

It would appear in the early days having an open mind was considered a crime.

[Parky41]

Don’t you ever get bored shooting the messenger?

This is obviously very personal to you so I’ll take that into account when considering your post.

You are right about one thing though...Jodi Jones has been forgotten,  replaced instead with personal enmities of those involved. When Sandra’s name appears to cause more revulsion than Jodi’s death then there really has to be something wrong.

Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.

Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.

Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.

Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.

Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.

Dear oh dear.

Can I ask, why do you continually try to mislead the forum, the very act you accuse Sandra of? The ‘laddie’ comment of the emergency operator was about SK...no it wasn’t and your comment has been independently proved to be incorrect and Luke lead the group of searchers back down the path from which he had just come...no he didn’t, it is well documented it was AW.

You’re not daft so there must be a reason why you do it.

BTW it’s head above the parapet not pulpit.

[mrswah]

Faithlilly - This line of attack, when someone questions or is critical of anything that Ms Lean does is predictive and indicative of someone who is indeed very closely involved with Ms Lean herself. Your mind is completely closed.

Take your nose out of the book for a little while - do some actual, proper research. Be openminded. Rather than consistently jumping to Ms Leans defence.

Ms Lean has put her head above the pulpit and keeps it there. - If what I found whilst researching this case, causes so much grief and upset, perhaps it is time for you step back a little. Chill.

So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?

I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!

[faithlilly]

So, what do you recommend I look at for "actual, proper research" ?

I can find very little on the case other than what has been written by Sandra Lean, and what is in the newspapers and on forums. I'd love to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but I don't think there is one!

And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.

[Nicholas]

And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.

What information do the Jones family have access to?

[Nicholas]

And there’s the rub. We know Sandra Lean has access to information we don’t and we know that the newspapers were never neutral in their treatment of Luke but where do those on the forum get their ‘other’ information from....unless of course they are personally involved and then you have to consider whether their non-cited information is agenda-driven.

There’s a lot in the public domain directly from Luke & Corrine Mitchell - dating back to 2003

[Nicholas]

As far as I am aware, Sandra Lean lives in the same locality as do the Jones and Mitchell families. After Jodi's murder, she heard what local people  and the media were saying about Luke, and she thought this was unfair. She was also reviled for speaking up for him. At the same time, she was worried about her own daughters, who were similar ages to Jodi.  What if someone other than Luke had murdered Jodi, and this person remained at large?  I believe Corrinne Mitchell approached her in the first instance, as she had heard that Sandra was viewing Luke's plight more sympathetically than were most others in the locality. As far as I know, they did not previously know each other, or if they did, they were not friends.

It's all in her book. I have no reason to suppose she is lying!

What does her book say about Mitchell and suicide?

If Sandra Lean’s daughters had made threats to commit suicide when they were Luke Mitchell’s age (14 years old) would she have got them professional help?

What does Luke Mitchell’s 29th October 2004 psychiatric report say in relation to his suicide idealisations ?

From Luke Mitchell’s school jotter
”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/

Luke Mitchell to Roslyn Little (2018)
‘I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide’

[Seratonia]

Hi, new here so please forgive me if these questions have been asked/answered many times before.

During LM’s polygraph test he was asked “ were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”  Also, “did you stab Jodi on 30th June?”

My question is, was Jodi stabbed?

Another question that stood out to me was “ prior to Jodi going missing, do you remember deliberately lying to a police officer?”

This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?

Before watching LM’s polygraph test (and after watching the Channel 5 documentary), I was leaning towards LM being innocent. However, after viewing the polygraph, it seems to me some of the questions were misleading, and makes me wonder why.

https://youtu.be/boKXAggpHoQ - LM polygraph

[WakeyWakey]

hello seratonia

My question is, was Jodi stabbed?

Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.

its semantics whether this was a stabbing, but series of cuts with a bladed weapon were the cause of death, according to the pathologist, and there were extensive post-mortem cuts elsewhere.

This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?

You are right. my guess would be that the operator mis-spoke when asking the question here, or wasnt particularly read up on the case details at the time of examination

For what its worth, there isnt really anyone taking the results of polygraphs seriously in the uk justice system and with good reason - the results are the subjective opinion of the operator, with no measurable or repeatable objective criteria. its pseudoscience.

[John]

Hi, new here so please forgive me if these questions have been asked/answered many times before.

During LM’s polygraph test he was asked “ were you present when Jodi was stabbed?”  Also, “did you stab Jodi on 30th June?”

My question is, was Jodi stabbed?

Another question that stood out to me was “ prior to Jodi going missing, do you remember deliberately lying to a police officer?”

This particular question puzzled me, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to ask if LM had lied to police after Jodi was murdered?

Before watching LM’s polygraph test (and after watching the Channel 5 documentary), I was leaning towards LM being innocent. However, after viewing the polygraph, it seems to me some of the questions were misleading, and makes me wonder why.

https://youtu.be/boKXAggpHoQ - LM polygraph

I agree with you on the polygraph, it's only a gimmick, a false science which can be manipulated quite easily. I'm afraid it is only fit for the likes of what was the Jeremy Kyle Show and even it was axed.

The only real use the polygraph has is in scaring people into making confessions like what happened in the Adrian Prout case.

[faithlilly]

I agree with you on the polygraph, it's only a gimmick, a false science which can be manipulated quite easily. I'm afraid it is only fit for the likes of what was the Jeremy Kyle Show and even it was axed.

Or the government, police and probation services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet

https://www.stoneking.co.uk/literature/e-bulletins/lie-detector-polygraph-testing-sex-offenders

‘Polygraph testing is not some bogus science. There are strict and complex codes of practice and an examiner must undergo extensive training. The research recommends that examiners do the job exclusively, such are the demands. Most best practice has been imported from America, where polygraph testing is much more established and regulated. Advocates of the polygraph claim very high accuracy, upwards of 85% and often upwards of 95%, although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials.’

[John]

Or the government, police and probation services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/mandatory-polygraph-tests-factsheet

https://www.stoneking.co.uk/literature/e-bulletins/lie-detector-polygraph-testing-sex-offenders

‘Polygraph testing is not some bogus science. There are strict and complex codes of practice and an examiner must undergo extensive training. The research recommends that examiners do the job exclusively, such are the demands. Most best practice has been imported from America, where polygraph testing is much more established and regulated. Advocates of the polygraph claim very high accuracy, upwards of 85% and often upwards of 95%, although there is good reason the evidence remains inadmissible in criminal court trials.’

Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.

[faithlilly]

Yes it's an American folly. The polygraph is a joke. I once challenged Terry Mullins to prove his polygraph works, needless to say I'm still waiting.

I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum,  aren’t too fussed what you think.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I’d hazard a guess that you’re still waiting because those you challenge, as well as most of the world outside this particular forum,  aren’t too fussed what you think.

Everyone knows polygraphs are junk science apart from some credulous Americans (and you it seems).