The less talked about sighting on Newbattle Road by M O'Sullivan & D Hamilton...

[Parky41]

Excellent reviews too.

If only there was a book detailing the evidence against Luke to compare.

Another money maker? - We have had plenty of detailing of the evidence without the need of money?

[Brietta]

I agree, but how many times has it been posted in the last few days on this very thread?

If there's one thing we've learned from this forum, it's that SL has a book out - even to the extent that we're asked not to buy it from Amazon, as that source doesn't bring Dr Lean top dolla.

We know she's written a book, and we know where we can get hold of a copy if we want one - there's a thread dedicated to it.

Fair comment; but it cannot be denied that the forum is giving everyone a fair crack of the whip.  I think members are making an excellent case on promoting the evidence which actually convicted Mitchell.

It is all being presented in a pretty no-nonsense factual way which totally refutes much of the factoids prevalent on internet sources.

Mitchell's defence was 'alibi' and 'a big boy dunnit and ran away' ~ I think the court addressed that and members have reinforced that.

How did Mitchell know what hair scrunchie and clothes Jodi was wearing when she was murdered.  Her mother said she had changed clothes before going out he said he hadn't seen her until he 'found' her naked body lying on her back with her red bauble hidden in her hair.

And so it continues ~ I don't think there is much that members have missed and I think just stating the facts plainly and simply as they were presented in court differentiates between the truth and inconsistent bluster.

I think members are doing a great job of rebuttal which is important when no doubt there are very real instances of miscarriage which could and should be addressed which don't have the same dynamics supporting them as Mitchell has.

[faithlilly]

 

Absolute rubbish - plucking out of thin air. Smear the family?

You can airbrush this family as much as you care to. I am not smearing them, I am saying it exactly how it was. You want a repeat of this: - ok

CM told the police she arrived home around 5.05pm That this Monday was no different to any other. That Luke was in the kitchen brandishing brocolli, that the dinner was not ready. That LM asked his mother "was Shane home", clearly at this point that he had not been included in the dinner. His brother had not seen him. That they finished dinner. That LM had left around 5.45pm to wait for Jodi arriving around 6. - true? yes it is. Skip the t-shirt, the sunshine and all else.

That within 24hrs SM gave his account. That this day was like any other Monday. That he arrived home at his usual time, around 3.30pm He could not remember what he had for dinner or of seeing his brother.

That after speaking with his mother - he remembered her coming home, at her usual time of around 5.05pm. That he spoke with her. That he then got shouted for dinner some ten mins later. Ate it and went out just after 5.30pm.

That he contacted the police to let them know that he then remembered the above - and it fitted in exactly with CM arriving home at her usual time.

Two statements in less than 36hrs - is this correct? See I do not know everything. But if one was within 24hrs then the change shortly after - I'm doing basic math here.

Then by the Friday - it all changed again. SM had not arrived home at his usual time. Two statements tied to one. That he then did not see his brother still on his arrival home contrary to what Ms Lean changes around, from my post yesterday and her quotes. That CM had not arrived home until 5.15 or just after. That LM had left home no later than 5.30pm

Smearing them, no - clear to see, yes.

And further to this we have to add in more evidence do we not? - Those further claims of no fixed meet. Of phoning the landline, why? - we do not want assumptions made for him - what did he say? As it made no sense to phone if Jodi was not supposed to arrive until 6pm - Such a tangled web all of this. And of course walking this isolated path alone - and of claiming to be waiting until around 7pm to then phone the boys - We are not interested in passing the buck but we shall yet again highlight the Jones household:

That they had lost track of time. Not idling away. Concocted story - no? That they did not know where this meet was to be, they did not know if Luke was late - they knew nothing. Other than what they claimed. That it did not seem that long. That they were not worried and that we know if he had phoned back they would have been alerted/worried. What is blatantly obvious from all we do know - is her parents did not for one moment - think she had been walking to Newbattle on her own. Then they would have had cause to be worried. It could have been the grans, the caravan park anything - see we do not know, do we? But we do know not this path, and not alone - we know there was a ban. What we also know is, that as soon as Jodi's mother realised her daughter had not been with LM - she did not for one moment believe she had simply went elsewhere. She reported her missing in around 10mins. - We can see clearly from this, with pretty much a very fair assumption - that this mother was frantic - she knew something was wrong. And I ask again - did the penny drop, from the earlier call and so forth - we need to see this do we not, rather than these useless areas of 5%- as, as stated, showing more would no doubt show just how much manipulation is going on. We know how it works in a court room - with two sides and fair play.

We know JuJ asked LM when visiting their home that very question - "why did you not call back?" And he said "I thought you had grounded her" - Is this where she became suspicious? Again, those very relevant parts, that context, is always missing.

And we know that this ban, of walking this path alone, of "mucking around up here" - had absolutely no time to be thought of in detail, did it? - ridiculous to attempt to tie this in - From barely one moment to realising her daughter was missing, to barely drawing breath never mind thought - to bang, she is found dead - By LM, not his dog -which has also being showing with the utmost clarity. - None of this search party walked passed this V prior to him going over. It matters not one iota what the dam dog was jumping about at here. It was no where near Jodi - And not only that - the lies that LM told around this, that were never in agreement at any time with this girls family - he had not been some 40ft passed this V

And again - you want us to believe the police plucked this time out of thin air - nonsense and you know. On par with these ridiculous claims that AB drove a couple of hundred yards from the lane, passed this house she looked at for a second - turning it into nearly an hour??  - to ignore all an everything on the basis that AB had said she was not long home, when her husband phoned. - nonsense.

For you are ignoring and air brushing, consistently over - those clear, well founded areas of suspicion brought from LM himself. That there was no tunnel vision - we know who has this, don't we?  - zoned completely on irrelevant matters, wafer thin as you say.

The police had every reason to be suspicious - and we know clearly and precisely why LM could not be eliminated whilst these others could. You can not change the evidence against LM. You do not even want to discuss his own account with rational.

Poor Shane’s who had no more memory of fixing his friend’s car and returning home later than usual, only a couple of days later, than he did of his brother making the dinner. Fixing a car, that technical, hands on act. Buying the parts and fitting them....those actions should have left a vivid memory so soon after the event. The very act of recalling the series of events on that day for an official document should have brought it back to him....an important business, he needed to get it right. All that oil, wrenching, washing up thoroughly afterwards....but no, not a spark of remembrance in that first statement, not until he was reminded.

That tells us all we need to know about Shane’s power of recall.

[faithlilly]

Another money maker? - We have had plenty of detailing of the evidence without the need of money?

Whether money is made doesn’t change the content.

I presume you have the book as you seem rather disparaging of it’s content. Did you mind enriching Dr Lean when buying it?

[mrswah]

I think it is fine for the simple reason that mods are allowed to take part in discussions and voice opinions and the other side of the coin is that I am allowed to rubbish a book I think is badly researched rubbish.

Please be assured that when she has her mod's hat on Mrswah does the job fairly and without bias

Thank you for that, Brietta. I do try to be fair !

My reason for promoting the book  (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly, I do think it's a well written and well researched book.  Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people.  I have looked at other forums, where SL actually takes part in the discussion and answers people's questions. It's interesting that she doesn't post on here, and, to be honest, I don't blame her.

I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to have been wrong.

If there was a book setting out the case for Luke's guilt, I would read that too, but it seems that SL is the only person who has written a book about this case.

And anyway, I like books!

[Brietta]

Thank you for that, Brietta. I do try to be fair !

My reason for promoting the book  (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly, I do think it's a well written and well researched book.  Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people.  I have looked at other forums, where SL actually takes part in the discussion and answers people's questions. It's interesting that she doesn't post on here, and, to be honest, I don't blame her.

I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, even if she turns out to have been wrong.

If there was a book setting out the case for Luke's guilt, I would read that too, but it seems that SL is the only person who has written a book about this case.

And anyway, I like books!

I don't think a book needs to be written about Mitchell's guilt.  It has been proven by the facts as presented in the court according to the law.

In eighteen years there has been no new evidence to support that his trial was a miscarriage of justice.  Not one iota.

The present furore has been as a result of a biased tv programme packed with misinformation and innuendo.  Which I think will do him no good whatsoever but has the potential to cause him great harm.

His twenty years will soon be up and now would be an opportune time for thought to be given to preparing him for release.  I do not think this new notoriety is going to enhance his chances of that. I think it may very well have the opposite effect.

I could be wrong in thinking that but I think this is a huge miscalculation (unless his 'campaign' team fancy keeping their jobs for a bit longer) at precisely the wrong time for him.  I'm quite happy for Mitchell never to see the light of freedom but I think those who 'support' him really need to give a bit more lucid thought to the wisdom of graffitiing public areas etc and the impression that tends to give.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt? 

[Nicholas]

Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?

Luke Mitchell won’t be paroled because of his dangerousness

[Brietta]

Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?

I've no idea.  But one of the judges at one of his failed appeals was of the opinion that because of his youth he ought to be given the opportunity for rehabilitation and his 20yr sentence reduced to 15.

The other two appeal court judges disagreed.

But the impression I am given is that in all probability once his tariff was up Mitchell would have been eligible for parole without too much bother.

He's only two years away from that now ... but I think the present shenanigans will not have gone unnoticed and might well prejudice his chances.
I don't think he or his supporters have thought this through.

I think it is an interesting document which shows the thinking of the highest judges in the land.  Mitchell's advocate Donald Findlay understood the law and how it works, none better.  I think it is risible that lay people think they know better than a legal mind like his.  I think if there had been a get out clause  Findley would have found it.  It just didn't exist to be found.


[2011] HCJAC 10
Appeal No: XC90/05

[2] On 11 February 2005 he was sentenced to detention without limit of time, with a punishment part of 20 years, the sentence being backdated to 14 April 2004. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was refused on 16 May 2008. We have now heard his appeal against sentence.

[8] In fixing the punishment part of 20 years, the trial judge said that he took into account principally the seriousness of the offence. The deceased had looked upon the appellant with affection and trust, yet he had inflicted a horrible death on her and mutilated her body. In the trial judge's opinion, this was one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the court in recent years. If the appellant had been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited the imposition of a punishment part among the longest that there had been. Only the appellant's age persuaded him to fix a lesser period.

[15] Sentencing guidelines are subject always to the discretion of the sentencing judge and, on appeal, to the discretion of this court. Experience shows that there are frequently special factors in individual cases that are not expressly dealt with in guidelines. In many cases, the special factor is that the accused is a young offender, and often a first offender too. In such cases, the exercise of discretion presents the court with a particularly anxious and demanding problem. My own view is that in a case of that kind the court should take particular care to fix a sentence that, while marking the gravity of the offence and its effects, will leave hope that the young person can be rehabilitated as a useful member of society and achieve some positive outcome in his life.

[16] The sentencing judge has taken into account the gravity of the deed itself and indirectly, I am sure, the effect of the death on the victim's family. He has also looked to the elements of denunciation and retribution that are appropriate in a case of this kind.

[17] This murder involved extreme violence, the use of a knife, the mutilation of the body and the abandonment of the victim at the scene. On any view, therefore, the gravity of the case was obvious.


[23] There is no doubt that the appellant is an unsympathetic individual. There is also no doubt as to the strength of public outrage in Dalkeith and beyond. But it is important to keep in mind that the appellant was a first offender who was just under 15 years old at the time of the offence. The punishment part appealed against is longer than he had lived at the date of the sentence. Since the appellant will not even be considered for parole until he is almost 36, the chances of his being rehabilitated and making something of his life will be gravely prejudiced. The prospects of his becoming institutionalised beyond hope of recall will be significant.

[24] I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and I understand entirely why this murder should have caused public revulsion. Nevertheless, I think that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

[Nicholas]

I've no idea.  But one of the judges at one of his failed appeals was of the opinion that because of his youth he ought to be given the opportunity for rehabilitation and his 20yr sentence reduced to 15.

The other two appeal court judges disagreed.

But the impression I am given is that in all probability once his tariff was up Mitchell would have been eligible for parole without too much bother.

He's only two years away from that now ... but I think the present shenanigans will not have gone unnoticed and might well prejudice his chances.
I don't think he or his supporters have thought this through.

I think it is an interesting document which shows the thinking of the highest judges in the land.  Mitchell's advocate Donald Findlay understood the law and how it works, none better.  I think it is risible that lay people think they know better than a legal mind like his.  I think if there had been a get out clause  Findley would have found it.  It just didn't exist to be found.


[2011] HCJAC 10
Appeal No: XC90/05

[2] On 11 February 2005 he was sentenced to detention without limit of time, with a punishment part of 20 years, the sentence being backdated to 14 April 2004. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. His appeal against conviction was refused on 16 May 2008. We have now heard his appeal against sentence.

[8] In fixing the punishment part of 20 years, the trial judge said that he took into account principally the seriousness of the offence. The deceased had looked upon the appellant with affection and trust, yet he had inflicted a horrible death on her and mutilated her body. In the trial judge's opinion, this was one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the court in recent years. If the appellant had been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited the imposition of a punishment part among the longest that there had been. Only the appellant's age persuaded him to fix a lesser period.

[15] Sentencing guidelines are subject always to the discretion of the sentencing judge and, on appeal, to the discretion of this court. Experience shows that there are frequently special factors in individual cases that are not expressly dealt with in guidelines. In many cases, the special factor is that the accused is a young offender, and often a first offender too. In such cases, the exercise of discretion presents the court with a particularly anxious and demanding problem. My own view is that in a case of that kind the court should take particular care to fix a sentence that, while marking the gravity of the offence and its effects, will leave hope that the young person can be rehabilitated as a useful member of society and achieve some positive outcome in his life.

[16] The sentencing judge has taken into account the gravity of the deed itself and indirectly, I am sure, the effect of the death on the victim's family. He has also looked to the elements of denunciation and retribution that are appropriate in a case of this kind.

[17] This murder involved extreme violence, the use of a knife, the mutilation of the body and the abandonment of the victim at the scene. On any view, therefore, the gravity of the case was obvious.


[23] There is no doubt that the appellant is an unsympathetic individual. There is also no doubt as to the strength of public outrage in Dalkeith and beyond. But it is important to keep in mind that the appellant was a first offender who was just under 15 years old at the time of the offence. The punishment part appealed against is longer than he had lived at the date of the sentence. Since the appellant will not even be considered for parole until he is almost 36, the chances of his being rehabilitated and making something of his life will be gravely prejudiced. The prospects of his becoming institutionalised beyond hope of recall will be significant.

[24] I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and I understand entirely why this murder should have caused public revulsion. Nevertheless, I think that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

It’s very possible he could end up serving a full life tariff like Bamber

[Paranoid Android]

My reason for promoting the book  (and I have never suggested that people don't buy it from Amazon!) is firstly, rightly or wrongly,

I'm glad you're acknowledging the fact that you're promoting the book.

You may not have mentioned the Amazon thing, but others have.

I really don't think this forum is meant to be an income stream for Dr Lean.

[Rusty]

Will Mitchell be paroled if he doesn’t admit his guilt?

No chance. He would murder again, and the authorities know it.

[Brietta]

It’s very possible he could end up serving a full life tariff like Bamber

I think there is a fair chance he will.

[mrswah]

I'm glad you're acknowledging the fact that you're promoting the book.

You may not have mentioned the Amazon thing, but others have.

I really don't think this forum is meant to be an income stream for Dr Lean.

Neither do I. 

I "promote" the book (I actually prefer the term "recommend") because it is thought provoking, and, IMO, well researched and detailed.

[Paranoid Android]

Secondly, IMO, there is a lot of "anti Sandra Lean " talk on this forum by some people.

Apologies for quoting you twice, but Dr Lean has plenty of support on here.