Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews  (Read 93873 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #270 on: September 09, 2021, 04:34:47 PM »
I would tend to agree with all of this. When she made the ‘not at this time’ comment during the JE podcast, I got the feeling it was exaggerated and insincere. I felt a tad embarrassed for her, tbh.

Same

I found it cringeworthy

There was nothing sincere about her comment
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 04:38:18 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #271 on: September 09, 2021, 04:37:44 PM »
Sandra Lean https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

No - Her promotion of killer Luke Mitchell’s actual factual guilt and the innocence fraud  ‘spans 16 years’

Sandra Lean
Killer Luke Mitchell has plenty of time to dispose of ‘ash’ or anything else whilst he was out walking Mia the dog at 10pm and doing whatever else he was doing then - he could have put the ‘ash’ in the river nearby for example

Where was Corrine Mitchell at 10pm that night anyway? What was she doing? Drinking?

Where was she drinking ? In her lounge ? I don’t recall any of the neighbours saying they saw her in the garden?

Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day. Or maybe she was just having a couple that evening, nothing excessive? Maybe she did drink often, being a lonely divorcee and all? Did the police note the extent of her drunkenness that evening/morning?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #272 on: September 09, 2021, 05:02:23 PM »
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day. Or maybe she was just having a couple that evening, nothing excessive? Maybe she did drink often, being a lonely divorcee and all? Did the police note the extent of her drunkenness that evening/morning?

I suspect they did yes

Would be interesting to see what notes were made in respect to this and whether or not there were any delays in speaking to her killer son when he was taken to the police station

Or maybe that’s why he was taken to the police station in the first place because police had concerns his mother wasn’t in a fit state to supervise him - especially given all the circumstances



Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #273 on: September 09, 2021, 05:26:16 PM »
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day. Or maybe she was just having a couple that evening, nothing excessive? Maybe she did drink often, being a lonely divorcee and all? Did the police note the extent of her drunkenness that evening/morning?

Strange then that it was Judith Jones who was prosecuted for drink driving and not Corrine Mitchell. I wonder if her mum’s drinking was the reason Jodi wanted to live with her gran ? Of course it wasn’t but you can see where this speculative, malicious sort of tittle tattle can lead.
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 Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #274 on: September 09, 2021, 05:41:38 PM »
tittle tattle

Why didn’t Corrine Mitchel drive to the police station ?

Why was she on foot?

She told James English she’d got her killer son Luke Mitchell to take the dog for a walk to ‘save her legs’

Yet had no problem using them an hour or so later

The stories don’t ring true
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #275 on: September 09, 2021, 05:44:05 PM »
Was she maybe drinking because of the stress of trying to cover up for her son all that evening? Seems to be quite odd someone drinking on a Monday when they have a business to run the following day.

Didn’t she buy cigarettes and alcohol on her way home from work ?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #276 on: September 09, 2021, 05:45:17 PM »
Maybe she did drink often

Sandra Lean told me Corrine Mitchell was a heavy drinker - unless she was lying to me?

More here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg650457#msg650457
« Last Edit: September 09, 2021, 05:48:16 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #278 on: September 09, 2021, 07:16:52 PM »
And on cue. Not got much time to address everything, have read however. The book Nicholas is the creation of those two sides, the divide of the Mitchells and Jones family. This revealing the other side, is more to do with them, not the defence side. Those two sides have always been out there. It is all about why? Why was the Jones family not given the same treatment as the Mitchells. Why were they not investigated the same, negative media coverage, as we had with Judith Jones drink driving. The reality of course is the media printed the story, they let it be known - so not quite some favourable treatment, it was news, plain and simple - first and foremost.

It is for the most a bitter pill for the author - very much my reason for stating, it is her justice being served upon them, not that she is seeking favourable Justice for them. As we see with Faiths comments, that those who read the book, swallow up the authors bitterness, churn it round and spit it back out again. As we have seen on many discussions, the attacks upon not only Jodi's family, but Jodi also. - the most horrendous is those claims, that just because there is no evidence of rape, does not mean it did not take place! Where in one breath we have the author and followers bleating, that the police showed disrespect to this girl, by leaving her uncovered for hours, and in the next we have the invention of the possibility that this girl was raped. Which in turn reaps comments such as "there was five o them there wi cotter as the lookout" Where the author puts out, if someone is all but dead, then there would be no signs of force, thus no evidence of rape! Tie this in with condoms being "just yards" from the body, sperm hair and all else present - with the lie of "none of it Mitchells"

So, what does the ? around reasons as to why CM was drinking on the 30th of June have to do with Judith Jones? - nothing. It is clear, was it stress, duress over her sons actions, was it habitual, nothing to do with Luke or that evening?, just the norm? Lean claims she had a drink problem? Is it true? - one cancels out the other, if it was habitual then nothing to do with Luke's actions. If it were not habitual then she may very well have been drinking that evening, due to her sons actions.

What has always been the case however, is the lies of Mitchell being taken to Dalkeith solely to being treated differently by the police, it was for his mother he was taken there. What it also highlights is those claims of him being stripped and all else prior to her arrival - not true, is it?  For she was speaking to them on Newbattle R'd, she was on her way in what is a ten minute walk in total, she was well up that road when they stopped to speak with her.  Only just behind them. The others were all taken to different places too? Not the same place.

And what of the Jones house being searched repeatedly, police photographers the lot? - That is what is called the other side! But as Ms Lean states " a modern day witch hunt" - indeed!

Please change the record.
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 - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #279 on: September 09, 2021, 10:43:41 PM »
Not interested until you provide sources and stop obfuscating. I believe Mr Apples also has some questions that he wants you to answer.

Don't you believe the evidence then? Are you disputing that Luke Mitchell was prepped and ready for the off? That at 10.49pm Judith told him she was phoning the police, that he claimed to leave home by 10.52pm, that he was on/at RDP by 10.59pm and Judith told him she had phoned the police. That the search trio were on the phone in the complex at 11.18pm heading to meet with Mitchell. That AW shouted out " is that you Luke?" That the time was just after 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on the path - do you not believe Lean anymore?

It all speaks for itself - what do you assume LM was doing Faith in those 20mins? Or as Lean states "there is both dispute around where the search trio were and what was said in that 11.18pm call", why do you assume there is a dispute here Faith? Does not do to go with the statements or phone logs, or that there was no call in Mitchells presence - best to mangle it around with this dispute, of course there has to be a dispute, could not have LM on that path for 20mins now, could we.? But he was Faith and nothing is going to change that. So what do we do with this rushing up the path, at haste to get to Judith's as quickly as possible? Did not let his dog do any searching and so forth?

And it does open up every other possibility. That Mitchell was not home when that text came through, he did not leave from his house at all, did he?  It is bad enough as it stands by his own claims, of just how prepped and ready he was. But that frantic rush, to get ready and be out that door and onto that path?! 10-mins in total?

That we know without a shadow of a doubt that search trio left from AW's just after 11pm. Witnessed Faith. They were nowhere else. The call to AW's landline not her mobile, as with the other calls before this. Why do you assume the author has the walk from GD's house to YW's at just over 10mins, yet has the walk from AW's to the paths longer? Where the first takes longer than 10mins as does the latter.  They were exactly where they said they were, and went exactly where they went from A-B. And they got there around 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on that path.

What was Mitchell doing for those 90mins Faith, where did he go when he left the boys around 8.30pm? What proof is there that he was home from 4.25pm?

How many phones did LM have Faith? What happened to his old handset? Why is that not mentioned in the book? We have every phone and record of the Jones phones, JF and YW - where are the Mitchells?

Now that you do know, without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell (and you even quoted the Times) did not go past that V with his dog. That you do not even believe his own statements? How do you account for those ten steps JaJ and Kelly took, whilst Mitchel was "searching around" in the woods, that he found Jodi so quick;y? Mere seconds with no indication of where in the woods, straight ahead or otherwise? As you say "no one is interested in him going past" Only the dog. Show us exactly what that search trio said, in sequence from that first statement onwards. Show us when they were taken to RDP to go over that night. Show us those precognitions done by both the Crown and defence? - no you can't can you? So you mosey on along now with your blind faith and trust in the author, with your "wafer thin case", and here is that same record again - that only those who soak in the  pages of that book can come out with, that there was no evidence - indeed,  9 weeks of waffle, that even the author did not witness!

"beyond a  reasonable doubt?" Every single piece of that case screams it was LM. Nothing is going to change that. That clear attempt, that strive to give an alibi from just after 5pm until 5.45pm. To add her other son to the mix, to lie - and one wants to question if she knew what Luke had done? or why he needed cover, when she could drag her other son in at ease. Leave the family alone, that he left home with his mothers blessing, smack bang at a time of leaving her alone to face the backlash, those attacks and all else. Does not fit, does it? United in true belief of innocence = equal standing and fighting together. That clear contradiction and irony, of "if it were your son, brother, would you not want everyone shouting from the rooftops?" Damn right you would, inclusive of the father and brother. 4.25 until nearly 6pm = nothing of LM. Around 6.15pm until 7.30pm = nothing of LM. 8.30pm until 10pm = nothing of LM. To 11.20pm = nothing of LM then minutes later Jodi is found, in a isolated area, hidden behind a large Oak tree in a dark woodland, that no one was searching.

And we have those sightings, those positive ID's of him. And he was prepped and ready from that curfew time - and again every single part of that time screams this at us. And there is only one reason why he was prepped and ready, why he knew that call/text would come - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Offline rulesapply

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #280 on: September 09, 2021, 10:52:03 PM »
Strange then that it was Judith Jones who was prosecuted for drink driving and not Corrine Mitchell. I wonder if her mum’s drinking was the reason Jodi wanted to live with her gran ? Of course it wasn’t but you can see where this speculative, malicious sort of tittle tattle can lead.

Not strange though, is it? One person being prosecuted doesn't mean that everyone else is innocent, does it?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #281 on: September 09, 2021, 11:14:14 PM »
Don't you believe the evidence then? Are you disputing that Luke Mitchell was prepped and ready for the off? That at 10.49pm Judith told him she was phoning the police, that he claimed to leave home by 10.52pm, that he was on/at RDP by 10.59pm and Judith told him she had phoned the police. That the search trio were on the phone in the complex at 11.18pm heading to meet with Mitchell. That AW shouted out " is that you Luke?" That the time was just after 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on the path - do you not believe Lean anymore?

It all speaks for itself - what do you assume LM was doing Faith in those 20mins? Or as Lean states "there is both dispute around where the search trio were and what was said in that 11.18pm call", why do you assume there is a dispute here Faith? Does not do to go with the statements or phone logs, or that there was no call in Mitchells presence - best to mangle it around with this dispute, of course there has to be a dispute, could not have LM on that path for 20mins now, could we.? But he was Faith and nothing is going to change that. So what do we do with this rushing up the path, at haste to get to Judith's as quickly as possible? Did not let his dog do any searching and so forth?

And it does open up every other possibility. That Mitchell was not home when that text came through, he did not leave from his house at all, did he?  It is bad enough as it stands by his own claims, of just how prepped and ready he was. But that frantic rush, to get ready and be out that door and onto that path?! 10-mins in total?

That we know without a shadow of a doubt that search trio left from AW's just after 11pm. Witnessed Faith. They were nowhere else. The call to AW's landline not her mobile, as with the other calls before this. Why do you assume the author has the walk from GD's house to YW's at just over 10mins, yet has the walk from AW's to the paths longer? Where the first takes longer than 10mins as does the latter.  They were exactly where they said they were, and went exactly where they went from A-B. And they got there around 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on that path.

What was Mitchell doing for those 90mins Faith, where did he go when he left the boys around 8.30pm? What proof is there that he was home from 4.25pm?

How many phones did LM have Faith? What happened to his old handset? Why is that not mentioned in the book? We have every phone and record of the Jones phones, JF and YW - where are the Mitchells?

Now that you do know, without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell (and you even quoted the Times) did not go past that V with his dog. That you do not even believe his own statements? How do you account for those ten steps JaJ and Kelly took, whilst Mitchel was "searching around" in the woods, that he found Jodi so quick;y? Mere seconds with no indication of where in the woods, straight ahead or otherwise? As you say "no one is interested in him going past" Only the dog. Show us exactly what that search trio said, in sequence from that first statement onwards. Show us when they were taken to RDP to go over that night. Show us those precognitions done by both the Crown and defence? - no you can't can you? So you mosey on along now with your blind faith and trust in the author, with your "wafer thin case", and here is that same record again - that only those who soak in the  pages of that book can come out with, that there was no evidence - indeed,  9 weeks of waffle, that even the author did not witness!

"beyond a  reasonable doubt?" Every single piece of that case screams it was LM. Nothing is going to change that. That clear attempt, that strive to give an alibi from just after 5pm until 5.45pm. To add her other son to the mix, to lie - and one wants to question if she knew what Luke had done? or why he needed cover, when she could drag her other son in at ease. Leave the family alone, that he left home with his mothers blessing, smack bang at a time of leaving her alone to face the backlash, those attacks and all else. Does not fit, does it? United in true belief of innocence = equal standing and fighting together. That clear contradiction and irony, of "if it were your son, brother, would you not want everyone shouting from the rooftops?" Damn right you would, inclusive of the father and brother. 4.25 until nearly 6pm = nothing of LM. Around 6.15pm until 7.30pm = nothing of LM. 8.30pm until 10pm = nothing of LM. To 11.20pm = nothing of LM then minutes later Jodi is found, in a isolated area, hidden behind a large Oak tree in a dark woodland, that no one was searching.

And we have those sightings, those positive ID's of him. And he was prepped and ready from that curfew time - and again every single part of that time screams this at us. And there is only one reason why he was prepped and ready, why he knew that call/text would come - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You continue to spend an inordinate amount of time trying, through speculative assumptions, to prove Luke’s conviction is safe. I’m afraid you fail constantly. The facts speak for themselves.


From their first statements to the testimony which was given in court every single one of the main witnesses changed their testimony and not in insubstantial ways . You know it, I know it so let’s not kid each other.


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 mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #282 on: September 10, 2021, 09:46:02 AM »
Don't you believe the evidence then? Are you disputing that Luke Mitchell was prepped and ready for the off? That at 10.49pm Judith told him she was phoning the police, that he claimed to leave home by 10.52pm, that he was on/at RDP by 10.59pm and Judith told him she had phoned the police. That the search trio were on the phone in the complex at 11.18pm heading to meet with Mitchell. That AW shouted out " is that you Luke?" That the time was just after 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on the path - do you not believe Lean anymore?

It all speaks for itself - what do you assume LM was doing Faith in those 20mins? Or as Lean states "there is both dispute around where the search trio were and what was said in that 11.18pm call", why do you assume there is a dispute here Faith? Does not do to go with the statements or phone logs, or that there was no call in Mitchells presence - best to mangle it around with this dispute, of course there has to be a dispute, could not have LM on that path for 20mins now, could we.? But he was Faith and nothing is going to change that. So what do we do with this rushing up the path, at haste to get to Judith's as quickly as possible? Did not let his dog do any searching and so forth?

And it does open up every other possibility. That Mitchell was not home when that text came through, he did not leave from his house at all, did he?  It is bad enough as it stands by his own claims, of just how prepped and ready he was. But that frantic rush, to get ready and be out that door and onto that path?! 10-mins in total?

That we know without a shadow of a doubt that search trio left from AW's just after 11pm. Witnessed Faith. They were nowhere else. The call to AW's landline not her mobile, as with the other calls before this. Why do you assume the author has the walk from GD's house to YW's at just over 10mins, yet has the walk from AW's to the paths longer? Where the first takes longer than 10mins as does the latter.  They were exactly where they said they were, and went exactly where they went from A-B. And they got there around 11.20pm and Mitchell was still on that path.

What was Mitchell doing for those 90mins Faith, where did he go when he left the boys around 8.30pm? What proof is there that he was home from 4.25pm?

How many phones did LM have Faith? What happened to his old handset? Why is that not mentioned in the book? We have every phone and record of the Jones phones, JF and YW - where are the Mitchells?

Now that you do know, without a shadow of a doubt that Mitchell (and you even quoted the Times) did not go past that V with his dog. That you do not even believe his own statements? How do you account for those ten steps JaJ and Kelly took, whilst Mitchel was "searching around" in the woods, that he found Jodi so quick;y? Mere seconds with no indication of where in the woods, straight ahead or otherwise? As you say "no one is interested in him going past" Only the dog. Show us exactly what that search trio said, in sequence from that first statement onwards. Show us when they were taken to RDP to go over that night. Show us those precognitions done by both the Crown and defence? - no you can't can you? So you mosey on along now with your blind faith and trust in the author, with your "wafer thin case", and here is that same record again - that only those who soak in the  pages of that book can come out with, that there was no evidence - indeed,  9 weeks of waffle, that even the author did not witness!

"beyond a  reasonable doubt?" Every single piece of that case screams it was LM. Nothing is going to change that. That clear attempt, that strive to give an alibi from just after 5pm until 5.45pm. To add her other son to the mix, to lie - and one wants to question if she knew what Luke had done? or why he needed cover, when she could drag her other son in at ease. Leave the family alone, that he left home with his mothers blessing, smack bang at a time of leaving her alone to face the backlash, those attacks and all else. Does not fit, does it? United in true belief of innocence = equal standing and fighting together. That clear contradiction and irony, of "if it were your son, brother, would you not want everyone shouting from the rooftops?" Damn right you would, inclusive of the father and brother. 4.25 until nearly 6pm = nothing of LM. Around 6.15pm until 7.30pm = nothing of LM. 8.30pm until 10pm = nothing of LM. To 11.20pm = nothing of LM then minutes later Jodi is found, in a isolated area, hidden behind a large Oak tree in a dark woodland, that no one was searching.

And we have those sightings, those positive ID's of him. And he was prepped and ready from that curfew time - and again every single part of that time screams this at us. And there is only one reason why he was prepped and ready, why he knew that call/text would come - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Where do you get all your facts from, Parky? 

Just interested to know, since I don't know of anyone other than  SL  who has researched the case in detail.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #283 on: September 10, 2021, 03:16:07 PM »
Rather than start a new thread, I’ll digress a little and leave this here:

 I was curious to know what people on here thought of Luke’s chances of getting released in 2023? Given the barbaric nature of the crime and his entrenched denial, do you think these factors render his chances extremely slim? Even if he did admit to it, would it make any difference to his chances of release in 2023? Will he ever get released? I wonder how many risk assessments he’s had by the authorities and what the results were? High risk offender? I sometimes wonder if his denial was/is an attempt to make his prison life more bearable (I have a hunch he’s in segregation and often an easy target for other inmates).

Offline rulesapply

Re: Luke Mitchell - Interview with Sky's James Matthews
« Reply #284 on: September 10, 2021, 04:48:55 PM »
Rather than start a new thread, I’ll digress a little and leave this here:

 I was curious to know what people on here thought of Luke’s chances of getting released in 2023? Given the barbaric nature of the crime and his entrenched denial, do you think these factors render his chances extremely slim? Even if he did admit to it, would it make any difference to his chances of release in 2023? Will he ever get released? I wonder how many risk assessments he’s had by the authorities and what the results were? High risk offender? I sometimes wonder if his denial was/is an attempt to make his prison life more bearable (I have a hunch he’s in segregation and often an easy target for other inmates).

I believe that most long term prisoners aren't released after their first hearing anyway. That combined with everything you've mentioned means that LM may not be released for a very long time. I can't produce a cite for this so I'm prepared for it to be deleted but LM has never not been on protection for his own safety.