Luke Mitchell

[Guest]

i believe most people on here dont read either of these awful rags

 

That seems to be one of the main arguments of some of the new JKB members - that we all on here are brain dead morons who read tabloid newspapers and believe what we are told to believe by these papers.

 

Instead of being brainwashed by the tabloids we should open our minds and believe as fact a few random strangers on the internet. (anyone else spot the irony?)

 

Personally the only papers I ever tend to buy are the Times and the Midlothan Advertiser (honest!)

[Johanes de Silentio]

I have so far, been asked if I believe in God, been lied to, been accused of being someone else, and having my posts and the details in them, questioned.

 

Welcome to Jambos Kickback!

[Johanes de Silentio]

the majority of people on this thread who have been reading the Daily Record and Sun for years about this case, have never questioned the newspapers source/s, its credibilty,

 

I think the majority of people in Scotland who read a paper tend to choose those rags.

 

It would be good, though, if you could post links to sources, so that people can interpret them for themselves.

[rossthejambo]

Hi TW, what I find odd is that the majority of people on this thread who have been reading the Daily Record and Sun for years about this case, have never questioned the newspapers source/s, its credibilty, but yet when I post information that can be backed up in a court of law, I have so far, been asked if I believe in God, been lied to, been accused of being someone else, and having my posts and the details in them, questioned. I have no reason to lie. I will try and provide links when I can, will post honestly and be as accurate as I can.

 

I only came on here this morning because I've got toothache, and having a day doing nothing and I've been here for hours lol No housework done, no tea made, nothing. Best log off now.

 

Another shot insinuating we're unable to think for ourselves by calling a media smear campaign.

 

Without any source of this supposed evidence I don't really see why anyone could credibly doubt the conviction.

[ConsiderThis]

Right okay, in response to the last few posters who seem to be offended, for those who claim that Luke Mitchell is guilty, where did you get the information from regarding the case which led you to the conclusion that he was guilty if it wasn't from the tabloids?

 

Instead of being picky and pulling me up because I made the assumption that it must have been from the tabloids, why not question what I have been saying about semen, sperm, blood, hairs, saliva, found on the naked body of a young girl and her ripped clothing, which had nothing to do with the guy who is in prison for her murder, or any other comment that I have made. I'm trying to answer as many questions as I can but I'm only at the beginning of page 4, so if you have asked questions about it, I'm not ignoring the questions, I just havent got round to it yet.

 

If people are not interested in this thread, why comment? There are plenty of other topics that they can contribute to, I'm stuck on this one so I havent had a chance yet. I'm sure that there will also be people who view the thread but do not want to contribute to it, but are interested in the topic and peoples views on it. Are the people that are suggesting that this thread be closed worried about what I might say next? If not what is the reason for wanting to get rid?

 

Can I make a suggestion that if anyone doubts anything that I have said, that they make a list of the things that you are concerned about, and either take that list to your local MP or MSP and ask them to check with the relevant departments that everything that I have said is accurate, and everything that I have stated can be back up with official documentation.

[ConsiderThis]

Thanks PA

 

Out of curiousity, as you started the thread, it's all your fault, lol what is your opinion of the polygraph and the chances of 2 people passing?

[ConsiderThis]

Oh, I quite agree that a lot of the case seemed to be based on the fact that Luke was a strange lad and I know at the time I thought that was unfair. And certainly any conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence is always going to be on a shoogly peg. But there also needs to be reasons provided by the defence team as to why all the circumstantial events happened. I've not really seen that from Luke's team other than "We were really crap at our jobs, messed up lots of stuff, lost a vital piece of evidence but honest, you've got it all wrong, he's innocent!"

 

I think it was unfair too, for several reasons. Part of the circumstantial case against LM was that he led a goth lifestyle, was into drugs and obsessed with the goth rocker Marilyn Manson, and also had an obession with the satanic. Ask any goth, and I'm sure they will happily tell us LM was no goth, never in looks nor lifestyle, but even if he were a goth, does not make him a murderer, think we would agree with that.

 

His home had been raided, computers taken away, anything belonging to him was taken by the police as well as anything else they thought may be relevant. Relatives home were searched as well as CM's business. All computers were painstakingly searched and there was no evidence that LM had accessed any gothic sites, Marilyn Manson, anything to do with the satanic, etc.

 

All that was found in the raid was one CD which had been a freebie in a magazine which was purchased after the murder and a ripped up calender that he had been given. Where is the obssession as I certainly cant see it?

 

Due to the connection of MM and the Black Dahlia murder the police were desperate to make a link in my opinion due to the nature of the murder, but there was no evidence whatsoever that LM was aware of this murder at all, not being into MM as the prosection claimed him to be.

 

It is known that the police was given information on someone who was apparently obsessed with MM and the BD murder whose name was not Luke Mitchell. In the Frontline Scotland documentary the pathologist admits that the ?similarities? between the Dahlia murder and Jodi Jones murder were ?superficial? and that there were far more differences than there were similarities.

 

Even if this other person who the police had been made aware of and his obsession with MM and the BD murder, if there was more differences than there was similarities I cant see him being the murderer of JJ, the problem is, they could have easily have built a circumstantial case against him. To my knowledge he wasn't followed up either in the murder enquiry, although his details were known to police early on into the investigation.

 

The guy that left the used condom in the woods on the day of the murder, he had previous convictions, so why did it take 3 years before his dna was matched. Did they not check the database, or was his dna not taken when he had been arrested for his previous crimes? Why, in this murder investigation were certain people not questioned and eliminated from the enquiry, and why did the police fail to follow up on potential suspects and lose vital evidence? Absolutely scandalous!

[ConsiderThis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBEUYdz03CM&feature=relmfu

 

SURELY the police followed that up! Scratches on an essay about 'killing a female in the woods' the day after the murder by a recovering drug addict.

 

No they did not follow it up although were aware of him within days of the murder, had his contact details. It wasnt till 3 years later, when the police were put under pressure, that they spoke with him, by then as we all know the case was closed.

[ConsiderThis]

It's a tough one without seeing exactly where he found her but it obviously played a big part in influencing the jury, who went to the scene of the crime and had a demonstration behind the court. That suggests to me it would have been virtually impossible for one of the search party to just stumble across her. She must have been well hidden.

 

It seems like the kind of error a panicking teenage boy who's just murdered someone would make. One slip in his cover up. Or maybe he was genuinely regretful and just wanted the body to be found for the sake of the family, who knows.

 

Your right they did not stumble across her. The dog reacted just past the v in the stone wall, pulling Luke towards it, due to the dogs reaction, he went back to the v which was the only part that was lower on the wall and he climbed over. People having been asking about changes to statements, what was initially said in statements regarding the dog, which dramatically changed when the trial came and was used to convict LM, in my opinion.

Here is a link which will give you an idea as to the differences in accounts from statements to testimony from the 3 people that were with him when the body was found. The intials DF will be Donald Findlay.

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/the-finding-of-the-body/how-the-stories-changed/

[ConsiderThis]

Shares a bedroom with his mother, has a penchant for Satan and has a collection of knives :interesting:

 

Nah, clearly not attributes a deranged killer would have.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to buy a DVD of a murder to watch the day after her body was found anaw.

 

 

 

 

Shares a bedroom with his mother? You are one sick puppy! Do you know where this story originated from? I'll tell you. Luke Mitchell was put on medication the day following the murder. This can be proven. He had bad side effects and the medication was making him drowsy and shaky on his feet. He spent a few nights sleeping downstairs on a 2 seater. His mother also spent a couple of nights on the other 2 seater sofa, as she was worried sick about him. She spoke with someone about how much trauma he was suffering due what had happened, being with the others when the body was found, and then being taken away and questioned for 7 hours, stripped, photographed etc. This person repeated this story, it grew arms and legs and before you know it she was being accused of having an incestous relationship with her son.

 

Has a penchant for satan? So scribbling word for word verses from computers games and cd's on his jotter is your idea of having a "penchant for satan"?

 

A collection of knives? Where did 2 knives become a collection?

 

He didnt buy a dvd of a murder either. He bought a magazine after the murder which had a free cd in it. There was nothing in the magazine or on the cd which was related to the Black Dahlia murder or any other murder.

[ConsiderThis]

Is it not a criminal offence to carry knives and deal drugs anyway?

 

IT SURE IS! And LM was charged with it. What I dont understand though is that the drug dealer who was supplying LM and JJ, didnt get charged for dealing, nor did he get charged for the knives that he had in his possession. I suppose the fact that he gave testimony against LM at the trial, made that okay then. This is the same person that was with his friend at the v in the wall at approx time of death, cut off his long hair which changed his appearance, got rid of the moped they had been on, day after the murder, before being forced to go to the police 5 days after the murder due to the appeal on television for him and his cousin to come forward. It may be their behaviour was entirely innocent, however they should have been investigated thoroughly, which they were not. He left the area shortly after the murder with his mother and moved home elsewhere.

[ConsiderThis]

COMPLETE FANTASY.

 

Other suspects were ruled out for a reason.

Plus your smart arse joke about the bogey man. Give it a rest man.

 

Could you please elaborate? I'm interested to know who you think were potential suspects and why there were ruled out for a reason, and when they were ruled out? Two lines of enquiry were not spoken with till 3 years after the murder when the case was closed, so I'm curious as to why you make this claim. Thanks.

[ConsiderThis]

The used condom, that of James Falconer, was in the vicinity because he pumped some slag. (on a totally different date to the murder).

 

This was been confirmed with the Police by both him and the lassie who took the boaby.

 

Sten, your reply here really bothers me, bothers me so much I'm going to ask you again, where you got this information as it is wrong.

 

Have you just made this story up for whatever reason?

 

Did JaF tell you this?

 

If you know him personally and have posted this thinking you are helping him, your not.

 

There are statements which JaF gave 3 years after the murder when he was first asked about it, and he makes no mention of being in the woods with any girl, he claims to be alone. His reason for the condom being there on the night of the murder, which was found hours later, was as I have said before in another post, were privacy reasons, because he shared a room with his younger brother.

 

This is what the police can confirm, not a story about him being with a girl on another night.

[ConsiderThis]

This is going to have to be my last post, not ever, just this weekend lol Have a nice weekend everybody.

 

Since the thread is about lie detectors and that CM passed with questions about whether she had given her son a false alibi and had she lied under oath. The prosecution said that Luke killed JJ and that his brother and mother had lied to give him a false alibi. His brother and mother were both charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, before the trial. The press had a field day.

 

But when your actually innocent I wouldnt have wanted to have that sort of charge hanging over me, if I had been them, the stress must have been unbearable. When it came to the trial the jury believed that Corinne Mitchell was lying in her testimony.

 

You would have thought that instead of the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice being dropped, she would have been charged with perjury for lying under oath, immediately. The police had no evidence that CM or SM had lied, the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice was just a bullyboy tactic in my opinion, and an attempt to blacken their name in the eye of the public.

[desmondo]

This is going to have to be my last post, not ever, just this weekend lol Have a nice weekend everybody.

 

Since the thread is about lie detectors and that CM passed with questions about whether she had given her son a false alibi and had she lied under oath. The prosecution said that Luke killed JJ and that his brother and mother had lied to give him a false alibi. His brother and mother were both charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, before the trial. The press had a field day.

 

But when your actually innocent I wouldnt have wanted to have that sort of charge hanging over me, if I had been them, the stress must have been unbearable. When it came to the trial the jury believed that Corinne Mitchell was lying in her testimony.

 

You would have thought that instead of the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice being dropped, she would have been charged with perjury for lying under oath, immediately. The police had no evidence that CM or SM had lied, the charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice was just a bullyboy tactic in my opinion, and an attempt to blacken their name in the eye of the public.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

 

 

[Johanes de Silentio]

Thanks PA

 

Out of curiousity, as you started the thread, it's all your fault, lol what is your opinion of the polygraph and the chances of 2 people passing?

 

I'm a skeptic in the classical sense.

 

I don't really have an opinion on polygraphs - as I stated in the OP, they're not accepted as being 100% reliabe, and they're not admissable.

 

I read that Luke and Corinne Mitchell had both passed polygraph tests, and thought that people would want to know about it.

 

Legally, it doesn't change anything.

 

My feeling is that Luke Mitchell probably did murder Jodi Jones.

 

I'm not sure that there was enough evidence to convict Luke Mitchell, but then I wasn't in court.

 

I wonder if a 'not proven' verdict would have been more appropriate.

 

I have a massive problem, though, with Sandra Lean (and others) saying that Luke Mitchell is definitely innocent.

 

I suspect that the local cops didn't do everything that they could or should have, but that doesn't mean Mitchell is innocent.

[Johanes de Silentio]

In the video below, Sandra Lean says the following:

 

"Luke did not kill Jodi. The Person who did knows who he is, as do the people who have shielded him all these years."

 

I'm afraid I have a huge issue with Lean saying this - she doesn't know that Luke Mitchell is innocent, and she shouldn't be stating her opinion as fact.

 

If Luke Mitchell's supporters know who murdered Jodi, and who is 'shielding' him, the need to say so now - piss or get off the pot, Sandra - if you know, say so - if you don't, shut up about it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RFDRsJFm-U&feature=relmfu

[arfurdaley]

Thanks PA

 

Out of curiousity, as you started the thread, it's all your fault, lol what is your opinion of the polygraph and the chances of 2 people passing?

 

 

How accurate are these tests percentage wise?

[Deek]

This thread is one of the biggest trolls in JKB history.

[ellie0028]

If they are claiming that someone else done it and is being sheilded and the public should be worried away back in 2011...wasnt Robert Greens still in jail then

[AllanM]

AllanM, gonnae stop pretending Luke was peeling tatties.

 

A witness saw him with Jodi at 4.55.

 

Wearing a jacket he was known to often wear and was miraculously never seen again post murder....... Oh, mind that burning smell.

 

FFS man, the ***** did it.

 

1. The man the witness saw was in his early 20s and of medium height, wearing a fishing jacket with pockets on the sleeves. Luke was 14, 5' 4" and not wearing a fishing jacket. Neither the clothing of the man or the girl matched the clothing worn by Luke and Jodi that day.

 

2. The police made up the notion of the "missing jacket", and they said it was a parka, but none of the witness statements even mention a parka.

 

3. The burning smell could have come from anywhere, and the contents of the garden stove were innocent.

[AllanM]

Some people have asked why Corinne didn't sue the papers for libel. Corinne said on the Miscarriage of Justice video:

 

 

that she tried to go to the Press Complaints Commission, but got nowhere.

 

The only reason Chris Jefferies was able to sue was because the police caught the man who had committed the murder, by watching the CCTV footage of the roads around where the girl was found. They spotted the man's car the night he went to dump the body. They then interviewed him and he confessed. This was positive proof that Chris Jefferies was innocent.

 

Corinne should never have been put in the position of having to defend either herself or her 14-year old son from vicious slander, which was concocted by the tabloid press in order to sell more copies. She shouldn't have to justify herself as far as her decision to sue of not to sue.

[AllanM]

Several people have brought up the Sky video. The video is not "circumstantial evidence" and it is ludicrous to read anything into it. Luke read out a tribute poem about Jodi, and was asked some questions by the reporters, which he answered. That is all. Whether or not people feel it was a wise move in his circumstances is irrelevant. People seem to have very strong opinions about it, but they seem to me to be narrow-minded and judgemental.

[AllanM]

I posted a video from the BBC news site called "Luke Mitchell: The Devil's Own?"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm

 

The link to the video is at the top of the right hand column of links. I would be interested to hear opinions about the video.

 

Please note that this video was produced by the BBC, and has nothing to do with the Wrongly Accused website, although they have a link to that, as well as numerous other resources on the site.

[AllanM]

I think the WAP is the most reliable source of information on the Luke Mitchell case because Sandra Lean gives information directly from the forensic tests, the court transcripts, and the witness statements. There are far more witness statements in Luke's case than were ever used in the court trial, and Sandra has read them all and still believes that Luke is innocent. She knows far more about this case than the jury ever learned, and far more than was ever published in the newspapers. Surely it isn't too much to ask that you try to have an open mind about this, and accept that someone who has studied the case for years might know a little more about it than you?

[AllanM]

I'm logging off now, but I will come back and try to answer more questions, either tomorrow or the next day.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Still going then?

 

All this "evidence" and still no appeal?

[jambovambo]

Can I ask the main contributors on here, exactly how they know so much, that is different to what was in the papers, and what came out in court?

 

Honestly and frankly.

[ellie0028]

Several people have brought up the Sky video. The video is not "circumstantial evidence" and it is ludicrous to read anything into it. Luke read out a tribute poem about Jodi, and was asked some questions by the reporters, which he answered. That is all. Whether or not people feel it was a wise move in his circumstances is irrelevant. People seem to have very strong opinions about it, but they seem to me to be narrow-minded and judgemental.

 

 

Another insult there Allan

 

You cant tell me you agree with the timing of the interview,surly no?

[Denny Crane]

I'm logging off now, but I will come back and try to answer more questions, either tomorrow or the next day.

 

We wait with baited breath. Given your inability to answer the one I posed to you regarding the media's coverage of the trial and your failure to back-up your sweeping generalisation on page four of this thread, I put it to you that you can't and you should therefore retract your earlier comment.

[Johanes de Silentio]

This thread is one of the biggest trolls in JKB history.

 

[Johanes de Silentio]

I think the WAP is the most reliable source of information on the Luke Mitchell case

 

 

How can it be reliable when Sandra Lean has an agenda?

[Chad Sexington]

The Mitchell family slithering on to this forum gives me the boak.

[Sten Guns]

AllanM, next time you speak to Corrine, ask her what she was doing with the next door neighbour the night Jodi was murdered.

 

[Sterling Archer]

My father in law was in the police at the time of this case and while he's never told me specifics he says he's 100% sure theyve got the right guy. FWIW

[Johanes de Silentio]

AllanM, next time you speak to Corrine, ask her what she was doing with the next door neighbour the night Jodi was murdered.

 

You know what she was doing with the next door neighbour, so why ask?

 

Not sure she was doing it that particular night, mind.

[Johanes de Silentio]

My father in law was in the police at the time of this case and while he's never told me specifics he says he's 100% sure theyve got the right guy. FWIW

 

Yup - the local cops were convinced, no doubt about it.

[felix]

We wait with baited breath. Given your inability to answer the one I posed to you regarding the media's coverage of the trial and your failure to back-up your sweeping generalisation on page four of this thread, I put it to you that you can't and you should therefore retract your earlier comment.

 

Gonnae no stop asking that question.

Don't really want to say too much on behalf of someone else but the post you keep banging on about wasn't too controversial.

 

Someone said the media wanted to portray LM as a "sensationalist murderer" . That's a fact.

LM was portrayed as a monster - rightly or wrongly depending on who you believe. He was to all intents and purposes, assumed guilty by the press before the trial. If you want evidence, there's pages of it on the appeal papers submitted by Finlay.

 

Perhaps more controversially, it was claimed "journalists don't care what lies they print". Perhaps it would have been fairer to say "some journists don't care if they print the truth " which is probably correct in many cases. Reckon AM was referring to presuming someone guilty before trial but again the appeal papers refer to the speculative and sensationalist press coverage , stating that media interest was "not limited to reporting factual matters". Yes the appeal was rejected but not on grounds of the above being inappropriate eveidence

 

Ps.. , I asked you a question a few months back on a Six nations thread about Thom Evans injury . Would appreciate a response . Many thanks

[Denny Crane]

Gonnae no stop asking that question.

Don't really want to say too much on behalf of someone else but the post you keep banging on about wasn't too controversial.

 

Someone said the media wanted to portray LM as a "sensationalist murderer" . That's a fact.

LM was portrayed as a monster - rightly or wrongly depending on who you believe. He was to all intents and purposes, assumed guilty by the press before the trial. If you want evidence, there's pages of it on the appeal papers submitted by Finlay.

 

Perhaps more controversially, it was claimed "journalists don't care what lies they print". Perhaps it would have been fairer to say "some journists don't care if they print the truth " which is probably correct in many cases. Reckon AM was referring to presuming someone guilty before trial but again the appeal papers refer to the speculative and sensationalist press coverage , stating that media interest was "not limited to reporting factual matters". Yes the appeal was rejected but not on grounds of the above being inappropriate eveidence

 

Ps.. , I asked you a question a few months back on a Six nations thread about Thom Evans injury . Would appreciate a response . Many thanks

 

Fine. Can you present links or pdfs to those papers then?

 

Can you remind me what your question about Thom Evans was?

[Sandra Lean]

Hi. I just thought I?d drop by and clear up a few misunderstandings ? I won?t have time to post in discussions ? please don?t think I?m ?avoiding? questions (or anything else), it?s just that I have very little free time.

 

Firstly, PA is absolutely correct ? I do have an agenda. What appears to be misunderstood is what that agenda is. It?s really quite simple ? I was stunned and horrified when I discovered how easily innocent people can be wrongly convicted ? I didn?t know before, and nor did anyone I knew. So I set out to find out, and share, everything I possibly could. Luke?s case isn?t the only case I?m involved with ? over the years, there have been literally dozens.

It may seem strange to some people, but I do what I do because I believe it is the right thing to do. I have never made a single penny from Luke?s case, or any of the cases I have worked on. I don?t even ask for expenses, I cover my own. I don?t do this for money, fame, or any of the other things people have assumed ? I do it because I realise how easily this could happen to any one of us; myself and my family, you or yours.

 

The statement I made outside the court was a prepared statement. Corinne was having difficulty speaking clearly because she?d had extensive dental treatment the day before, so I made the statement on her behalf. Some of the papers reported this, some didn?t. In response to ?knowing? who the killer is, it stands to reason that, if it wasn?t Luke, it was someone else ? that someone else obviously knows who he is, and it?s probable that he had assistance in covering up, given the nature of the crime ? that?s what the statement was referring to. I have no idea who killed Jodi, other than that all of the evidence shows it wasn?t, and couldn?t have been, Luke. It?s not just that there?s no evidence to support the accusation against Luke, there is a mass of evidence which, quite simply, makes the case, as claimed by the prosecution, impossible.

 

I have two daughters. They were round about Jodi?s age at the time she was murdered. Does anyone really believe that I?d campaign for the release of someone back into my own community, where my own daughters live, if I thought for even a fraction of a second that there was a chance he had done such a terrible thing to someone else?s child? My support of Luke is based on all of the evidence I have seen over the years, not, as some people have suggested, that I have taken anyone?s word for anything at face value. The same is true of the other cases I work with.

 

I have access to all of the case papers in Luke?s case, as I do with several other cases. In Scotland, there are restrictions on what I can reproduce publicly from those papers ? the situation is not so restrictive south of the border. I have offered on numerous occasions to meet with Jodi?s mum, since her family were callously lied to and misled during the investigation as well, so that she, too, can see what I have seen. Everything I have posted about the case has come from the case papers ? I quote verbatim what I can, but, as I said, I am prohibited from reproducing full copies of papers. One day, I hope that will change, and everyone will be allowed to see what is in those papers ? it?s important, in a democratic society, that ordinary people know what?s being done on their behalves.

 

I don?t mind the derogatory comments from people who know nothing about me - what I would ask is this ? if anyone on this forum found themselves wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, whose ?side? would they want me on? In fact, there?s a better question than that ? if anyone on this forum found themselves wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit, to whom would they turn for help? Think of all the famous miscarriages of justice ? they were all let down repeatedly by the police, the lawyers and the courts, before it was finally conceded that they were innocent. It happens, far more often than many people realise, and it could be you, or me, tomorrow.

[Johanes de Silentio]

The statement I made outside the court was a prepared statement. Corinne was having difficulty speaking clearly because she?d had extensive dental treatment the day before, so I made the statement on her behalf. Some of the papers reported this, some didn?t. In response to ?knowing? who the killer is, it stands to reason that, if it wasn?t Luke, it was someone else ? that someone else obviously knows who he is, and it?s probable that he had assistance in covering up, given the nature of the crime ? that?s what the statement was referring to. I have no idea who killed Jodi, other than that all of the evidence shows it wasn?t, and couldn?t have been, Luke. It?s not just that there?s no evidence to support the accusation against Luke, there is a mass of evidence which, quite simply, makes the case, as claimed by the prosecution, impossible.

 

Sandra - you refer, in that video, to 'those who have been sheilding him all these years" - how do you know 'he' is being 'shielded'?

 

Edit: I have stated on this thread that I'm not sure that there was enough evidence to convict Luke Mitchell.

 

I don't agree with your assertion that 'all of the evidence shows it wasn?t, and couldn?t have been, Luke', or that 'there is a mass of evidence which, quite simply, makes the case, as claimed by the prosecution, impossible.'

 

Any chance of posting your version of the timeline of Jodi's murder, please?

[Johanes de Silentio]

I have never made a single penny from Luke?s case, or any of the cases I have worked on.

 

You do have abook on sale.

[Sandra Lean]

I said, in the post above, "it stands to reason that, if it wasn?t Luke, it was someone else ? that someone else obviously knows who he is, and it?s probable that he had assistance in covering up, given the nature of the crime."

 

That's what was meant about others "shielding" the killer. Also, it was a prepared statement - "the killer or killers know who he is or they are, as do those who have been shielding him or them all these years" doesn't really roll of the tongue too comfortably, and isn't exactly concise for listeners either.

 

When I use "he" with reference to the killer, I mean "he" or "they," since it can't be ruled out for certain that there was only one attacker.

 

Jodi's family made an appeal after the murder for people to come forward. They said in that appeal that someone close to the killer must have their suspicions, but might be in "unacceptance" that someone they love could do such a thing. The killer was almost certainly heavily bloodstained, and is likely to have been behaving differently in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Someone close to them may have had suspicions, but been "reassured" when it became apparent that the entire focus was on Luke. Unless the killer lives completely alone, it would be surprising if those closest to him did not, at least at the beginning, have concerns.

[Sandra Lean]

You do have abook on sale.

 

I do, indeed. From which I have not personally made a penny!

[Sandra Lean]

I don't agree with your assertion that 'all of the evidence shows it wasn?t, and couldn?t have been, Luke', or that 'there is a mass of evidence which, quite simply, makes the case, as claimed by the prosecution, impossible.'

 

Fair enough, but since you haven't seen that evidence, on what do you base your disagreement?

 

Any chance of posting your version of the timeline of Jodi's murder, please?

 

Yes, but I'm afraid that it won't be this evening, as I'll have to log off in about 10 minutes - I'm working tonight.

[Johanes de Silentio]

I said, in the post above, "it stands to reason that, if it wasn?t Luke, it was someone else ? that someone else obviously knows who he is, and it?s probable that he had assistance in covering up, given the nature of the crime."

 

That's what was meant about others "shielding" the killer. Also, it was a prepared statement - "the killer or killers know who he is or they are, as do those who have been shielding him or them all these years" doesn't really roll of the tongue too comfortably, and isn't exactly concise for listeners either.

 

When I use "he" with reference to the killer, I mean "he" or "they," since it can't be ruled out for certain that there was only one attacker.

 

Jodi's family made an appeal after the murder for people to come forward. They said in that appeal that someone close to the killer must have their suspicions, but might be in "unacceptance" that someone they love could do such a thing. The killer was almost certainly heavily bloodstained, and is likely to have been behaving differently in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Someone close to them may have had suspicions, but been "reassured" when it became apparent that the entire focus was on Luke. Unless the killer lives completely alone, it would be surprising if those closest to him did not, at least at the beginning, have concerns.

 

Are you genuinely suggesting that some people are harbouring (a) murderer(s)?

[Johanes de Silentio]

Fair enough, but since you haven't seen that evidence, on what do you base your disagreement?

 

I'm a skeptic - I don't know that Luke is guilty - nor do I know that he is innocent - meither do you - for all your forensic research, you weren't there.

[felix]

Fine. Can you present links or pdfs to those papers then?

 

Can you remind me what your question about Thom Evans was?

 

If you Google Luke Mitchell vs Her Majesty's Advocate, you'll get court references to Mitchell's appeal including oodles of details on the press headlines which were claimed to be speculative and less than factual.

 

 

 

I asked why you thought Thom Evans was inches/millimeters away from being "brain dead" as opposed to being para/quadriplegic. It's a medical nuance but i though it important to differentiate at the time.

[Sten Guns]

Sandra, you don't know that Luke is innocent.

 

Stop acting like you do and acting like he is is.

[moogsy]

This is just weird now