A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

An “authoritarian “ perspective?  Well she is an author, and she was expressing her own view about her own experience, so I’m not sure what other perspective she could have used?

[Chris_Halkides]

IMO a journalist should not be trying to help or to hurt anyone; he or she should report the facts.  A writer of Op-Ed pieces has a bit more latitude, although perhaps one should not be going forth and back between the two realms.  In this specific instance, I don't see a good reason for any of Mitchell's supporters to take what she has to say seriously; if you insult some people or ignore any legitimate arguments that they have, why should they keep listening?  She has done both.

Possibly I inadvertantly led the conversation in the wrong direction when I mentioned helping.

[Chris_Halkides]

An “authoritarian “ perspective?  Well she is an author, and she was expressing her own view about her own experience, so I’m not sure what other perspective she could have used?

By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance.  I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.

[Brietta]

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.

I have become pretty adept of late at "reading between the lines" and need no instruction in interpreting the written word.

Similarly despite a short acquaintance with Mitchell's supporters as noted by the journalist I require no instruction there either.
I checked out what she had to say in a previous article and my criticism of her writing is only that as far as they are concerned, she was far too subdued in her comments.

[Brietta]

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" !!

I too admire persons of principal.  I totally abhor those who are strangers to the truth.

Sandra Lean has gone out of her way to make herself "the case".  Her self promotion and media appearances are myriad.

[Nicholas]

Park41 — when did LM say that Jodi had borrowed her sister’s trousers? Do you have a link or a cite?
Thanks.

Luke told the police

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg458404.html#msg458404

What does Sandra Lean say in response to WakeyWakey on the thread ⬆️ about Luke Mitchell’s Freudian slip

[Vertigo Swirl]

By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance.  I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.

The criminal justice system isn’t always wrong, and having sat through proceedings herself as I understand it, it is quite possible that she arrived at the opinions she holds independently is it not?

[Nicholas]

By authoritarian perspective I meant written with too much deference to authority, which is the criminal justice system in this instance.  I don't see much skepticism, by which I mean independent thinking, in the articles of hers that I have read.

Are you suggesting Jane Hamilton doesn’t recognise a genuine miscarriage of justice when she sees one?

[Nicholas]

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.

There aren’t and they should

[Nicholas]

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.

If Sandra Lean can get this wrong - for argument sake what else has she got wrong?

[faithlilly]

You lied. Plain and simply - this predicative, indicative theme running rife through this campaign. Ran on the basis of someone who has never had all of anything, other than the defence files relating to DF's case of LM V HMA. Which in itself pretty much invalidates just about everything that has ever been pushed out. - Stemming all the way back to when this list of questions was  first made up.

Demonstrably false - we know you are. Lying and plying people with all sorts of rubbish?

James Jones died in 1998 - Jodi was 14 when she died in 2003. Were they twins? that both girls were 9yrs old? Of course not. How many years between the two girls? - And yet again more misinformation - JaJ was nearly 16 was she not when she went to stay with granny? She, going by the above was barely 14 when this family moved to Easthouse's?

Let us get this straight. If the prosecution had had any more damning evidence than that presented in court they would have included it. It speaks volumes that the police had to submit the evidence that they did have to the PF twice before they got the go ahead to charge Luke. Where was the cell cite analysis, the results of the FBI report requested by L&B police, CCTV from Scotmid?  It was a shoddy investigation which lead to a wafer thin circumstantial case that relied almost exclusively on reconstructed statements and juror’s biases.

The local teenagers used the path and the woods behind it. At 14 I’m sure JaJ would have used it too, while she lived with her mother.

BTW who do you think I am?

[Nicholas]

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

A pantomime villian you mean


‘This past week has felt a bit like a pantomime where I’ve found myself cast as the villain of the piece.
Cries of “boo!” have been resounding in my ears while I half expect someone to shout, “Oh no he isn’t” at me in the street.
Standing up against the court of public opinion on the back of a very biased television documentary has seen all manners of slurs, vitriol and downright rudeness slung my way across all forms of social media, telephone calls and emails.
Calls for my sacking, resignation and demands for apologies have been winging their way to Record Towers every day.
Why? What heinous crime have you committed this time, Hamilton?

[Nicholas]

And we are being asked - Did Judith never ask the searchers why they were on this path? - Really? if Jodi had been banned from using it? Let's think of those calls - of the police and the report. And of time and communication - One minute we know this mother has been told LM is on this path, looking? heading to Jodi's house. The search trio are also heading to Easthouse's - a search is to be organised. The problem with this, is - When, where, how? JuJ is busy with the police. And Bang - a body has been found. - And you want to ask this ridiculous question, of why she had not asked the searchers why they were on a path Jodi was not supposed to walk? When we know why they were on the path. We know why they headed there. - We know without a shadow of a doubt that this mother had barely time to draw breath, as did the police as did the three members of Jodi's family - All at this point franticly worried about Jodi, after being told she had not been with LM all evening. - Your conspiracy theories have no room here Faithlilly?

 

[Nicholas]

No one conspired to put LM on this path - he did that.
No one conspired to make LM climb the wall at the Gino spot - he did that
No one conspired to make LM go over this V upon reaching it - he did that
No one conspired to make LM, with the greatest of ease shout out he had found something - he did that
No one conspired to make up a completely false claim of his dog reacting parallel to where Jodi lay - he did that
No one made LM and co lie about all and everything - they did that. And that is everything. From that very moment he had stated he had walked some distance passed this V - around 40-60ft. From that moment he made claim to not knowing of it's existence -------------------

The list yet again is endless - And one wants to speed one party up whilst slowing the other down - in an attempt to show that there was more time for LM to have done all he claimed. But one can no slow it down and one can not slow down how ready and prepped LM was. That call at 10.51pm where he offered to search and being on this path by 10.59pm.

 

and when Luke spoke to the police he told them it was his mother Corrine who had suggested he go looking for Jodi after receiving that text from JuJ

[Nicholas]

Janine,, as far as we are aware, lived with her mum and dad in Easthouses until she was 14 at which point she went to live with her gran. It’s ridiculous to suggest that she didn’t know the Roan’s Dyke path, yet that’s what she claimed in one of her statements.

More lies, more misinformation - you are fooling no-one here. It is a well known fact that the Jones family moved to Easthouse's - after the death of Jodi's father. Do you simply just choose to make all and everything up as you go along? - One minute you are reciting Ms Lean to the letter T whilst in the next breath, choosing to leave out the masses of information she has already put out over these years? So we do not buy this "as far as we are aware" Or the missing calls, or the statements or just about much of anything at all - those wares that are peddled continuously? The trouble with lies, with the consistent changes in story and fallacy of reasoning - they just keep coming back to bite you.