"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

I think the missing parka is the single most compelling piece of evidence against LM, then LM finding the body, then the false alibi. Every single piece of evidence is important (obviously), but the aforementioned 3 strands are the most convincing.

Did Miss Coutts tell the jury killer Luke Mitchell has threatened her with a knife when she was 11?

[Nicholas]

Good post. Makes a lot of sense and highlights what a unique case it was. Such a tragic and difficult case for all involved -- including the media.

Does anyone know how many ‘banning orders’ were made and how many photographic exhibits were placed under a ban?

‘First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

[Nicholas]

Does anyone know how many ‘banning orders’ were made and how many photographic exhibits were placed under a ban?

‘First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

And why was only one replica knife photograph exhibit ever published?

Was a ban placed on the other exhibits ?

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria still doesn’t realise the witness who claimed to have seen the moped at V break in the wall was mistaken


Ana Azaria
The Moped Boys statements
*Disclaimer - the point of this post is not to suggest that anyone is guilty, but to highlight the discrepancies in the investigation and the way that Luke was treated in comparison. Was it fair?
JF –      Jodi’s ‘half cousin’, half-sister to YW who is JuJ’s brother’s daughter.
GD – related to JF through his mother’s family.
On the evening of 4th July and morning of 5th July, Police appealed for 2 youths on a moped to come forward as a witness. One came forward afternoon of the 5th, and the other on the 6th. A witness had seen the moped leaning against the V break in the wall at around 5.15pm, the time that the prosecution believed Jodi had been murdered.
The Following day, the 7th – the newspapers reported that the moped boys had been traced and eliminated, so they were cleared immediately before any results on DNA tests were returned.
One of the boys, JF had been living at AW's, (Jodi’s gran) house, for 4 to 5 weeks before the murder, according to her statement on 23 July - but prior to this, she had only mentioned him once, stating he had stayed the night prior to the murder (29th).
JuJ did not mention to police that JF had been in either her house or AW’s house, nor did JaJ, Jodi’s sister, who was also living with AW.
The day after the murder – AW, an unnamed male family member and YW, all knew that the two boys, JF & GD, had been on the path at the time of the murder – none of them told the police.
In one of his statements JF had said, “YW is talking rubbish about me saying I was going to the police on July 1st, I never said that”.
Another statement describes JF in the days after the murder as being ‘tense’ and ‘snappy’ when the news came on mentioning Jodi…even though he managed to miss appeals for people in the area at the time to come forward to the police.
JF cut off his own hair before speaking to police. In early statements, he said he had cut his hair because he did not want to be 'wrongly accused of the murder'.
At the trial, DF showed the court (a selection of) newspaper reports which talked about a potential suspect with curly hair.
DF asked JF: 'Why were you so keen to get rid of your curly hair that you cut it yourself, making such a mess of it you had to get it sorted professionally?'
JF replied: 'I don't know.
Again, family did not mention his behaviour even though they knew he had been on the path & cut off his hair, even though police had asked for reports of people acting strangely.
5 days were lost before police spoke to him.
GD said, “My Mum phoned me on Saturday (July 5th) and said the police were looking for me and JF, as we had been up the Roman Dyke.”
His mother is yet another person who knew before the police appeal for the boys on the moped that JF & GD had been on the path.
Between 5&7 members of Jodi’s family & extended family knew the ‘moped boys’ had been there, at the correct times, and no one mentioned it to the police.
JF claimed not to have heard appeals for the first 5 days - but he told investigators that the reason he didn’t come forward sooner was because AW told him not to as he & GD were on the path too early.
The boys went on to tell police that they were on the path an hour earlier than they really were, saying that they were on the path at around 4pm that day. Statements from JF blamed the clock in GDs house showing the wrong time, however GD knew the appointment time and how long he had been at the Jobcentre that day. Police discovered that the boys were on the path around 5pm because they had been seen and heard by no less than 6 witnesses from a local business at closing time.
At trial, neither boy was able to explain where they were when the bike was spotted against the wall, their response to the question being, “I don’t know” and “I can’t remember”.
In initial statements, the boys said that the moped’s engine had stopped working, and that they'd had to push it up the path. In another statement, GD said that they would not have been able to hear anything ‘over the noise of the bike’. He followed with “If I could have done something to stop her death...”.
Cyclist heard motorbike behind wall
Another prosecution witness who stood at trial, was cyclist LK. He had described initially, hearing a rustling sound as he cycled past the area. By the trial, he was describing a strangling, human sound behind the wall. He also said: “It sounded like a gargling, restriction of someone’s throat." He estimated that the time he was in the area was between 5.05pm and 5.20pm. LK said he was alarmed when he heard the noise but had not stopped because of nerves. The prosecution attempted to use his description to further back up the claimed 5.15pm time of the murder. But – LK also stated: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall.”
What didn’t appear to have been questioned was, if LK had heard the moped while it was still clearly running and while he heard sounds that the prosecution believed could have been the murder taking place – and the other witness had seen the moped leaning against the V break in the wall, after it had ‘cut out’ (5.15pm)...where does that place the moped/moped boys in relation to the time of the murder? They said that they did not see Jodi, but they were in the area at and just after the sounds heard by LK, which were used by the prosecution to back up the time of death.
The appeal documents stated that LK did not see the moped boys, nor he them – suggesting that the moped boys were not in the area at the time of the murder, dismissing their relevance. However, they did not mention that LK heard a motorbike or acknowledge that this was before the bike was leaning against the wall!
The moped boys had discussed “everything” for the 5 days before going to the police and had lied about the time they were there.
JF & GDs statements largely mentioned Luke – knives, cannabis, weirdness. Their statements didn’t mention themselves until several pages in as they were so focused on Luke.
A pair of “muddy” & “damp” gloves were found in YW’s behind a radiator and reported to the police, both JF & GD said they belonged to them. Initially JF said that he had borrowed the gloves from his brother and that he had stored them in a drawer along with some condoms a knife and his wallet, according to JF the gloves were dry when he put them in the drawer and could not explain how they got damp or why they ended up behind the radiator.
In a statement dated November 26th GD said “The only other thing I remember about gloves is that sometime after the murder, JF said something about his sister YW finding a pair of wet gloves and giving them to the police. He said, 'I don’t know if they’re mine or yours but it’s a bit dodgy'. I don’t know what he meant by that but I wasn’t really bothered."
There was further confusion around what JF was wearing that night. In a statement given on 30th July JF said he had been wearing a blue sweatshirt – in a previous statement he had said he wore a yellow top. The description of the boys given by the staff members at the local company didn't included a yellow top.
Despite being unable to explain their movements that day at the scene of the crime and the subsequent strange behaviour which was not followed up as a reasonable line of enquiry by the police, JF and GD were still called on to give evidence AGAINST Luke.
The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and could not be forensically tested.

 


The name that the public kept referring to - by the 3rd July 2003 - when contacting the police was killer Luke Mitchell’s

Intimate Partner Femicide Timeline
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/

[faithlilly]

I concede that it is a tad odd that the photo wasn't shown to CM by AT, but maybe he didn't think it was necessary because of the cross section of people -- 8 witnesses, as he said to CM whilst she was on the stand -- he said had said (presumably under oath) they had seen him in that parka before the murder (family, friends, school teachers and acquaintances). Even if AT had shown her the photo, she would have likely have said she couldn't remember him having the parka. It was interesting that when AT confronted her about these witnesses, she said she was not suggesting they were lying, but that she could not remember her son ever having one (ahem!). 8 witnesses = overwhelming evidence he had worn a parka before 30.06.03; no need for the photo.

As I said, I spoke to a woman from Whitburn --  in her thirties with kids  -- whose sister was a witness at the trial and whose sister had a photo of LM with Jodi and some friends at concert circa May/June '03, which the police took as evidence and never returned. The woman was not a troll, and I highly doubt she would make the story up for attention or 'to act the big woman'. The woman struck me as reasonably bright, level-headed and sincere.
I

What can I say?

No matter how bright, level-headed and sincere the woman you spoke to seemed she was lying to you. I know you might feel too embarrassed to admit it but that doesn’t change the fact.

[faithlilly]

I think the missing parka is the single most compelling piece of evidence against LM, then LM finding the body, then the false alibi. Every single piece of evidence is important (obviously), but the aforementioned 3 strands are the most convincing.

I agree. The missing parka would have been one of the most compelling pieces of evidence against Luke which makes it unimaginable that Corrine wouldn’t be asked about it by Turnbull. Witnesses can be disbelieved, 15 alibi witnesses were disbelieved in the Cardiff 3 case….a photograph is far more compelling evidence than eye witness testimony. If Turnbull had had a photograph of Luke wearing a parka then the Crown wouldn’t have to have introduced the tattoo parlour witnesses to damage Corrine’s credibility.

[faithlilly]

Did Miss Coutts tell the jury killer Luke Mitchell has threatened her with a knife when she was 11?

It doesn’t appear so because, under oath, she couldn’t lie.

It’s strange that you seem to believe that the most incriminating pieces of testimony and evidence…the photo, the alleged knife attacks on small girls etc all seem to have been missing from what was very intensive reporting. Odd that.

[faithlilly]

Does anyone know how many ‘banning orders’ were made and how many photographic exhibits were placed under a ban?

‘First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

From your link:

“ The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.”

[faithlilly]

Ana Azaria still doesn’t realise the witness who claimed to have seen the moped at V break in the wall was mistaken


Ana Azaria
The Moped Boys statements
*Disclaimer - the point of this post is not to suggest that anyone is guilty, but to highlight the discrepancies in the investigation and the way that Luke was treated in comparison. Was it fair?
JF –      Jodi’s ‘half cousin’, half-sister to YW who is JuJ’s brother’s daughter.
GD – related to JF through his mother’s family.
On the evening of 4th July and morning of 5th July, Police appealed for 2 youths on a moped to come forward as a witness. One came forward afternoon of the 5th, and the other on the 6th. A witness had seen the moped leaning against the V break in the wall at around 5.15pm, the time that the prosecution believed Jodi had been murdered.
The Following day, the 7th – the newspapers reported that the moped boys had been traced and eliminated, so they were cleared immediately before any results on DNA tests were returned.
One of the boys, JF had been living at AW's, (Jodi’s gran) house, for 4 to 5 weeks before the murder, according to her statement on 23 July - but prior to this, she had only mentioned him once, stating he had stayed the night prior to the murder (29th).
JuJ did not mention to police that JF had been in either her house or AW’s house, nor did JaJ, Jodi’s sister, who was also living with AW.
The day after the murder – AW, an unnamed male family member and YW, all knew that the two boys, JF & GD, had been on the path at the time of the murder – none of them told the police.
In one of his statements JF had said, “YW is talking rubbish about me saying I was going to the police on July 1st, I never said that”.
Another statement describes JF in the days after the murder as being ‘tense’ and ‘snappy’ when the news came on mentioning Jodi…even though he managed to miss appeals for people in the area at the time to come forward to the police.
JF cut off his own hair before speaking to police. In early statements, he said he had cut his hair because he did not want to be 'wrongly accused of the murder'.
At the trial, DF showed the court (a selection of) newspaper reports which talked about a potential suspect with curly hair.
DF asked JF: 'Why were you so keen to get rid of your curly hair that you cut it yourself, making such a mess of it you had to get it sorted professionally?'
JF replied: 'I don't know.
Again, family did not mention his behaviour even though they knew he had been on the path & cut off his hair, even though police had asked for reports of people acting strangely.
5 days were lost before police spoke to him.
GD said, “My Mum phoned me on Saturday (July 5th) and said the police were looking for me and JF, as we had been up the Roman Dyke.”
His mother is yet another person who knew before the police appeal for the boys on the moped that JF & GD had been on the path.
Between 5&7 members of Jodi’s family & extended family knew the ‘moped boys’ had been there, at the correct times, and no one mentioned it to the police.
JF claimed not to have heard appeals for the first 5 days - but he told investigators that the reason he didn’t come forward sooner was because AW told him not to as he & GD were on the path too early.
The boys went on to tell police that they were on the path an hour earlier than they really were, saying that they were on the path at around 4pm that day. Statements from JF blamed the clock in GDs house showing the wrong time, however GD knew the appointment time and how long he had been at the Jobcentre that day. Police discovered that the boys were on the path around 5pm because they had been seen and heard by no less than 6 witnesses from a local business at closing time.
At trial, neither boy was able to explain where they were when the bike was spotted against the wall, their response to the question being, “I don’t know” and “I can’t remember”.
In initial statements, the boys said that the moped’s engine had stopped working, and that they'd had to push it up the path. In another statement, GD said that they would not have been able to hear anything ‘over the noise of the bike’. He followed with “If I could have done something to stop her death...”.
Cyclist heard motorbike behind wall
Another prosecution witness who stood at trial, was cyclist LK. He had described initially, hearing a rustling sound as he cycled past the area. By the trial, he was describing a strangling, human sound behind the wall. He also said: “It sounded like a gargling, restriction of someone’s throat." He estimated that the time he was in the area was between 5.05pm and 5.20pm. LK said he was alarmed when he heard the noise but had not stopped because of nerves. The prosecution attempted to use his description to further back up the claimed 5.15pm time of the murder. But – LK also stated: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall.”
What didn’t appear to have been questioned was, if LK had heard the moped while it was still clearly running and while he heard sounds that the prosecution believed could have been the murder taking place – and the other witness had seen the moped leaning against the V break in the wall, after it had ‘cut out’ (5.15pm)...where does that place the moped/moped boys in relation to the time of the murder? They said that they did not see Jodi, but they were in the area at and just after the sounds heard by LK, which were used by the prosecution to back up the time of death.
The appeal documents stated that LK did not see the moped boys, nor he them – suggesting that the moped boys were not in the area at the time of the murder, dismissing their relevance. However, they did not mention that LK heard a motorbike or acknowledge that this was before the bike was leaning against the wall!
The moped boys had discussed “everything” for the 5 days before going to the police and had lied about the time they were there.
JF & GDs statements largely mentioned Luke – knives, cannabis, weirdness. Their statements didn’t mention themselves until several pages in as they were so focused on Luke.
A pair of “muddy” & “damp” gloves were found in YW’s behind a radiator and reported to the police, both JF & GD said they belonged to them. Initially JF said that he had borrowed the gloves from his brother and that he had stored them in a drawer along with some condoms a knife and his wallet, according to JF the gloves were dry when he put them in the drawer and could not explain how they got damp or why they ended up behind the radiator.
In a statement dated November 26th GD said “The only other thing I remember about gloves is that sometime after the murder, JF said something about his sister YW finding a pair of wet gloves and giving them to the police. He said, 'I don’t know if they’re mine or yours but it’s a bit dodgy'. I don’t know what he meant by that but I wasn’t really bothered."
There was further confusion around what JF was wearing that night. In a statement given on 30th July JF said he had been wearing a blue sweatshirt – in a previous statement he had said he wore a yellow top. The description of the boys given by the staff members at the local company didn't included a yellow top.
Despite being unable to explain their movements that day at the scene of the crime and the subsequent strange behaviour which was not followed up as a reasonable line of enquiry by the police, JF and GD were still called on to give evidence AGAINST Luke.
The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and could not be forensically tested.

 


The name that the public kept referring to - by the 3rd July 2003 - when contacting the police was killer Luke Mitchell’s

Intimate Partner Femicide Timeline
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/

Then why did John [Name removed] admit that the bike was there in court?

[Nicholas]

the tattoo parlour witnesses to damage Corrine’s credibility.

The ‘tattoo parlour’ evidence was damning too

Just over 3 months after carrying out his murder - 15 year old sadistic killer Luke Mitchell gets an underage tattoo of a devil with flames coming out of it

Corinne Mitchell claimed this was to “celebrate the end of a difficult time”

This was just over a month after these two disrespected the Jones family and didn’t regard their wishes about staying away from the days events

Then they disrespected them further by doing a TV interview which showed the pair of them on TV later that evening

Killer Luke Mitchell wanted the attention to be on him

[faithlilly]

The ‘tattoo parlour’ evidence was damning too

Just over 3 months after carrying out his murder - 15 year old sadistic killer Luke Mitchell gets an underage tattoo of a devil with flames coming out of it

Corinne Mitchell claimed this was to “celebrate the end of a difficult time”

This was just over a month after these two disrespected the Jones family and didn’t regard their wishes about staying away from the days events

Then they disrespected them further by doing a TV interview which showed the pair on them on TV later that evening

Killer Luke Mitchell wanted the attention to be on him

I’m not allowing you to distract by getting into the weeds alongside you.

The tattoo evidence wouldn’t have been needed if Turnbull had been able to destroy Corrine’s credibility with the alleged photograph of Luke wearing a parka. It was entered as there was no photograph.

[Nicholas]

Then why did John [Name removed] admit that the bike was there in court?

Donald Findlay had been gaslighting John F erris for a considerable period of time. It’s not surprising John made a mistake

It seems there was also an actual knife in the court being used as an exhibit - as well as photographs of knives

’ Advocate-depute Alan Turnbull QC, prosecuting, asked [Name removed] whether he had ever seen Mitchell with a knife.

[Name removed] said he had seen him with 'different knives' on 'many occasions'.

He was shown a knife and pictures of knives, including two silver ones and a lock knife with a brown handle.

[Name removed] identified the ones in photographs as being similar to ones he had seen in Mitchell's possession.
  https://www.thefreelibrary.com/DID+YOU+MURDER+JODI%3F+QC%27s+challenge+to+her+cousin+at+High+Court.-a0125208334

What did John F erris say about the actual knife, as opposed to the photographs of knives?

[Nicholas]

I’m not allowing you to distract by getting into the weeds alongside you.

The tattoo evidence wouldn’t have been needed if Turnbull had been able to destroy Corrine’s credibility with the alleged photograph of Luke wearing a parka. It was entered as there was no photograph.

Corinne Mitchell had already destroyed her own credibility by denying her killer son Luke Mitchell owned a jacket like the replacement jacket she bought him - 8 days after he had committed his murder.

He didn’t need a new jacket - as can be seen by the photographs of his bedroom

Killer Luke Mitchell owned numerous jackets and the police were only interesting in seizing his dark/green coloured jackets

Numerous credible witnesses, who had all given evidence before Corinne Mitchell, saw her killer son wearing a khaki green coloured army style jacket before he committed his murder and before she had bought him a replacement

[Nicholas]

From your link:
“ The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.”

The ‘media could report what went on in court’ was said in a pre-trial briefing

Things changed regarding reporting after this

For television reports, this resulted in a continual struggle to describe adequately to the audience images - of photographs, of weapons, of maps - which the people in this public court were seeing; hence the poignant over-use of the home video of Jodi Jones.

The challenge to make television coverage relevant and comprehensible, especially when the evidence was complicated and circumstantial, was at least partly mitigated by the courtroom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

Where are the photographs of maps?

What maps were shown during the trial?

I don’t recall any reporters referring to any maps!?

What witnesses were asked questions regarding maps?

[Mr Apples]

Corinne Mitchell had already destroyed her own credibility by denying her killer son Luke Mitchell owned a jacket like the replacement jacket she bought him - 8 days after he had committed his murder.

He didn’t need a new jacket - as can be seen by the photographs of his bedroom

Killer Luke Mitchell owned numerous jackets and the police were only interesting in seizing his dark/green coloured jackets

Numerous credible witnesses, who had all given evidence before Corinne Mitchell, saw her killer son wearing a khaki green coloured army style jacket before he committed his murder and before she had bought him a replacement

I think CM said during a podcast that her son LM wasn't keen on jackets and that "you couldn't get him to wear one". More lies.