Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[faithlilly]

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

If it were true...or unusual.

Luke smoked cannabis, as did Jodi, as did many of their friends. At autopsy Jodi had cannabis in her blood stream.
Satan-worshiping? Have we really not moved on from Salem and the satanic panic? People who actually cite this as evidence against Luke really do reveal a certain lack of sophistication and, dare I say it, education.
Urine stored under the beds of teenagers...not unusual. Bile inducing for adults but not, it would appear, to many teenagers.
Knife carrying...yes, but there is no evidence, media aside, that Luke ever threatened anyone with it.

[faithlilly]

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

Don’t be silly now. That SK’s name slipped through the net is hardly evidence that publishers don’t scrupulously check books that they are publishing for libel. BTW did SK sue?

Are you asking us to believe that the extracts from court testimony and official police documents are simply ‘made up’ even though they would be easily checkable? Really?

[Parky41]

Don’t be silly now. That SK’s name slipped through the net is hardly evidence that publishers don’t scrupulously check books that they are publishing for libel. BTW did SK sue?

Are you asking us to believe that the extracts from court testimony and official police documents are simply ‘made up’ even though they would be easily checkable? Really?

It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.

Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If it were true...or unusual.

Luke smoked cannabis, as did Jodi, as did many of their friends. At autopsy Jodi had cannabis in her blood stream.
Satan-worshiping? Have we really not moved on from Salem and the satanic panic? People who actually cite this as evidence against Luke really do reveal a certain lack of sophistication and, dare I say it, education.
Urine stored under the beds of teenagers...not unusual. Bile inducing for adults but not, it would appear, to many teenagers.
Knife carrying...yes, but there is no evidence, media aside, that Luke ever threatened anyone with it.

A perfect example of a Mitchell supporter minimising and downplaying extremely disturbing behaviour as demonstrated by a fourteen year old "child".

[Parky41]

It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.

Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.

This was excused as Ms Lean claimed not having access to the case papers at the time of writing "No Smoke" but saw fit to write some damming things in respect of others before having "all" the information to hand. As she says below, before she knew if things were actually, "factually correct

I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.

Yet in this very same book - "No Smoke" Ms Lean makes the following statement?

"Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true."

 

What is actually true? she did or did not have access before writing the book - is all well with Ms Leans memory?

Now, after an independent review by the SCCRC Ms Lean wants another Independent review? - as;

Ms Lean wants disclosure, access to everything - so do we, yet again have "Innocence Betrayed" written on the basis of not having all of the evidence?

Ms Lean had claimed for years that SK's only had the alibi of his then girlfriend JaJ, the fact was that SK was also in the company of his father.

Ms Lean excuses this as being unknown to the defence at the time of trial, it was only when the independent review by the SCCRC shod light to Ms Lean that there was indeed a statement 'In the case files' from Mr Kelly.

Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?

That claim would have been made known to the defence - Simply by means of precognition.

Yet again we have Ms Lean, putting out claims of fact - on the basis that she most certainly has not taking it from "all" of the case files.

[faithlilly]

It wasn't however Just the slip of Mr Kelly's name though, was it? it was that of DD along with the mystery man following Jodi into the path - tsk tsk Faithlilly.

Perhaps the denial if the first instance from Ms Lean that this had been and extract from "No Smoke" until proof was showing to the contrary - an apology came forthwith.

DD gave a statement that he was in the woodland with his dogs that night and the ‘mystery man’ ie Stocky man was also seen by a witness, statement in police files.

[Brietta]

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!

We do not have to buy anything "fair use" will allow a quote from a book to be used without infringement of copyright.

"Have you read SM’s testimony to the court?  I’ll give you a taste." without providing a link which can be followed to the source is an example of nothing more than an irrelevance which may at best be misleading.

It most certainly does not comply with transparency or forum guidance for provenance.  Just because an individual makes a statement in part whether in a book or a podcast without indication of context my opinion is that it is neither to be trusted or relied upon.

[Parky41]

In the words of the online followers - "best to ignore the trolls"

Interests me the responses given when someone can't disprove a point, or indeed when one disproves theirs.

"you sound like a right bellend" - maybe true though?

In the words of CM from her podcast "feral little bleeps" - there must be an abundance of pride in that narrative, now that it fits most of these online supporters to a 'T'

Best line of defence being attack and all that - What is abundantly clear is that mental block of denial.

The "black is white" scenario.

You can ask away Faithlilly - You know it is all true, having every single thing that has come from Ms Lean implanted firmly in your mind?

Remembering here of course. That just because Ms Lean says something in the narrative/self opinion she gives, does not make it true?

Let us think on the reality of that - 6 words from a statement used to back up 2000 words of narrative/opinion Used in an attempt to put forward a compelling story, her personal take on the evidence she has seen/heard and so forth.

Trying very hard to dismantle that extremely compelling narrative that was given in the case against LM - which had an abundance of evidence to back it up.

In her attempt to do the same - picking and choosing points, however, unlike the prosecution, who's fitted wonderfully together in sequence, Ms Leans for the most part does not fit together, anywhere, as she has nothing to back it up bar a few words verbatim and opinion.

She can not understand why the SCCRC would not take all of her points and add them together, one is scratching their head here?, I wonder why this was the case? Perhaps a jumble of mismatched theories and opinion without being able to mislead nor lie make mistakes? left it completely where it should be "dead in the water"

Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2820 on: October 03, 2015, 10:17:AM »
One last point for now - how can the story "add up" when so much of it was never made public? If you pick and choose points, you can stitch them together to make what looks like a compelling narrative, so long a no-one comes along and ruins the story by pointing out all of the"missed out" bits that make a nonsense of it

Indeed?

For example - that none of search trio said the same as LM, that his dog had reacted "parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side" That they had all walked some distance past this V. - perhaps one of the very reasons why suspicion fell upon LM, they hardly became suspicious because they were singing in harmony?

It is ever so easy to "hoodwink" those who instantly put blind faith in anything irrespective of right/wrong.

When a person takes on the role of Judge and Jury - I have the power,  "He Man?"

Anyhow - back to "Why suspicion fell upon LM, why the police could not eliminate him from their enquiries?

Demand away Faithlilly - unlike the innocence campaign, I have nothing I need to prove - merely having a discussion.

 Word play/power of suggestion, fascinates me.

[faithlilly]

We do not have to buy anything "fair use" will allow a quote from a book to be used without infringement of copyright.

"Have you read SM’s testimony to the court?  I’ll give you a taste." without providing a link which can be followed to the source is an example of nothing more than an irrelevance which may at best be misleading.

It most certainly does not comply with transparency or forum guidance for provenance.  Just because an individual makes a statement in part whether in a book or a podcast without indication of context my opinion is that it is neither to be trusted or relied upon.

The quote came from the court transcripts via Miss Lean’s book, as verified by mrswah.

If you are saying the Miss Lean is making up the quote ie lying, that is libel and also against forum rules. Please substantiate your claim or withdraw it.

[faithlilly]

In the words of the online followers - "best to ignore the trolls"

Interests me the responses given when someone can't disprove a point, or indeed when one disproves theirs.

"you sound like a right bellend" - maybe true though?

In the words of CM from her podcast "feral little bleeps" - there must be an abundance of pride in that narrative, now that it fits most of these online supporters to a 'T'

Best line of defence being attack and all that - What is abundantly clear is that mental block of denial.

The "black is white" scenario.

You can ask away Faithlilly - You know it is all true, having every single thing that has come from Ms Lean implanted firmly in your mind?

Remembering here of course. That just because Ms Lean says something in the narrative/self opinion she gives, does not make it true?

Let us think on the reality of that - 6 words from a statement used to back up 2000 words of narrative/opinion Used in an attempt to put forward a compelling story, her personal take on the evidence she has seen/heard and so forth.

Trying very hard to dismantle that extremely compelling narrative that was given in the case against LM - which had an abundance of evidence to back it up.

In her attempt to do the same - picking and choosing points, however, unlike the prosecution, who's fitted wonderfully together in sequence, Ms Leans for the most part does not fit together, anywhere, as she has nothing to back it up bar a few words verbatim and opinion.

She can not understand why the SCCRC would not take all of her points and add them together, one is scratching their head here?, I wonder why this was the case? Perhaps a jumble of mismatched theories and opinion without being able to mislead nor lie make mistakes? left it completely where it should be "dead in the water"


Indeed?

For example - that none of search trio said the same as LM, that his dog had reacted "parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side" That they had all walked some distance past this V. - perhaps one of the very reasons why suspicion fell upon LM, they hardly became suspicious because they were singing in harmony?

It is ever so easy to "hoodwink" those who instantly put blind faith in anything irrespective of right/wrong.

When a person takes on the role of Judge and Jury - I have the power,  "He Man?"

Anyhow - back to "Why suspicion fell upon LM, why the police could not eliminate him from their enquiries?

Demand away Faithlilly - unlike the innocence campaign, I have nothing I need to prove - merely having a discussion.

 Word play/power of suggestion, fascinates me.

Ah the ‘troll’ argument....always the go to when intelligent adult discussion proves too difficult.

On both the Frontline Scotland documentary and Murder in a Small town we have expert after expert ( not the two policemen, IMO they really added nothing to the sum of our knowledge) giving their opinion that the conviction was unsafe based on the evidence presented. This is not my opinion, or yours, but actual, real life experts who do this for a living. Isn’t it interesting that they agree with me rather than you though to be honest I haven’t heard one expert on any aspect of this case, even the Crown’s pathologist, who has endorsed the Crown’s case. Perhaps I’ve missed one so perhaps you can enlighten me?

So apart from your obvious hatred of SL and name calling, and the constantly debunked nonsense about the v in the wall, do you really have anything new to add to the sum of everyone’s knowledge?

BTW did SK ever sue SL? I would have.

ETA. From Wikipedia ‘ The documentary also challenged the theory that Mitchell was an obsessive Marilyn Manson fan and had a keen interest in the Black Dahlia murder. The documentary stated that there is no evidence that Mitchell knew of the Dahlia case until after the murder. In the documentary Professor Anthony Busuttil, when asked about the similarities between Jones's and Short's injuries said, "there were major dissimilarities.’

Lest we forget Professor Busuttil was a prosecution witness.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah the ‘troll’ argument....always the go to when intelligent adult discussion proves too difficult.

On both the Frontline Scotland documentary and Murder in a Small town we have expert after expert ( not the two policemen, IMO they really added nothing to the sum of our knowledge) giving their opinion that the conviction was unsafe based on the evidence presented. This is not my opinion, or yours, but actual, real life experts who do this for a living. Isn’t it interesting that they agree with me rather than you though to be honest I haven’t heard one expert on any aspect of this case, even the Crown’s pathologist, who has endorsed the Crown’s case. Perhaps I’ve missed one so perhaps you can enlighten me?

So apart from your obvious hatred of SL and name calling, and the constantly debunked nonsense about the v in the wall, do you really have anything new to add to the sum of everyone’s knowledge?

BTW did SK ever sue SL? I would have.

Faithlilly, what about the experts in the court and appeal courts who upheld the conviction - do those experts not count?

[Parky41]

Verbatim usage is not being disputed - it is context.

I gave an example of that once before on a forum - using part of a whole chapter, swiftly pounced on with cries of "that is not what was meant"

Showing how easy it is to manipulate a handful of words and add your own context.

Another thing that strikes me, re - suspicion falling upon LM is demeanor.

When police are investigating a crime, along with what is being stated they do use the power of sense, in ascertaining if the person giving the account appears to be truthful.

Tone, expression etc.

How was the witnesses demeanor when giving those very first accounts of what had happened that evening?

Who's demeanor appeared to be odd?

[faithlilly]

Verbatim usage is not being disputed - it is context.

I gave an example of that once before on a forum - using part of a whole chapter, swiftly pounced on with cries of "that is not what was meant"

Showing how easy it is to manipulate a handful of words and add your own context.

Another thing that strikes me, re - suspicion falling upon LM is demeanor.

When police are investigating a crime, along with what is being stated they do use the power of sense, in ascertaining if the person giving the account appears to be truthful.

Tone, expression etc.

How was the witnesses demeanor when giving those very first accounts of what had happened that evening?

Who's demeanor appeared to be odd?

Let’s not investigate then. Let’s just be guided by policemen’s hunches.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Out of interest why were none of these many, many real life experts who claim Mitchell is the victim of a miscarriage of justice wheeled out for Sandra's programme?

[Nicholas]

Excerpts taken from Luke Mitchell school jotters

”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”

(Source: https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/)

According to Sandra Lean there were ‘education professionals who were willing to testify that the stuff on Luke's jotters was "tame" and nothing at all unusual, in their experience’


What were the names of these ‘educational professionals’ and did they ever receive further training