Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[mrswah]

Did the parents or parent allow these teenagers that you know to do these things?

I doubt the parent(s) knew, to be honest.

[Rusty]

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.

You make demands of others providing sources, but it seems you are above those very same demands.

[faithlilly]

There were also bottle of urine found on 14 April 2004

In the CoA document  the bottles of urine are described as ‘ several’ and ‘a number’. Where did you get the figure 20?

[faithlilly]

I'm not interested in your tittle tattle. You make demands of others providing sources, but it seems you are above those very same demands. Debaters like you are ten a penny regarding this case over the years. Apologists and Sandra parrots like you are best ignored.

Have you read SM’s testimony to the court?  I’ll give you a taste.

“The policeman put his hand up, told me to stop. And at that instant, the car was surrounded by police. There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road. They ripped my keys off me and were shouting and screaming.”

Donald Findlay asked for clarification.

“ They dragged you out of the car? Were you resisting getting out of the car in any way?”

No, not at all....they ripped the keys out of the ignition then they started shouting and screaming at me at the top of their voice asking where my f..king house keys were”

Mr Findlay replied.

“Well, where were your f..king house keys?”

It’s all there in the court transcripts.

[Nicholas]

In the CoA document  the bottles of urine are described as ‘ several’ and ‘a number’. Where did you get the figure 20?

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

And para 131 from the CoA judgement

‘....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

[Parky41]

There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road.

Interesting - Hidden? Not quite hidden though if he not only saw them but knew there were 4/5 of them?

Interesting also that you can instantly produce documentation from the court transcripts.

Poor Mr Mitchel, terrible police brutality. Much like showing him pictures of this poor girl, dead and mutilated.

Wait though? DF showed those same pictures to SK. Did he not? or do you not have access to those transcripts?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Have you read SM’s testimony to the court?  I’ll give you a taste.

“The policeman put his hand up, told me to stop. And at that instant, the car was surrounded by police. There were about 4 or 5 cars hidden further up the road. They ripped my keys off me and were shouting and screaming.”

Donald Findlay asked for clarification.

“ They dragged you out of the car? Were you resisting getting out of the car in any way?”

No, not at all....they ripped the keys out of the ignition then they started shouting and screaming at me at the top of their voice asking where my f..king house keys were”

Mr Findlay replied.

“Well, where were your f..king house keys?”

It’s all there in the court transcripts.

Court transcripts that only Sandra (and some of her favoured acolytes) havr access to it would seem.  You could of course br making the whole thing up, without access to the documents ourselves it’s impossible to tell.

[faithlilly]

Interesting - Hidden? Not quite hidden though if he not only saw them but knew there were 4/5 of them?

Interesting also that you can instantly produce documentation from the court transcripts.

Poor Mr Mitchel, terrible police brutality. Much like showing him pictures of this poor girl, dead and mutilated.

Wait though? DF showed those same pictures to SK. Did he not? or do you not have access to those transcripts?

He was indeed...well done you, a claim that is backed up by some actual evidence. SK was warned that he was going to be shown the photographs, SM was not. SK had also seen the body already so would know what to expect.

[faithlilly]

So for the time being let’s go along with your take on the urine bottles.

We have a reason why Luke started weeing in bottles...to an adult a disgusting habit but to a mucky, teenager maybe not so much and certainly far from unusual.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-my-son-keep-soda-bottles-filled-with-piss-under-his-bed

Should this have been allowed in court? It’s pejorative value would suggest not....as it was in no way linked to the murder of  Jodi and it really does speak to the paucity of the Crown’s case.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Amazing the overwhelming catalogue of reprehensible behaviour Mitchell supporters are able to excuse and minimise.  Just imagine if this was (say for example) the father of a missing child who was a knife carrying, dope-smoking, satan-worshipping, urine-hoarding individual we were discussing....

[mrswah]

Court transcripts that only Sandra (and some of her favoured acolytes) havr access to it would seem.  You could of course br making the whole thing up, without access to the documents ourselves it’s impossible to tell.

It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed".  I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up!  I very much doubt Sandra is, either. We all have access to this book, if we agree to buy it!

[mrswah]

Amazing the overwhelming catalogue of reprehensible behaviour Mitchell supporters are able to excuse and minimise.  Just imagine if this was (say for example) the father of a missing child who was a knife carrying, dope-smoking, satan-worshipping, urine-hoarding individual we were discussing....

I expect he would be an immediate suspect----just as Luke was.

[faithlilly]

It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed".  I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up!  I very much doubt Sandra is, either.

A book that the publisher’s legal department would have checked from front to back for inaccuracies.

[Parky41]

A book that the publisher’s legal department would have checked from front to back for inaccuracies.

"Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John [Name removed], Gordon [Name removed], his father, David [Name removed], Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the "mystery man" seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or"

This is an extract from "No Smoke" Therefore NO, the publishers legal departments do not check for inaccuracies.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's in Sandra's book, "Innocents betrayed".  I read that part last night actually, so Faith isn't making it up!  I very much doubt Sandra is, either. We all have access to this book, if we agree to buy it!

I'll buy a book when someone without an agenda except to bring an unbiased account of the facts writes one.  Until then, as some people pick and choose what to believe in, particularly if it's a second-hand account and especially if money is involved (which it is in the case of this book, being up for sale as it is), then I think it's only fair to play those people at their game and rubbish the book as just a money-making cash in by a hustler out to make a buck.