Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?  (Read 92750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #90 on: March 07, 2025, 12:12:14 AM »
Aye, can't wait til LM gets refused his parole next month. Even if he were ever released, it would be under licence and strict MAPPA conditions.

Living rent free is up there with 'from the get go' &  'lets do this' as meaningless shite. Forbes & Lean are con artists who you have endorsed over the years.


Not endorsed….used Dr Lean’s research, much of which was borne out in the transcripts.

Who conned you with the ‘strong majority’ nonsense?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #91 on: March 07, 2025, 12:17:46 AM »
According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.

If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.

Correct. They are still the 'only' people actively campaigning. Toss in some other shady characters to the mix, aiding and abetting them. Convicted murderer, rapist, thieves, class A drug dealers, disgraced cops. Who have lied, still blatantly lie to bring attention to this case whilst lining their pockets to boot.  Mitchell is doing a great job of keeping himself in prison. He knows best, he is his own voice by his own admission. No one puts Mitchell in the corner, not since his failed trial. DF has also been added to the mix in the conspiracy to get the boy sent down. And of the latter, whilst they bleat of conspiracy, of a defence who believed their client to be guilty? They don't stop to think, why on earth would that be then?

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #92 on: March 07, 2025, 12:30:50 AM »
Correct. They are still the 'only' people actively campaigning. Toss in some other shady characters to the mix, aiding and abetting them. Convicted murderer, rapist, thieves, class A drug dealers, disgraced cops. Who have lied, still blatantly lie to bring attention to this case whilst lining their pockets to boot.  Mitchell is doing a great job of keeping himself in prison. He knows best, he is his own voice by his own admission. No one puts Mitchell in the corner, not since his failed trial. DF has also been added to the mix in the conspiracy to get the boy sent down. And of the latter, whilst they bleat of conspiracy, of a defence who believed their client to be guilty? They don't stop to think, why on earth would that be then?

Not forgetting his birthday card from Uncle Pete (Tobin). The current LM campaigners are behind, Letby, [Name removed],  Sheridan, Ben Geen etc - anyone they think can get publicity without looking too much into why they were convicted. It's all a conspiracy.

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #93 on: March 07, 2025, 12:32:41 AM »
name removed = Paul F

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #94 on: March 07, 2025, 07:09:59 AM »

Not endorsed….used Dr Lean’s research, much of which was borne out in the transcripts.

Who conned you with the ‘strong majority’ nonsense?
You have certainly praised Sandra Lean to the hilt on this forum and described her as a dear friend if I’m not mistaken, so I think endorsed is certainly the correct word to use.  It is of course understandable that you now wish to distance yourself from her since she turned out to be a purveyor of bs.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #95 on: March 07, 2025, 10:29:16 AM »
Odd thing to be doing at 10pm at night, burning pampas grass.  Burning pampas grass - was this a regular activity of the Mitchell household or just a massive coincidence that on the night Mitchell’s girlfriend got butchered, they decided to burn some pampass grass (which is something I have never done in my life so must I would think rate as a fairly niche activity)?

As has been mentioned, CM denied having a fire on the evening of the murder (30.06.03), but LM said she did have a fire (along with his brother SM). Bit of a red flag that their version of events regarding the fire differ, imo. Witness and neighbour Mr Frankland said in a statement to police on Thursday 3rd July 2003 that he could smell the smoke from fire (in the Mitchells' back garden) coming through his windows  when he was putting his kids to bed at just after 2100 hrs and that he liked the smell. Interestingly, he indicated during his testimony that he first became aware of the smell at 2200 hrs or just before it, but conceded that he could have become aware of it before then. Also interestingly,  he said during his testimony that he couldn't hear anything coming from the Mitchells' back garden when the fire was lit at 2100-2200 hrs, yet said clearly in that statement to police on July 3rd 2003 that he could hear 'voices' in their back garden at those times (though couldn't tell who the people were). My instinct tells me it was all 3 of the Mitchells -- destroying what would have been extremely incriminating evidence (i.e., blood-stained clothing and boots), and hence, imo,  the 'funny smell' that witness and neighbour George Ramage mentioned during his testimony (the transcript of which has still to be uploaded).

Witness and neighbour Patricia Frankland (Mr Frankland's wife) said she became aware of the burning smell between 1830 and 1930 hrs (times when LM was not seen at all), indicating that her young children were still out playing. Interestingly, she indicated that there was a 'change' in the smell from the fire later on in the evening (though the later time isn't mentioned in the transcript as the transcriber at the time couldn't make out what she was saying, hence it's put down as 'incomprehensible' in parenthesis).

And, of course, like I mentioned in my previous post, witness and neighbour George Ramage jokingly remarked to his wife at approx 2200 hrs that "if it was a barbecue, he wouldn't be eating from it!" And, like I also said previously, isn't it odd that a neighbour never mentioned a funny smell coming from the Mitchells' log burner before (and all neighbours said it was quite common for CM to be using the log burner in summer, and had seen her doing so on a few previous occasions), yet when LM's girlfriend is murdered that very evening, he says he could smell a funny and unusual smell from their burner!!?

So, there were strange goings on in the Mitchell back garden that night. Another coincidence? I don't think so!
« Last Edit: March 07, 2025, 12:42:43 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #96 on: March 07, 2025, 11:44:44 AM »
Mrs Frankland became aware of the fire between 1830 and 1930 -- times when Luke Mitchell hadn't been seen by anyone, yet had been seen by 8 separate witnesses (if you include witnesses D Hamilton & Marion O'Sullivan) between 1740 and 1815 on that fairly busy Newbattle Road (the B703 road - a reasonably busy road in accessible rural Dalkeith). Did LM himself start the fire between 1830-1930 and rope his mother and brother into helping him destroy/burn his blood-stained clothing? Did he get a quick wash and change his clothes during this period of time as well? She said that there was a change in the smell of the smoke later on (unfortunately the transcript doesn't state the later time as the transcriber couldn't hear her properly). Was this 'change' in the smell the same funny smell that Mr Ramage had smelled at 2200? Could said funny smell be attributed to the Mitchells desperately trying to burn the incriminating evidence (ie, blood-stained clothing and boots) before the inevitable call from Judith to LM at 2200 hrs (ie, Jodi's curfew time) came through? The same time when the police would naturally have to become involved in Jodi's disappearance?

Mr Frankland said he heard voices coming from the Mitchells' back garden that evening between 2100-2200 hrs, so there was activity taking place at the log burner by at least 2 people from the 3 people living at that house at the time. Had it been LM & SM, I doubt CM wasn't aware of it, particularly as she was the person neighbours said had used it the most. It's very odd that CM denied there was a fire in her back garden that night. Or did CM merely say she never started the fire? Or simply say that she wasn't aware of one (which would be, as I already said, bizarre if she did claim this)?

Also, I wonder if LBP thought to carry out an experiment involving burning the same parka as LM's (or any of the same clothing he was wearing that evening) with the witnesses and neighbours present , to see if it was the same unusual smell they had smelled? Just a thought. The probably didn't do this, imo.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2025, 12:30:17 PM by Mr Apples »

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #97 on: March 07, 2025, 12:53:45 PM »
Mrs Frankland became aware of the fire between 1830 and 1930 -- times when Luke Mitchell hadn't been seen by anyone, yet had been seen by 8 separate witnesses (if you include witnesses D Hamilton & Marion O'Sullivan) between 1740 and 1815 on that fairly busy Newbattle Road (the B703 road - a reasonably busy road in accessible rural Dalkeith). Did LM himself start the fire between 1830-1930 and rope his mother and brother into helping him destroy/burn his blood-stained clothing? Did he get a quick wash and change his clothes during this period of time as well? She said that there was a change in the smell of the smoke later on (unfortunately the transcript doesn't state the later time as the transcriber couldn't hear her properly). Was this 'change' in the smell the same funny smell that Mr Ramage had smelled at 2200? Could said funny smell be attributed to the Mitchells desperately trying to burn the incriminating evidence (ie, blood-stained clothing and boots) before the inevitable call from Judith to LM at 2200 hrs (ie, Jodi's curfew time) came through? The same time when the police would naturally have to become involved in Jodi's disappearance?

Mr Frankland said he heard voices coming from the Mitchells' back garden that evening between 2100-2200 hrs, so there was activity taking place at the log burner by at least 2 people from the 3 people living at that house at the time. Had it been LM & SM, I doubt CM wasn't aware of it, particularly as she was the person neighbours said had used it the most. It's very odd that CM denied there was a fire in her back garden that night. Or did CM merely say she never started the fire? Or simply say that she wasn't aware of one (which would be, as I already said, bizarre if she did claim this)?

Also, I wonder if LBP thought to carry out an experiment involving burning the same parka as LM's (or any of the same clothing he was wearing that evening) with the witnesses and neighbours present , to see if it was the same unusual smell they had smelled? Just a thought. The probably didn't do this, imo.
I asked the same question that you did in your last paragraph there, Mr Apples!

Offline Moggrey21

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #98 on: March 07, 2025, 03:22:01 PM »
Joe Bloggs Lean.. a question about your incessant use of exclamation marks!!!!!! Why????????????????????????????????  &^&*%

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #99 on: March 07, 2025, 06:59:04 PM »
Joe Bloggs Lean.. a question about your incessant use of exclamation marks!!!!!! Why????????????????????????????????  &^&*%
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #100 on: March 07, 2025, 07:26:56 PM »
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!
@)(++(*!
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #101 on: March 07, 2025, 09:49:08 PM »
I didn't realize I was doing that, Moggrey!
I will try and rein them in a little for you!

I admire your restraint.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Joe Blogs

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #102 on: March 07, 2025, 10:19:59 PM »
I admire your restraint.
Ha ha!
Its hard to explain Faith, it stems from Twitter I suppose where there is very little moderation or restraint!
I decided on 'X' early on just to ignore the cheek and abuse and simply plough on asking questions!
Otherwise, you just end up calling each other names and arguing about things that have nothing to do with the case!
Getting no where really, as it were!
It doesn't really bother me being accused of being Dr Lean along with all the abuse that goes along with it, its quite amusing really!
No, I simply plough on, hoping to find something that may help crack the case!
After all Faith, a bit of silly on line impudence is nothing compared to being the victim of a MOJ!
Imagine what Loke Mitchell would give to be on the outside and pardoned, I dont think all the cheek in the world would bother him!
No, I count my blessings!

Offline Kenmair

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #103 on: March 08, 2025, 09:19:28 PM »
I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.

I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.

I only recently found out that Forbes has never even met LM and everything he's ever said is fantasist nonsense, yet there are posters on here who have supported him as a credible source.

Cue the pedants.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - All quiet?
« Reply #104 on: March 09, 2025, 09:52:35 AM »
I only recently found out that Forbes has never even met LM and everything he's ever said is fantasist nonsense, yet there are posters on here who have supported him as a credible source.

Cue the pedants.

Then don’t they look foolish?

Now can we move on?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?