"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

Gary Peden
Wasn't there a parker in evidence that was obtained from another address? Maybe I'm misremebering, but even that had no DNA total stich up, if you believe Dorothy Bain sat beside Alan Turnbull sat across the dinner table and never spoke of this case then you probably believe we're in a computer game

Ana Azaria
Gary Peden There was yes - but we don't actually know if they tested it. It was taken from another address, but the Police had said they'd only searched Luke's house - another lie!

Who said the police only searched murderer Luke Mitchell’s house?

DCI Dobbie, on oath….and then he corrected himself and said that they’d searched Luke’s dad’s home as well.

[faithlilly]

Excellent - There you go then. If Jodi had been made aware at school that day of any contact with KT, tying in with him going to Kenmore, then just like you were at that age, you would have been having it out with him? Every chance she did, the girl had no phone, perhaps she borrowed his for something at school and saw those calls from the early hours of Sunday morning. All those possibilities around the unknown that paved no way to be scrawling in a diary or running to friends - Talking of friends.

The claim that LM would have numbers of friends that Jodi's mother would not have - Let us look at this. They had been going out for around 3months, the actual friend they hung out with together was LW, she was away on a school trip. The boys in the Abbey, certainly not them. A ruse? Something said to make it sound like he had reason to make claim of going to Jodi's house, there were no phone numbers, was there? You should be asking for the excerpts from his interviews around who those claimed friends were, for you can bet that LM was asked this?

We know he was not heading to her house, we know he should have been at it, not just over half way up that path. We know he lied to SL repeatedly in 2003 and we know she is fully aware of this. She has been asked who the imaginary friends were from his list of contacts. Even scraping at one would have had him hand it over by phone or indeed call it himself, as said, a ruse?

Those leading answers one will get, such as highlighted on repeat by Nicholas - That the boys from the Abbey backed LM's time of arriving home? No they did not, the boys left LM and headed off in the opposite direction, no one backed LM arriving home just after 9pm, certainly was not a 40min walk to get there. Seen arriving home at 10pm, making that journey in excess of an hour, that is what you call the backing of any times of his arrival.

In your previous posts you’re simply showing how little you know of teenage girls. Jodi may have borrowed his phone at school? Where? It must have been in the China Gardens because we were told by friends in court that that’s where they spent lunchtime that day. She may have had it out with him? Well that can’t be true, can it, or their friends would have heard. Perhaps she said nothing…..a teenage girl, the same girl who said that she would die if Luke finished with her, said nothing? You don’t actually believe that, do you? She didn’t tell her friend who she sat beside in class that Luke was two-timing her….or the friend she travelled home with on the bus? Her mum when she got home? No tears? Really?

“ She ( [Name removed]) tells the court: 'I said, 'That's you hen, you can go out when you want to. You don't have to wait till six o'clock.

'She was chuffed and got my mobile phone to text Luke. She sat next to me on the couch in the living room playing games on the phone until she got an answer back.”

Does that sound like Jodi had just found out the love of her life was cheating on her?

LNS describes Jodi as ‘leaving the house joyfully’. Does that sound like a girl who has just had her heart broken?

[Parky41]

Gary Peden
Wasn't there a parker in evidence that was obtained from another address? Maybe I'm misremebering, but even that had no DNA total stich up, if you believe Dorothy Bain sat beside Alan Turnbull sat across the dinner table and never spoke of this case then you probably believe we're in a computer game

Ana Azaria
Gary Peden There was yes - but we don't actually know if they tested it. It was taken from another address, but the Police had said they'd only searched Luke's house - another lie!

Who said the police only searched murderer Luke Mitchell’s house?

Nonsense, all the continued "cloak and dagger" stuff. Let us try and pluck that slithering of truth here. KC is the person claimed, KC was a Crown witness, KC having precognition carried out, anything to do with KC, any coat signed off therefore fully known about. Woodburn is applied, where do we know that LM definitely frequented pre and after the murder, that will be Woodburn and LW's house. We know she also wore a similar type coat. - Why the coat, what possible reason could the police have for wanting it? requesting it? To eliminate it in several ways, to check to make sure it bore none of LM's DNA, one would not be getting the opportunity to say 'If he had been seen in such a coat pre-murder it may have been a friends? And of course tested to make sure nothing to do with that day also. Someone connected! Crossing those T's and dotting those i's.

As soon as SF's started mouthing out about this, he instantly put his head into that hole. 'CD lied, he said that only LM's house had been searched!' No he didn't, SF's was lying. The questioning around 'only having eyes for LM' Not investigating others in the case --------Only searching properties to do with HIM, connected in some way. The family business no doubt searched also.

Now let us look at search here, ones that are requested and ones that have warrants applied - And of course, not snifter of any illegal actions throughout. The item of clothing no doubt returned to its owner in 2021- There is again no "hidden" no "buried" no "undisclosed" There is always precognitions of Crown witnesses -------- That yarn just keeps on spinning.

[faithlilly]

Nonsense, all the continued "cloak and dagger" stuff. Let us try and pluck that slithering of truth here. KC is the person claimed, KC was a Crown witness, KC having precognition carried out, anything to do with KC, any coat signed off therefore fully known about. Woodburn is applied, where do we know that LM definitely frequented pre and after the murder, that will be Woodburn and LW's house. We know she also wore a similar type coat. - Why the coat, what possible reason could the police have for wanting it? requesting it? To eliminate it in several ways, to check to make sure it bore none of LM's DNA, one would not be getting the opportunity to say 'If he had been seen in such a coat pre-murder it may have been a friends? And of course tested to make sure nothing to do with that day also. Someone connected! Crossing those T's and dotting those i's.

As soon as SF's started mouthing out about this, he instantly put his head into that hole. 'CD lied, he said that only LM's house had been searched!' No he didn't, SF's was lying. The questioning around 'only having eyes for LM' Not investigating others in the case --------Only searching properties to do with HIM, connected in some way. The family business no doubt searched also.

Now let us look at search here, ones that are requested and ones that have warrants applied - And of course, not snifter of any illegal actions throughout. The item of clothing no doubt returned to its owner in 2021- There is again no "hidden" no "buried" no "undisclosed" There is always precognitions of Crown witnesses -------- That yarn just keeps on spinning.

All of the above with never a day in court, never a glance at an official document and never sight of a witness statement. Scott Forbes and Dr Lean with those 32 boxes of evidence. Who to believe…mmmm?

[Nicholas]

Nonsense, all the continued "cloak and dagger" stuff. Let us try and pluck that slithering of truth here. KC is the person claimed, KC was a Crown witness, KC having precognition carried out, anything to do with KC, any coat signed off therefore fully known about. Woodburn is applied, where do we know that LM definitely frequented pre and after the murder, that will be Woodburn and LW's house. We know she also wore a similar type coat. - Why the coat, what possible reason could the police have for wanting it? requesting it? To eliminate it in several ways, to check to make sure it bore none of LM's DNA, one would not be getting the opportunity to say 'If he had been seen in such a coat pre-murder it may have been a friends? And of course tested to make sure nothing to do with that day also. Someone connected! Crossing those T's and dotting those i's.

As soon as SF's started mouthing out about this, he instantly put his head into that hole. 'CD lied, he said that only LM's house had been searched!' No he didn't, SF's was lying. The questioning around 'only having eyes for LM' Not investigating others in the case --------Only searching properties to do with HIM, connected in some way. The family business no doubt searched also.

Now let us look at search here, ones that are requested and ones that have warrants applied - And of course, not snifter of any illegal actions throughout. The item of clothing no doubt returned to its owner in 2021- There is again no "hidden" no "buried" no "undisclosed" There is always precognitions of Crown witnesses -------- That yarn just keeps on spinning.

Sandra Lean
…all the “children” at the time of Jodi’s murder were over 16 at the time of the trial, except for 2, whose evidence was not used at trial   

Sandra Lean - On How To Say There Were Reporting Restrictions Without Saying There Were Reporting Restrictions (Part 164)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/

[faithlilly]

Sandra Lean
…all the “children” at the time of Jodi’s murder were over 16 at the time of the trial, except for 2, whose evidence was not used at trial   

Sandra Lean - On How To Say There Were Reporting Restrictions Without Saying There Were Reporting Restrictions (Part 164)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/19/killer-luke-mitchell-cofidence-trickster-sandra-lean-on-how-to-say-there-were-reporting-restrictions-without-saying-there-were-reporting-restrictions-part-163/

As Keith Campbell was 14 at the time of the trial and you have referenced a report of his testimony it suggests that there was no reporting restrictions in place…as Dr Lean said.

[Kenmair]

All of the above with never a day in court, never a glance at an official document and never sight of a witness statement. Scott Forbes and Dr Lean with those 32 boxes of evidence. Who to believe…mmmm?

I would believe the jury who heard every part of evidence for 42 days and made their decision based on that. Not 2 people cherry picking parts of the defence papers and not being able to put forward a credible argument in 15 years. Quoting Forbes, an on-off trainee lawyer prone to late night "fuelled" victim shaming rants on social media, as any type of authority on this case is baffling.

The jury got it right first time, the appeal courts on subsequent occasions.

[faithlilly]

I would believe the jury who heard every part of evidence for 42 days and made their decision based on that. Not 2 people cherry picking parts of the defence papers and not being able to put forward a credible argument in 15 years. Quoting Forbes, an on-off trainee lawyer prone to late night "fuelled" victim shaming rants on social media, as any type of authority on this case is baffling.

The jury got it right first time, the appeal courts on subsequent occasions.

Not all of the jury were convinced….lest we forget. As you said, every part of the evidence for 42 days and the Crown failed to convince a number of the jury.

[Bullseye]

In your previous posts you’re simply showing how little you know of teenage girls. Jodi may have borrowed his phone at school? Where? It must have been in the China Gardens because we were told by friends in court that that’s where they spent lunchtime that day. She may have had it out with him? Well that can’t be true, can it, or their friends would have heard. Perhaps she said nothing…..a teenage girl, the same girl who said that she would die if Luke finished with her, said nothing? You don’t actually believe that, do you? She didn’t tell her friend who she sat beside in class that Luke was two-timing her….or the friend she travelled home with on the bus? Her mum when she got home? No tears? Really?

“ She ( [Name removed]) tells the court: 'I said, 'That's you hen, you can go out when you want to. You don't have to wait till six o'clock.

'She was chuffed and got my mobile phone to text Luke. She sat next to me on the couch in the living room playing games on the phone until she got an answer back.”

Does that sound like Jodi had just found out the love of her life was cheating on her?

LNS describes Jodi as ‘leaving the house joyfully’. Does that sound like a girl who has just had her heart broken?

Miss Thomson said Mr Mitchell was supposed to visit her last summer but this was "cancelled".
The teenager believed the visit was due to have been the weekend before Jodi was murdered but, when questioned about whether it could have been later, she said she could not remember.

Do we know why the visit was cancelled? If it was after the murder I think she would definitely remember. Why did Luke not go, did he cancel or KT?
I also don’t believe Jodi was looking to confront Luke when she left the house. If they did indeed meet up then who knows what was said between them, but when she left there is nothing to show she was upset or anything bothering her.
Also does anyone know if KT remembers Luke in a parka? Or was she asked about this in court? If she was staying with him from Boxing Day til new year I would think that be when he might wear his parka over winter?

[faithlilly]

Miss Thomson said Mr Mitchell was supposed to visit her last summer but this was "cancelled".
The teenager believed the visit was due to have been the weekend before Jodi was murdered but, when questioned about whether it could have been later, she said she could not remember.

Do we know why the visit was cancelled? If it was after the murder I think she would definitely remember. Why did Luke not go, did he cancel or KT?
I also don’t believe Jodi was looking to confront Luke when she left the house. If they did indeed meet up then who knows what was said between them, but when she left there is nothing to show she was upset or anything bothering her.
Also does anyone know if KT remembers Luke in a parka? Or was she asked about this in court? If she was staying with him from Boxing Day til new year I would think that be when he might wear his parka over winter?

Corrine Mitchell cancelled the trip I believe.

[Mr Apples]

Miss Thomson said Mr Mitchell was supposed to visit her last summer but this was "cancelled".
The teenager believed the visit was due to have been the weekend before Jodi was murdered but, when questioned about whether it could have been later, she said she could not remember.

Do we know why the visit was cancelled? If it was after the murder I think she would definitely remember. Why did Luke not go, did he cancel or KT?
I also don’t believe Jodi was looking to confront Luke when she left the house. If they did indeed meet up then who knows what was said between them, but when she left there is nothing to show she was upset or anything bothering her.
Also does anyone know if KT remembers Luke in a parka? Or was she asked about this in court? If she was staying with him from Boxing Day til new year I would think that be when he might wear his parka over winter?

I spoke to a woman from Whitburn on youtube & messenger a few months back whose younger sister was called as a witness to court. This woman told me that her wee sister had a photo of LM wearing the parka at a concert circa May '03, and that Jodi and some other friends were in this photo too. This girl was adamant  that this photo was shown in court as evidence. Also, the woman indicated that KT was a witness at court on the same days as her wee sister, and that KT had a photo of LM wearing a parka from circa February '03, which was also shown in court as evidence (incidentally, there is an old post from KT communicating with another forum member on another website where she clearly states that he definitely did own a parka pre-murder; in this same post, she also said that LM was a good liar and very smart). Interestingly, the Whiburn lass also told me that CCTV footage from St David's High School was also shown in court to prove he owned that parka before the murder. Some posters on here think that these photos & cctv footage weren't produced in court as evidence because it was never mentioned in the press and that vital evidence such as this would've been reported immediately. However, not all journalists were at this trial every day and so it's possible this evidence went unnoticed, or the journalists who were there when this evidence was presented in court didn't place as much importance on it (journalists have their own thoughts & interpretations on what they deem vital information, and, besides, some journos are much better at their jobs than others).

I have no reason to not believe this woman. Besides, none of us on here were at the 42-day trial, were we?

[Nicholas]

LM was a good liar and very smart

By smart, did she mean cunning and calculated?

Corinne Mitchell purchased the replacement parka on the 8th July 2003 - she told the trial the reason for the purchase was because ‘they were in fashion’

But when she spoke to James English in 2019 she said she purchased the parka because it was on ‘sale’

Corinne Mitchell also told James English the police had taken all of killer Luke Mitchell’s clothes by July 2003, so she needed to replace them

What jackets/clothes of killer Luke Mitchell’s had been seized by the police by the 4th July 2003?

[Nicholas]

What jackets/clothes of killer Luke Mitchell’s had been seized by the police by the 4th July 2003?

[162] “….the appellant told the police at interview on 4 July 2003 that he and Jodi would sit on the other side of the wall from the Roan's Dyke Path near to the gap in the wall at the junction of the two paths and "have a cigarette or whatever". In the same interview he said that there was "a tiny wee path ... that folk walk along in the inside of that wall", i.e. on the other side from the Roan's Dyke Path. There was evidence, indeed, that just inside a gap in the wall at the junction of the paths stood a small tree with the initials [Name removed] and LM carved in its bark. A witness David Stirling described an occasion in early June 2003 when he was with friends and they met the appellant at the junction of the paths. They went down the inside of the wall (towards the "V") for some distance, then sat and smoked cannabis. Another witness, John [Name removed], said that on two occasions when the appellant telephoned asking for quantities of cannabis, they arranged to meet at the opening in the wall at the junction of the paths. On one of these occasions when they met the appellant said that he was waiting for Jodi”

Killer Luke Mitchell: The Untold Truth II (Part 163)
‘He said he "Just had a hunch, a gut instinct that something was behind the wall" At the first break, the Gino break.
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/18/killer-luke-mitchell-these-times-events-cannot-be-altered-at-all-part-163/

[Nicholas]

What did 15 year old killer Luke Mitchell’s tattoo look like https://bodyartguru.com/flaming-skull-tattoo/

[Mr Apples]

By smart, did she mean cunning and calculated?

Corinne Mitchell purchased the replacement parka on the 8th July 2003 - she told the trial the reason for the purchase was because ‘they were in fashion’

But when she spoke to James English she said she purchased the parka because it was on ‘sale’

Corinne Mitchell also told James English the police had taken all of killer Luke Mitchell’s clothes by July 2003, so she needed to replace them

What jackets/clothes of killer Luke Mitchell’s had been seized by the police by the 4th July 2003?

Think she meant intelligent, though she did also say, I think, he was manipulative and would believe all his own lies. She also said he used to keep all of his knives in the pockets of the jacket.

The parka jacket, for me, is the most compelling evidence of LM's guilt. Then, of course, being spotted at both ends of that path (with a convenient 45-min gap between the sightings, strangling noises coming from that woodland strip as per LK's testimony; and who else matched/was a doppelganger for LM in such small areas/settlements?). And then factor in the broken alibi and finding that body in record time in the pitch.black of night (and the plethora of other circumstantial evidence in between). Case closed.