Author Topic: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?  (Read 60305 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #90 on: March 22, 2021, 10:36:06 PM »
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?

And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #91 on: March 22, 2021, 10:37:30 PM »
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?
Murder is thirsty work I’m sure!
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Rusty

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2021, 10:40:16 PM »
child
/tʃʌɪld/
 Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

He was a child.

Ah, you finally get some kind of source. It's not like you, Copy & paste one. Anyway. Did you get the source for the claim you made about SM Apprehension? Been days now I've been waiting. Or are you just intent on tittle tattle arguments with other posters?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #93 on: March 22, 2021, 10:42:29 PM »
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?

Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #94 on: March 22, 2021, 10:45:14 PM »
And where are you claiming 20 empty large fizzy drinks bottles came from for Mitchell to fill from around 7am ish on 1st July 2003 until early on the 4th?

And if the FLO was in the Mitchell family home from the 1st onwards - doesn’t this also reduce the time further still to fill these 20 empty fizzy drinks bottles?

Sandra Lean and co have yet to explain where these empty bottles came from and how they were filled - especially given the fact Mitchell is said to be sleeping downstairs on one of the couches

Wasn’t there a downstairs WC?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 10:56:45 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Parky41

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #95 on: March 22, 2021, 10:48:41 PM »
To lie or to have made a mistake....or is she simply not allowed to do that?


Hardly?

When asked about this repeated statement over time, it was not met with It was a mistake, it was met with a narrative of opinion

As was the claim that the search party had to walk from the top of Mayfield rather than from the bottom beside CM's workplace.

As was that of Jodi being grounded.

These three things alone used to imply that the search party had much further to walk than they did, that perhaps this girls mother was lying as her daughter had been at LM's on the Saturday night.

Extracts from 'No Smoke' of SK being on the path at the crucial time, of a mystery man following Jodi into the path - demonstrably wrong.

As the excuses put forward now for CM and her podcast - that she was simply mistaken also? Why on earth would she remember anything of the evidence against her son? or much of anything at all - bar finger pointing, mad theories and calling people names? "Hitler in a skirt" "feral little bleeps"

That none of the boys from the Abbey were witnesses in court - yes they were.

All  mistakes?

Attempts at trying to do the same as AT in court - when he displayed CM's character of lying and doing pretty much as her son demanded of her?

He however had evidence to back this up - there is a difference between evidence and ones own narrative of opinion?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #96 on: March 22, 2021, 11:00:41 PM »
What was Luke Mitchell doing when he was observed walking outside at around 10pm?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #97 on: March 22, 2021, 11:04:26 PM »
Ah, you finally get some kind of source. It's not like you, Copy & paste one. Anyway. Did you get the source for the claim you made about SM Apprehension? Been days now I've been waiting. Or are you just intent on tittle tattle arguments with other posters?

I hope you found something fun to do during those long days you were waiting, futile though it was and will continue to be.

Luke was a child and just because others chose not to treat him as they would a child doesn’t make it less true.

That’s what I find so truly appalling about this case, before this CHILD was even arrested he was vilified in a way that would destroy a grown man, let alone a boy and anyone defending his treatment need to give their moral compass a bit of a reset....if they have one.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #98 on: March 22, 2021, 11:06:31 PM »
And if the FLO was in the Mitchell family home from the 1st onwards - doesn’t this also reduce the time further still to fill these 20 empty fizzy drinks bottles?

Sandra Lean and co have yet to explain where these empty bottles came from and how they were filled - especially given the fact Mitchell is said to be sleeping downstairs on one of the couches

Wasn’t there a downstairs WC?

Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?


Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2021, 11:07:57 PM »
You do know that it started after the murder, don’t you?

I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell urinated into empty fizzy drinks bottles prior to the murder

And para 131 from the CoA judgement appears to indicate such

‘....he had started urinating in bottles because one time he had fallen off his bed when he got up to go to the toilet during the night, that he had hurt his head and had woken everyone up in the house

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #100 on: March 22, 2021, 11:09:57 PM »
Who first alerted the police to the fizzy bottles being there and when?

The bottles were found on 4 July 2003 (CoA para 127) around 20 large fizzy drink size bottles apparently
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #101 on: March 22, 2021, 11:10:40 PM »

Hardly?

When asked about this repeated statement over time, it was not met with It was a mistake, it was met with a narrative of opinion

As was the claim that the search party had to walk from the top of Mayfield rather than from the bottom beside CM's workplace.

As was that of Jodi being grounded.

These three things alone used to imply that the search party had much further to walk than they did, that perhaps this girls mother was lying as her daughter had been at LM's on the Saturday night.

Extracts from 'No Smoke' of SK being on the path at the crucial time, of a mystery man following Jodi into the path - demonstrably wrong.

As the excuses put forward now for CM and her podcast - that she was simply mistaken also? Why on earth would she remember anything of the evidence against her son? or much of anything at all - bar finger pointing, mad theories and calling people names? "Hitler in a skirt" "feral little bleeps"

That none of the boys from the Abbey were witnesses in court - yes they were.

All  mistakes?

Attempts at trying to do the same as AT in court - when he displayed CM's character of lying and doing pretty much as her son demanded of her?

He however had evidence to back this up - there is a difference between evidence and ones own narrative of opinion?

And when you have been asked time and again to provide cites from official sources you refuse to do so. It’s simply not good enough to say something is untrue while refusing to provide evidence to refute it.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #102 on: March 22, 2021, 11:11:19 PM »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #103 on: March 22, 2021, 11:16:07 PM »
Apparently? Expand please?

There were also bottle of urine found on 14 April 2004
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?
« Reply #104 on: March 22, 2021, 11:19:40 PM »
I’m of the firm view Luke Mitchell urinated into empty fizzy drinks bottles prior to the murder

And para 131 from the CoA judgement appears to indicate such

....he had started urinating in bottles because one time he had fallen off his bed when he got up to go to the toilet during the night, that he had hurt his head and had woken everyone up in the house

Mitchell was apparently sleeping on one of the sofas downstairs by the 1st July 2003 therefore the above statement suggests he allegedly hit his head and woke the family up before the 1st July 2003

Ergo not linked to OCD following the murder as Sandra Lean has suggested
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation