Why doesn't Shane Mitchell speak out if his brother is innocent?

[Angelo222]

I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.

I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?

But it seems like you're not allowed to question any of this. It then gets deflected into, you're the one that has to provide sources, but any media clippings are not good enough? Sandra's word is gospel and that's the end of it. It is the same deflection tactics that they have used since day jot. Are people seriously this naive?

You are absolute 100% right that after all this time and many appeals the SCCRC, although i think the SCCRC needs some reform. They can see right though the Mitchell camp. Which suggests to me, that this is no longer about Luke's innocence, he is just a pawn used to promote something else. These arms and legs these stories have grown are just to attract a new audience to milk.

These individuals cannot debate the case without resorting to name calling and insults. At least faithlilly has the decency to stay with it and try to make a case for Luke Mitchell. I fear she has picked a loser though. 

[Nicholas]

Won’t answer questions about Shane Mitchell but has no problem publishing a 380 page book questioning others?

Stonewalling and withdrawing because you’ve hit a chord over Shane Mitchell yet has no problem bullying the Jones family and others into disclosing personal and intimate details regardless of the psychological damage it may cause them?

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452173.html#msg452173
“It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.

⬆️

[Rusty]

What about if he was a suspect?

Indeed. Was he a suspect?

[Nicholas]

Indeed. Was he a suspect?

Suspicion did fall on him yes

[Rusty]

Suspicion did fall on him yes

Ok.

I still need to know how this story has been told, and weather, because SM was a suspect is the reason that this police operation came about. I kind of get the impression, this story has come, is to explain SM change of statement and to reinforce the claim he was the victim of the bully boy tactics of the police.  Since the original poster has not come back to me, do you know where I can find, where this story has been written or said?

[faithlilly]

Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?

I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?

Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it.  Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?

For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case.

Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.

BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.

[Nicholas]

Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.

BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.

Sandra Lean isn’t the only person with access to the court papers

[mrswah]

Posts like yours are why there are very few posters here arguing for Luke’s innocence.

BTW where do you get your information from, if not the media? Were you in court? Have you seen all the transcripts of all the interviews? If not I’d hang off calling Sandra a liar until you have.

Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.

Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into  the case, whether she  turns out to be right or wrong.

[faithlilly]

Ok.

I still need to know how this story has been told, and weather, because SM was a suspect is the reason that this police operation came about. I kind of get the impression, this story has come, is to explain SM change of statement and to reinforce the claim he was the victim of the bully boy tactics of the police.  Since the original poster has not come back to me, do you know where I can find, where this story has been written or said?

The original poster knows the truth of the claim. It is up to you whether you want to believe it, research it or immediately reject it as you appear to have done.

[faithlilly]

Sandra Lean isn’t the only person with access to the court papers

Of course not but I believe she is the only individual who has published excerpts.

[Angelo222]

Indeed. Was he a suspect?

Two males who were drug users and whose story were different and yes he was a suspect until his alibi was corroborated.

[Angelo222]

Of course not but I believe she is the only individual who has published excerpts.

It is illegal to publish court statements in Scotland.

[Angelo222]

Looking around online, quite a lot of people are arguing for Luke's innocence.

Sandra gets a lot of stick-----but , it seems, there are very few other people who have her knowledge and insight into  the case, whether she  turns out to be right or wrong.

There are a lot of people who have been taken in by that rubbish Ch5 documentary, it's not their fault that they have been misled because that is what it amounts to.

Mitchell was identified at both ends of Roan's Dyke path by independent witnesses. First he was seen arguing with a young girl, presumed to have been Jodi, at the Easthouses end of the path. Later after the murder he was seen by that gate on the Newbattle Road. It all adds up, no other people came forward to say they were there, only Mitchell was in the frame

[faithlilly]

It is illegal to publish court statements in Scotland.

I believe it’s whole statements not excerpts.

[Angelo222]

I believe it’s whole statements not excerpts.

You can quote extracts, he said...she said, but not entire documents yes.