A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[Mr Apples]

That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated

JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?

Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe  in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not?  When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA  attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?

The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.

The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct.  Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.

Park41 — when did LM say that Jodi had borrowed her sister’s trousers? Do you have a link or a cite? Also, do you still have the links to the analysis/analyses of SK’s DNA ?

Would really appreciate it if you could provide these.

Thanks.

[mrswah]

Do you think it’s really about Jane Hamilton or Sandra Lean?

Far too much discussion of this case is taken up by discussion of BOTH of them!

[Vertigo Swirl]

The contents in the article are both misleading and insulting to Mitchell's supporters.  If she were really trying to help the Jones family, she showed poor judgment in how to do it.

I also found an article by Ms. Hamilton in which she casts herself as the victim.  https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822

I am reading an article which she coauthored with Alasdair Clark.  They make the claim that Luke's DNA was found on her bra, a dubious assertion.

If she has experienced vitriol and insults as a result of speaking her mind then she is entitled to respond to them and call them out IMO.  How do you think she should go about trying to help the Jones’ family who as far as I can tell are none too enamoured by the campaign to cast their Jodi’s killer as some wronged innocent?

[Chris_Halkides]

If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there.  She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid.  Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection.  If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims.  MOO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there.  She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid.  Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection.  If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims.  MOO.

Mr Mitchell’s supporters strongly implied that she was stupid.  Why is it wrong to mention the Black Dahlia connection if this had been part of the prosecution’s case?  Should she seek permission from Dr Lean before expressing her opinions?   I don’t see how criticising uncivil supporters really helps the Jones family, I think that would be the very least of their concerns.

[Brietta]

I think the typo thing is being used by Lean and her supporters as a distraction from the points made in the article.  I mean it’s not as if Lean’s own supporters aren’t prone to the more than occasional typo themselves, does that mean they can all be dismissed too?

I agree.  It is trivia the usage of which flags up an obvious deflection from the substance ... which by my reckoning flags up the content of the article is spot on and something which has raised concern.



How did Sunday's demonstration at the Scottish parliament go?  I can't find a thing about it.

[mrswah]

If she has experienced vitriol and insults as a result of speaking her mind then she is entitled to respond to them and call them out IMO.  How do you think she should go about trying to help the Jones’ family who as far as I can tell are none too enamoured by the campaign to cast their Jodi’s killer as some wronged innocent?

Help the Jones family with what?

Is this the job of a journalist?

I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.

[Brietta]

Far too much discussion of this case is taken up by discussion of BOTH of them!

From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.

[Chris_Halkides]

I agree.  It is trivia the usage of which flags up an obvious deflection from the substance ... which by my reckoning flags up the content of the article is spot on and something which has raised concern.

The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread.  Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home.  I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Help the Jones family with what?

Is this the job of a journalist?

I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.

Ask Chris, he suggested she should be trying to help the Jones family, I didn’t.

[mrswah]

From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.

She is the only person who has written a book, and personally, I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to be wrong.

But, she shouldn't be "the case" !!

[Brietta]

If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there.  She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid.  Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection.  If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims.  MOO.

Isn't there a bit of a tradition in a democracy called "Freedom of the press"

[mrswah]

The article was written from an authoritarian perspective and made some dubious assertions, which I mentioned in a different thread.  Between the lines, the author was saying that there were no grounds for concern in this conviction and Mr. Mitchell's supporters should metaphorically pack their bags and go home.  I would much rather discuss the shortcomings of this and other articles than talk about pore vs. pour.

Oh, yes, me too.

[Brietta]

Help the Jones family with what?

Is this the job of a journalist?

I do agree, however, that she is entitled to respond to insulting comments, as are we all.

Sorry, I think your question about 'helping' might be better addressed to Chris who initiated it http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12073.msg650267#msg650267  VS was responding to that post.

[Vertigo Swirl]

She is the only person who has written a book, and personally, I admire her for sticking up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to be wrong.

But, she shouldn't be "the case" !!

Do you admire her for trying to gain freedom for the other two confirmed murderers too then?