Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean stated,
‘....it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] 

What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?

[faithlilly]

Sandra Lean stated,
‘....it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] 

What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?

Nimmo also said that Luke had been influenced by paintings of the black dahlia....paintings he had never seen.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean stated,
‘...it seems Nimmo Smith himself was influenced by media coverage. At sentencing, three weeks after the end of the trial (when the media had had a field day) he said he thought cannabis had made Luke unable to tell the difference between right and wrong (no expert evidence was given about the effects of cannabis)[/i] 

What did Mitchell’s pre trial assessment say regarding his use of cannabis ?

Lord Nimmo Smith did not refer to ‘right or wrong’ as Sandra Lean stated above he referred to ‘fantasy and reality’

 
Lord Nimmo Smith
"I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a harmless recreational drug
In your case, I think that it may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality which is essential for normal moral judgments."

[Vertigo Swirl]

Nimmo also said that Luke had been influenced by paintings of the black dahlia....paintings he had never seen.

How can anyone state with certainty that Luke Mitchell had never seen paintings of the Black Dahlia?

[John]

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

I wonder to what extent the almost daily cannabis abuse contributed to this behaviour?

[Parky41]

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

Quite - absolutely awful if police solely went on a hunch with no evidence. Thankfully we have a prosecution service to determine if there is enough evidence that merits a trial. 

Of course I simply did not mean that demeanor would in itself warrant suspicion. Rather silly notion.

Just, that when you are actually present, hearing and seeing this information put forward -  Can hold a shed more light than that of simply reading it.

Common sense does tell us however - that LM was not simply "set up" He was not tried for being a "goth" his taste in music or that he stored bottles of urine in his room.

Now that really would be silly to think along those lines - would it not?

Did his defence not try to portray him as some sweet little laddie, immaculate bedroom with lovely pictures of horses on his wall?

Thus and possibly the main reason as to why other pictures and evidence were produced to show how unkempt he really was?

Yes, of course I am not saying this makes him a murderer - merely pointing out the usage of such evidence to counteract that produced by the defence?

[Rusty]

Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?

[faithlilly]

Quite - absolutely awful if police solely went on a hunch with no evidence. Thankfully we have a prosecution service to determine if there is enough evidence that merits a trial. 

Of course I simply did not mean that demeanor would in itself warrant suspicion. Rather silly notion.

Just, that when you are actually present, hearing and seeing this information put forward -  Can hold a shed more light than that of simply reading it.

Common sense does tell us however - that LM was not simply "set up" He was not tried for being a "goth" his taste in music or that he stored bottles of urine in his room.

Now that really would be silly to think along those lines - would it not?

Did his defence not try to portray him as some sweet little laddie, immaculate bedroom with lovely pictures of horses on his wall?

Thus and possibly the main reason as to why other pictures and evidence were produced to show how unkempt he really was?

Yes, of course I am not saying this makes him a murderer - merely pointing out the usage of such evidence to counteract that produced by the defence?

Glad we settled that then.

[faithlilly]

Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?

They got a conviction on a shaky, circumstantial case. I’d call that a result.

[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

Has Sandra Lean or anyone else done anything with these claims by the ‘education professionals’ - like for example - reported them?

[Brietta]

Tell you what, since the police fitted up Luke, they never did a very good job of it. I would have at least planted some "set in stone" forensic evidence somewhere. Wonder why they never?

Mitchell's defence was 'Alibi' which did not stand up to scrutiny so in effect he condemned himself from his own mouth without the necessity of being 'set up' by anyone.
It might have been an idea for his mother and him to follow Shane's lead not to overegg the pudding alibi which was just never going to work anyway. 

[Nicholas]

She also claimed in that very same podcast, that JF stepped over the body twice.

Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015

‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.

According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668

Or maybe JF’s description of where he walked weren’t ‘broadly correct’  ?

[Rusty]

Mitchell's defence was 'Alibi' which did not stand up to scrutiny so in effect he condemned himself from his own mouth without the necessity of being 'set up' by anyone.
It might have been an idea for his mother and him to follow Shane's lead not to overegg the pudding alibi which was just never going to work anyway.

Indeed, the 3 of them could never get their stories straight. Huge red flag.

[Rusty]

Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015

‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.

According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean also stated back in 2015

‘But it's his account of his actions on June 30th which interest me most.

According to where he said he walked (which could be accepted as broadly correct given the original claim of the distance of the condom from the body) he could not possibly have failed to see Jodi's body, both on the way down, and on the way back. If he used the exact route he claims to have used, he would have had to literally step over her body. That tells us two things - either Falconer is lying, or Jodi's body was not there when Falconer was - and that means Jodi was not murdered at the spot behind the wall at 5.15pm. So which was it, and why, 12 years later, do we still not know the answers?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331668.html#msg331668

And it doesn’t tell us ‘two things’ as Sandra Lean suggests

It’s possible the condom was moved by a squirrel or a fox or any other wild animal

It’s also possible the ‘exact route’ used wasn’t the same as the description given. Not because JF lied but because his route has been misinterpreted or misrepresented