Peter Parkinson
3 years ago
Ms MItchel it would appear that you're being, let us say - somewhat economical with very little truth? You mention this joint theory yet your partner in fighting for Luke's innocence does not agree with you. This fanatical theory of scrapyards by yourself and Sandra is thwarted by Ms Lean herself with this response, when I passed comment on it, on a forum discussing this case. "First of all, did you check that this was, in fact a "joint theory?" It isn't" and complete denial with this "I have never discussed the bike "along with a knife, bloody clothing" being put in a van". Do you feel it is just therefore, to publicly disperse unjust, indirect blame upon these two males?
The same can also be said upon this alibi of SK, you are more than aware that this innocent male also, was also alibied by his father. That you have known about this in surety since the failed attempt to the SCCRC, when it was clearly pointed out to both yourself and Ms Lean, several years ago.
That your son most definitely did wear jackets, he was wearing one on the 30th of June 2003 in the height of summer, also throughout this summer after purchasing a new Parka, hardly evidence of this difficulty in getting him to wear one.
You, as Ms Lean also states, are 100% wrong, in that this search trio did NOT HAVE to walk passed YW's on their way to Roansdyke path, it would have taken them in another direction altogether. That is four areas, the theory, the jacket, the alibi and the search trio which are not correct. We can add on the evidence of one of Luke's friends who DID give evidence at this trial along with several more. The question here therefore is, why? Why if there is clear proof of Luke's innocence, would one need to do this?
Finally this confession and mystery male - are NOT one and the same, also clearly shown by Ms Lean.
And yet, you would wish the public to believe that you may be speaking the truth around other crucial evidence?
Strongly suspect Sandra Lean did discuss this ‘theory’ with Corinne Mitchell