Luke Mitchell

[HMFC 1874]

Wow first post!! Is this some Mitchell Family Spin.

 

There's a link to this thread on the wrongly accused website....

[Norm]

As I wasn't at the trial, it's impossible to say if I think he is actually guilty. I will say the lack of any forensic evidence does seem unusual and during the case, the media seemed to concentrate quite a lot on the fact that Mitchell was a weirdo as if being a weirdo and killer are the same thing.

[Norm]

Actually, thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there was no forensic evidence in Huntley's house either and he certainly did it, so lack of forensics means nothing.

[Johanes de Silentio]

There's a link to this thread on the wrongly accused website....

 

Curiously, Sandra Lean isn't commenting on it.

[H2]

I think he is obviously innocent. The trial by jury was a trick with mirrors.

 

What happened to Luke Mitchell could have happened to any one of us. They can make up a pack of lies and plaster it all over the papers, and people read it and believe it. Luke Mitchell was strip-searched at the police station the same night the body was found, and the forensic scientist noted that his hair was unwashed, his nails were dirty, he had no scratches or bruises on him, and there was no evidence of any association with the crime. According to Sandra lean, who is a graduate and specialist in criminal law and has extensively researched this case and a lot of the police logs and witness statements, Jodi's body, underwear and clothing had saliva, semen, sperm, hair and blood from other men, and none of it was Luke Mitchell's.

 

The jury weren't told about the DNA or any of the proper evidence. For example. there were eyewitness statements from the search party which described the dog pulling Luke over to the wall, and standing up on it's hind legs, sniffing over the wall. The dog had been trained independently by an outside trainer - it was half-way through a tracker course, and there is nothing strange about that. The jury were not told about those statements describing the dog.

 

The police raided the Mitchell house several times, and found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in the murder, or any covering up of the murder. They took all the vehicles associated with the family and the business, and found no trace of anything. They also took away ashes from the garden barbecue and tested those and found nothing. They interviewed many neighbours and managed to find someone who had smelled smoke around that evening, even though they couldn't say where the smell was coming from, and they got them to testify to that in court, to give the impression that it was proof that clothing had been burned. They didn't mention that they had tested the ashes, and found them to be harmless, or that all the other neighbours had not smelled smoke at all that night.

 

Think of it logically - 14-year old boy kills his girlfriend in a rage, then phones her family to ask where she is, because she is late, thus alerting them immediately that she is missing, then dashes home and tells his mum he's killed her, throws off his clothes, and dives out so he'll be seen out by friends from his school shortly after the time of the murder, relaxed, not out of breath, miraculously cleansed of any trace of blood or DNA, in spite of not having time to take a shower. Meanwhile, his mum, who let him go back out to play after he'd told her he'd killed his girlfriend, spends her evening burning the clothing. It is totally ludicrous and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the Wrongly Accused website where you'll find a lot more about the case. Everything on there is carefully vetted by Sandra Lean, who has staked her professional status on it being accurate.

 

In my view, Luke Mitchell was assumed guilty by the bully-boy policeman who was in charge of the investigation, and the media helped to influence public opinion to ensure that the judge and jury thought he was guilty before the case was tried. It is both a tragedy and a disgrace.

 

If all that was true his lawyer would be sacked for total incompetence, and no one would ever employ him again. And there might just be a tad more to it, think of it logically!

In my view, in Scotland, we have a fair criminal justice system.

[Johanes de Silentio]

If all that was true his lawyer would be sacked for total incompetence, and no one would ever employ him again. And there might just be a tad more to it, think of it logically!

In my view, in Scotland, we have a fair criminal justice system.

 

I think Donald Findlay was Mitchell's brief?

[desmondo]

If all that was true his lawyer would be sacked for total incompetence, and no one would ever employ him again. And there might just be a tad more to it, think of it logically!

In my view, in Scotland, we have a fair criminal justice system.

 

 

 

Most of the time I think, but not always, Ice Cream Wars springs to mind

 

No judicial system is bullet prrof, when you hear and read screams of innocence over a sustained period of time its worth looking at

 

As it goes I would like Lukes Mum to be more vocal, lets face it had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would , she seems a tad quiet for my liking

 

That aside I reckon justice was done

[Johanes de Silentio]

As it goes I would like Lukes Mum to be more vocal, lets face had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would, she seems a tad quiet for my liking

 

She's very vocal here: http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/12525/

[AllanM]

I have no relationship whatsoever to Luke Mitchell, and don't know him or the family. I posted as an unrelated outsider, having got interested in this case because I thought it was a miscarriage of justice. Having read everything I can about the case, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

 

It makes no sense that the police targeted him and built a case against him, dismissing other potential suspects in the process? I would like to know what it is that makes you sure that Luke Mitchell committed this crime. So far, reading this thread, you've come up with gems of logic such as "he was a weirdo" and "had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would , she seems a tad quiet for my liking". How dare you be so callous. Corrine Mitchell has been campaigning for her son daily ever since he was locked up all these years ago. You just haven't been listening. Here, for example, is a speech she made at a recent Miscarriage of Justice" day. Listen to it yourself for her first-hand account as she sees it:

 

[Juan Rom?n Riquelme]

He's a wee prick that murdered a young lassie.

 

End of.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I have no relationship whatsoever to Luke Mitchell, and don't know him or the family. I posted as an unrelated outsider, having got interested in this case because I thought it was a miscarriage of justice. Having read everything I can about the case, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

 

It makes no sense that the police targeted him and built a case against him, dismissing other potential suspects in the process? I would like to know what it is that makes you sure that Luke Mitchell committed this crime. So far, reading this thread, you've come up with gems of logic such as "he was a weirdo" and "had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would , she seems a tad quiet for my liking". How dare you be so callous. Corrine Mitchell has been campaigning for her son daily ever since he was locked up all these years ago. You just haven't been listening. Here, for example, is a speech she made at a recent Miscarriage of Justice" day. Listen to it yourself for her first-hand account as she sees it:

 

 

^^^^^^

 

Luke Mitchell. Nap.

[AllanM]

Sandra Lean's forum is horrendously one-sided - I tried to join it in the hope of some balance, but she wouldn't let me join.

 

If you are referring to the "Wrongly Accused" forum, I don't believe you. Anyone can join that forum. A forum administrator wouldn't keep a note of your personal IP address in order to block you from joining, unless you had already joined in a different identity in order to make trouble. As far as I have seen, people can post anything they like there. There is no immediate moderation in place. If you read Luke's thread, you will see that many different people have joined and posted in favour of Luke, or otherwise. Those people include Judy, the mother of Jodi Jones, one of whose outbursts on the forum was reported in several tabloid newspapers. Following the tabloid coverage, she did not post again, although forum members would welcome some input from the family, and Sandra has stated several times that she is willing to meet with Judy to show her the police reports and other evidence. With regard to your view that the forum is one-sided, then how could it be anything else, if Luke Mitchell is innocent? It deals in fact, and the facts are that Luke was set up at the age of 14, bullied by the police, victimised and vilified by the press and the public, and sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. That is a fact. If you know of any proper evidence which supports the theory that he killed Jodi then by all means post it here for me to see it. Please don't insult my intelligence by spouting the same ridiculous rubbish which the press printed in order to ruin his reputation or that of his family. I'd like proper facts please.

 

The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored to ensure that all information posted is accurate, and if anyone posts inaccurate information, the forum members correct them, and in the event of any dispute, Sandra posts to correct any inconsistencies. The only time I have seen posts actually deleted from the forum was when forum members began speculation about who killed Jodi, and these were promptly removed, in order to protect the people who were being discussed. Apart from posts which are potentially detrimental to a future trial of a different person, any other posts which are unhelpful or have wandered far too far away from the topic are moved to a different part of the forum, where they can be read by any visitor to the site. This is merely to ensure that the thread remains pertinent to the subject.

 

I repeat, I have no affiliation with the Mitchell family, or with the Wrongly Accused forum, although I visit the forum out of interest, along with any other forum I feel I might learn more about Luke Mitchell's case.

[AllanM]

He's a wee prick that murdered a young lassie.

 

End of.

 

Thank you for this insightful and thoughtful contribution to this thread. It speaks volumes about you, and says nothing whatsoever about Luke Mitchell.

 

Luke Mitchell will eventually be released from prison, and acknowledged to be an innocent victim who was treated abominably.. I believe that the case will go down in history, and I also believe that it will result in changes to the law, in order to protect minors who are put in his position. Jodi Jones was 14 when she was murdered. She was a young lassie. Luke Mitchell was 14 too - he was a young laddie. He should have been treated with consideration, care and compassion. Instead, he was bullied, harrassed, harangued, lied to, lied about, barred from school, tried and found guilty while proper evidence linking adult men to the crime was brushed aside, ignored, shelved and hidden.

 

Incidentally, in answer to a different poster, the lawyer was sacked.

[Juan Rom?n Riquelme]

Thank you for this insightful and thoughtful contribution to this thread. It speaks volumes about you, and says nothing whatsoever about Luke Mitchell.

 

Oh no!

[Peebo]

Thank you for this insightful and thoughtful contribution to this thread. It speaks volumes about you, and says nothing whatsoever about Luke Mitchell.

 

Luke Mitchell will eventually be released from prison, and acknowledged to be an innocent victim who was treated abominably.. I believe that the case will go down in history, and I also believe that it will result in changes to the law, in order to protect minors who are put in his position. Jodi Jones was 14 when she was murdered. She was a young lassie. Luke Mitchell was 14 too - he was a young laddie. He should have been treated with consideration, care and compassion. Instead, he was bullied, harrassed, harangued, lied to, lied about, barred from school, tried and found guilty while proper evidence linking adult men to the crime was brushed aside, ignored, shelved and hidden.

 

Incidentally, in answer to a different poster, the lawyer was sacked.

 

I took quite a bit of interest in this case, and thought that the court arrived at the right decision. He seems guilty to me. However, mistakes do happen and/or people do get fitted up.

 

I'll take a look at that forum when I have more time. Could you summarise any explanations given for the apparently false alibi he gave (his brother shattered the claim he was at home, right..?)?

 

Does he have any avenues of appeal left? I thought that he had exhausted them all.

[Hansel]

If he is innocent, then it begs the question, who did kill JJ?

 

To think that someone, or a group of people, could still be on the loose and capable of such a brutal murder, is a little bit disturbing.

[Guest]

If you are referring to the "Wrongly Accused" forum, I don't believe you. Anyone can join that forum. A forum administrator wouldn't keep a note of your personal IP address in order to block you from joining, unless you had already joined in a different identity in order to make trouble. As far as I have seen, people can post anything they like there. There is no immediate moderation in place. If you read Luke's thread, you will see that many different people have joined and posted in favour of Luke, or otherwise. Those people include Judy, the mother of Jodi Jones, one of whose outbursts on the forum was reported in several tabloid newspapers. Following the tabloid coverage, she did not post again, although forum members would welcome some input from the family, and Sandra has stated several times that she is willing to meet with Judy to show her the police reports and other evidence. With regard to your view that the forum is one-sided, then how could it be anything else, if Luke Mitchell is innocent? It deals in fact, and the facts are that Luke was set up at the age of 14, bullied by the police, victimised and vilified by the press and the public, and sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. That is a fact. If you know of any proper evidence which supports the theory that he killed Jodi then by all means post it here for me to see it. Please don't insult my intelligence by spouting the same ridiculous rubbish which the press printed in order to ruin his reputation or that of his family. I'd like proper facts please.

 

The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored to ensure that all information posted is accurate, and if anyone posts inaccurate information, the forum members correct them, and in the event of any dispute, Sandra posts to correct any inconsistencies. The only time I have seen posts actually deleted from the forum was when forum members began speculation about who killed Jodi, and these were promptly removed, in order to protect the people who were being discussed. Apart from posts which are potentially detrimental to a future trial of a different person, any other posts which are unhelpful or have wandered far too far away from the topic are moved to a different part of the forum, where they can be read by any visitor to the site. This is merely to ensure that the thread remains pertinent to the subject.

 

I repeat, I have no affiliation with the Mitchell family, or with the Wrongly Accused forum, although I visit the forum out of interest, along with any other forum I feel I might learn more about Luke Mitchell's case.

 

.......and the oscar for misuse of the word "fact" goes to AllanM

 

The "proper evidence" you refer to - is that different to the proper evidence that was used in the trial?

[Johanes de Silentio]

If you are referring to the "Wrongly Accused" forum, I don't believe you. Anyone can join that forum. A forum administrator wouldn't keep a note of your personal IP address in order to block you from joining, unless you had already joined in a different identity in order to make trouble. As far as I have seen, people can post anything they like there. There is no immediate moderation in place. If you read Luke's thread, you will see that many different people have joined and posted in favour of Luke, or otherwise. Those people include Judy, the mother of Jodi Jones, one of whose outbursts on the forum was reported in several tabloid newspapers. Following the tabloid coverage, she did not post again, although forum members would welcome some input from the family, and Sandra has stated several times that she is willing to meet with Judy to show her the police reports and other evidence. With regard to your view that the forum is one-sided, then how could it be anything else, if Luke Mitchell is innocent? It deals in fact, and the facts are that Luke was set up at the age of 14, bullied by the police, victimised and vilified by the press and the public, and sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. That is a fact. If you know of any proper evidence which supports the theory that he killed Jodi then by all means post it here for me to see it. Please don't insult my intelligence by spouting the same ridiculous rubbish which the press printed in order to ruin his reputation or that of his family. I'd like proper facts please.

 

The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored to ensure that all information posted is accurate, and if anyone posts inaccurate information, the forum members correct them, and in the event of any dispute, Sandra posts to correct any inconsistencies. The only time I have seen posts actually deleted from the forum was when forum members began speculation about who killed Jodi, and these were promptly removed, in order to protect the people who were being discussed. Apart from posts which are potentially detrimental to a future trial of a different person, any other posts which are unhelpful or have wandered far too far away from the topic are moved to a different part of the forum, where they can be read by any visitor to the site. This is merely to ensure that the thread remains pertinent to the subject.

 

I repeat, I have no affiliation with the Mitchell family, or with the Wrongly Accused forum, although I visit the forum out of interest, along with any other forum I feel I might learn more about Luke Mitchell's case.

 

First of all, you're calling me a liar - I did try to join that forum, and was blocked - you need to apologise for calling me a liar - thanks in advance.

 

You say that "there is no immediate moderation" - then you say "The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored" - which is it?

 

You ask 'how could the forum be anything else than one-sided?' - easy - it could be balanced, and allow opposing view points - if Sandra Lean was really interested in truth and justice, she would be willing to listen to all points of view, rather than those that support her crusade.

 

You claim that it is a fact that Luke Mitchell is innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones - that may be your view, however it is anything but a fact - you don't know.

 

For someone who claims to have no affiliation with Lean's forum, you know an awful lot about it.

 

You're not doing your cause any good by ignoring views that you don't like - standing up to views that challenge your own stance can only strengthen your argument.

[Johanes de Silentio]

As far as I have seen, people can post anything they like there. There is no immediate moderation in place.

 

Just had a look at the Wrongly Accused forum - here's what happened to a post made this morning:

 

"MODERATED ? Last Edit: Today at 04:20:09 am by admin ?"

 

And that's BOOM!

[jim747]

Wasn't there a thread recently about JKB'ers who had fecknut friends who lied so much they actually believed their own shit? Would someone like that pass a lie detector test?

[Sten Guns]

Luke Mitchells knife miraculously went missing. Funny that!

 

His alibi was broken and found to be a lie. Funny that!

 

His mother was burning something in the back garden that night. Funny that!

 

Luke was a heavy drug user and was really in to knives. Hmmmm. Interesting.

 

Whilst I appreciate the conviction was probably based on a lot I circumstantial evidence, I'm delighted they arrived at the right decision. He almost got away with it!

 

There just seems to be a few lefty tree huggers out there who aren't happy the conviction wasn't super dooper strong! But that's no reason to insit a killer is freed FFS!

 

Corrine Mitchell is a nutter, lost her rag in the Reyesville one night.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Whilst I appreciate the conviction was probably based on a lot I circumstantial evidence, I'm delighted they arrived at the right decision. He almost got away with it!

 

There just seems to be a few lefty tree huggers out there who aren't happy the conviction wasn't super dooper strong! But that's no reason to insit a killer is freed FFS!

 

Corrine Mitchell is a nutter, lost her rag in the Reyesville one night.

 

She claims to know "who the real murderer is", yet won't say who.

[Norm]

 

 

I would like to know what it is that makes you sure that Luke Mitchell committed this crime. So far, reading this thread, you've come up with gems of logic such as "he was a weirdo" and "had your Son been locked up for a crime you felt was unjust you would be screaming from the high heavens, I would , she seems a tad quiet for my liking". How dare you be so callous.

 

If you're going to quote me to make a point, I'd appreciate it if you used it in context. At no point did I, or indeed anyone here, say he was guilty because he was a weirdo (which he was. I mean who keeps bottles of their own piss and has a hunting knife with their girlfriends initials carved on it?). If you read my post again (go on, you know you want to) you'll quite clearly see the point I was making was that, just because you are a weirdo, it doesn't make you a killer.

 

I quite clearly also said, right at the very start of the post, that I couldn't say if he was guilty or not as I wasn't at the trial and don't know the details.

 

I've got an open mind about this case, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's you who has been blinded by all the hyperbole.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

[Johanes de Silentio]

If you're going to quote me to make a point, I'd appreciate it if you used it in context. At no point did I, or indeed anyone here, say he was guilty because he was a weirdo (which he was. I mean who keeps bottles of their own piss and has a hunting knife with their girlfriends initials carved on it?). If you read my post again (go on, you know you want to) you'll quite clearly see the point I was making was that, just because you are a weirdo, it doesn't make you a killer.

 

I quite clearly also said, right at the very start of the post, that I couldn't say if he was guilty or not as I wasn't at the trial and don't know the details.

 

I've got an open mind about this case, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's you who has been blinded by all the hyperbole.

 

Out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

 

AllanM TELT!

[desmondo]

She obviously doesny get the press you think she merits then, as I've seen next to nothing

 

 

Maybe Lukes Mummy should have spoke up during the investigation, if my memory serves me right she and Luke waited till the day of Jodies funeral to talk to Sky, why was that and why so long ??

 

 

And how do Jodies family feel about lukes apparent innocence ??

[AllanM]

Could you summarise any explanations given for the apparently false alibi he gave (his brother shattered the claim he was at home, right..?)?

 

Does he have any avenues of appeal left? I thought that he had exhausted them all.

 

Well, no. The alibi is seemingly correct. Luke was at home cooking the tea. The brother only said that he couldn't remember if Luke was home or not. He didn't definitively say that Luke was not at home. Luke's mother and Luke have now passed the lie detector regarding the alibi.

 

As far as avenues of appeal go, any fresh evidence which is found is grounds for appeal. Because of the way this particular case was dealt with by the police, there is new evidence coming forward all the time. Many people who went to the police with suspicions about another person, or with stories which supported Luke's innocence were ignored, or dismissed, or even bullied by the police. Those people are adults now, and the hope is that more of these people will come forward to give their statements to Luke's new legal team.

[ASSASSIN]

if he didnt do it then who did?

i have a 14 yr old daughter and to think there could still be a murderer out there preying on young girls freaks me out

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Well, no. The alibi is seemingly correct. Luke was at home cooking the tea. The brother only said that he couldn't remember if Luke was home or not. He didn't definitively say that Luke was not at home. Luke's mother and Luke have now passed the lie detector regarding the alibi.

 

As far as avenues of appeal go, any fresh evidence which is found is grounds for appeal. Because of the way this particular case was dealt with by the police, there is new evidence coming forward all the time. Many people who went to the police with suspicions about another person, or with stories which supported Luke's innocence were ignored, or dismissed, or even bullied by the police. Those people are adults now, and the hope is that more of these people will come forward to give their statements to Luke's new legal team.

 

I read that the lie detector can be wrong up to 14.6% of the time, do you not accept that makes it pretty much worthless?

 

It seems to me that the greatest concern people have with these devices is the chance of error with regard to "false positives". A "false positive" is where the responses of an innocent party are interpreted to show that they are guilty. A "false negative" is where the opposite occurs and a guilty party is indicated to be innocent.

 

Laboratory studies have shown that with regard to accuracy of polygraph tests that false positive results averaged 23.1% whereas false negatives averaged only 14.6%.

 

The other issue with polygraph testing is the area in which it is being used with different rates of effectiveness being claimed when investigating in criminal investigation and judicial contexts as opposed to commercial pre-employment screening.

 

Seems legit.

[AllanM]

If he is innocent, then it begs the question, who did kill JJ?

 

This is the reason that Sandra Lean originally got involved. She was a local mum with two daughters of Luke's age when Luke got accused of murder. She wasn't comfortable with the way that the case was dealt with and was very concerned that the real killer was still at large. She started to do some digging. The quest led her to study criminal law, and she is just about to get a PHD doctorate in criminology. After starting working on Luke's case, she got involved in researching other cases of miscarriage of justice, and has become quite well-known in the field, writing a book which featured a handful of the cases she had looked at, including Luke's. Her work has been the featured in a number of documentaries, including one or two about Luke, which can be seen on this page:

 

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/documentaries/

 

If you read over the threads on the WAP site, you will see that there were a number of local people whose behaviour raises a great number of questions. Unfortunately, the police chose not to ask these questions, because they targeted Luke from the moment the body was found. As I told you, he was taken straight to the police station, strip-searched and forensically examined - no-one else from the search party was treated like that. In my view, the police were utterly determined to find proof of his guilt, and failed to investigate any other leads, because they thought when the forensic tests came back, there would be evidence to link Luke and Jodi - after all as her boyfriend, they'd have had lots of contact, and they'd seen each-other at school that day.. By the time the forensic tests came back clean, they had already dismissed a number of people who could have been involved, including two people who were known to be at the place she was found dead, at the time of her death.

[ToYouToMe]

Was there not a documentary a few years back which suggested a man who was studying at a local college or something may have been the true pepetrator? Not saying I agree but the case is an intriguing one.

[AllanM]

.......and the oscar for misuse of the word "fact" goes to AllanM

 

 

No - if you read what happened that day properly, then you will realise that it is a fact that Luke Mitchell is innocent.

 

The "proper evidence" you refer to - is that different to the proper evidence that was used in the trial?

 

No proper evidence was used in the trial, because none of it was linked to Luke Mitchell.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Was there not a documentary a few years back which suggested a man who was studying at a local college or something may have been the true pepetrator? Not saying I agree but the case is an intriguing one.

 

Yup - he was a student at a local college who had serious probems with drug abuse - he was having black-outs around the time of the murder, and handed himself in to the local cops - I'm not sure how seriously the cops took him, but they ruled him out - I'd like to hope that this was followed up fully, but who knows?

[Johanes de Silentio]

And how do Jodies family feel about lukes apparent innocence ??

 

They are adamant that Luke Mitchell is guilty.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Luke's new legal team.

 

A member of Luke Mitchell's new legal team has just been deemed 'not a fit and proper person' to practice law - there is a legal case between the individual and the firm that employed him.

[Johanes de Silentio]

it is a fact that Luke Mitchell is innocent.

 

You have no way of knowing that.

[ellie0028]

Thing is now all these people that are trying to get Luke Mitchell free now arent doing because he is innocent,they are trying every legal glitch possible and that doesnt prove he is innocent!

[BoJack Horseman]

I have little confidence in any legal system. I trust hard evidence and there doesn't seem to be much in this case. It's all circumstantial. He probably did do it but it's a harrowing thought that maybe he didn't and if that's the case, something like this could happen to anyone.

 

As the saying goes, innocent until proven guilty, and there seems to be a distinct lack of proof surrounding this case.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Saying FACT over and over is convincing no one that he isn't a murdering piece of shit.

 

[Johanes de Silentio]

First of all, you're calling me a liar - I did try to join that forum, and was blocked - you need to apologise for calling me a liar - thanks in advance.

 

You say that "there is no immediate moderation" - then you say "The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored" - which is it?

 

You ask 'how could the forum be anything else than one-sided?' - easy - it could be balanced, and allow opposing view points - if Sandra Lean was really interested in truth and justice, she would be willing to listen to all points of view, rather than those that support her crusade.

 

You claim that it is a fact that Luke Mitchell is innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones - that may be your view, however it is anything but a fact - you don't know.

 

For someone who claims to have no affiliation with Lean's forum, you know an awful lot about it.

 

You're not doing your cause any good by ignoring views that you don't like - standing up to views that challenge your own stance can only strengthen your argument.

 

I'm bumping this because AllanM seems to have missed it.

[BoJack Horseman]

Thing is now all these people that are trying to get Luke Mitchell free now arent doing because he is innocent,they are trying every legal glitch possible and that doesnt prove he is innocent!

 

You shouldn't have to prove your innocence.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Just had a look at the Wrongly Accused forum - here's what happened to a post made this morning:

 

"MODERATED ? Last Edit: Today at 04:20:09 am by admin ?"

 

And that's BOOM!

 

I'm bumping this because AllanM seems to have missed it.

[Johanes de Silentio]

You shouldn't have to prove your innocence.

 

You do if you're banged up.

[Vlad-Stupid]

He's a creepy wee *******. He killed her. Well done all involved in the conviction.

 

 

[BoJack Horseman]

You do if you're banged up.

 

So... Innocent until proven guilty unless we lock you up without proof and then it's guilty until proven innocent?

[AllanM]

First of all, you're calling me a liar - I did try to join that forum, and was blocked - you need to apologise for calling me a liar - thanks in advance.

 

I didn't call you a liar. I said:

 

"I don't believe you. Anyone can join that forum. A forum administrator wouldn't keep a note of your personal IP address in order to block you from joining, unless you had already joined in a different identity in order to make trouble".

 

You maybe think you were blocked, but you are mistaken. I have tried to join plenty of forums and not been successful because of glitches in the system. It didn't occur to me that the forum owner might have previously plucked me from obscurity and set up a block to stop me from joining. Why would that be? I did not call you a liar. You have twisted my words and put your own interpretation on them.

 

You say that "there is no immediate moderation" - then you say "The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored" - which is it?

 

What I meant was that posts appear immediately, with no automatic moderation. This forum - Jambos Kickback - appears to be run the same way. All the posts are subsequently read, however, and any which might be obviously incriminatory to other individuals are removed, because it is inevitable that forum members speculate about certain individuals whose DNA was linked to the crime, who were seen at the murder scene at the time of the crime, who had previously been known to be violent or attack with knives, and so on. I imagine that on Jambos' Kickback, a similar form of moderation is in place.

 

You ask 'how could the forum be anything else than one-sided?' - easy - it could be balanced, and allow opposing view points - if Sandra Lean was really interested in truth and justice, she would be willing to listen to all points of view, rather than those that support her crusade.

 

I have a great amount of respect for Sandra Lean. She is polite, thoughtful, tactful, and treats all posters with respect, whatever their views are. As I said, all opinions are allowed on the forum, and Sandra doesn't post a huge amount, apart from to inform people of developments, to correct misinformation and to ask people to be careful of posting information which might incriminate other people. As I said, one series of posts on the forum was reported in tabloid newspapers.

 

You claim that it is a fact that Luke Mitchell is innocent of the murder of Jodi Jones - that may be your view, however it is anything but a fact - you don't know.

 

Yes, I do know. I have done enough digging to know this for a fact. If you spent more time examining all the information which is in proper newspapers, Scottish court documents, plus different statements on a variety of forums which are widely available on the internet, then you would know for a fact too.

 

For someone who claims to have no affiliation with Lean's forum, you know an awful lot about it.

 

I read the forum. I have also read other forums which have threads devoted to Luke Mitchell. I read this one.

 

You're not doing your cause any good by ignoring views that you don't like - standing up to views that challenge your own stance can only strengthen your argument.

 

I am not ignoring views that I don't like. I have asked people on this forum to give details of any evidence of his guilt they choose. So far, the replies are far from convincing. In fact, so far no-one has said anything except to blindly repeat the rubbish they have read in trashy tabloid papers.

 

 

I repeat my request that you can feel free to tell me the secret information you have which points to his guilt.

[fabienleclerq]

So... Innocent until proven guilty unless we lock you up without proof and then it's guilty until proven innocent?

He got proven guilty.Fact

 

So yes he does have to prove his innocence if he wants out.

 

A friends family member was on the prosecution....Defo Guilty IMO.

[Vlad-Stupid]

I didn't call you a liar. I said:

 

 

 

You maybe think you were blocked, but you are mistaken. I have tried to join plenty of forums and not been successful because of glitches in the system. It didn't occur to me that the forum owner might have previously plucked me from obscurity and set up a block to stop me from joining. Why would that be? I did not call you a liar. You have twisted my words and put your own interpretation on them.

 

 

 

What I meant was that posts appear immediately, with no automatic moderation. This forum - Jambos Kickback - appears to be run the same way. All the posts are subsequently read, however, and any which might be obviously incriminatory to other individuals are removed, because it is inevitable that forum members speculate about certain individuals whose DNA was linked to the crime, who were seen at the murder scene at the time of the crime, who had previously been known to be violent or attack with knives, and so on. I imagine that on Jambos' Kickback, a similar form of moderation is in place.

 

 

 

I have a great amount of respect for Sandra Lean. She is polite, thoughtful, tactful, and treats all posters with respect, whatever their views are. As I said, all opinions are allowed on the forum, and Sandra doesn't post a huge amount, apart from to inform people of developments, to correct misinformation and to ask people to be careful of posting information which might incriminate other people. As I said, one series of posts on the forum was reported in tabloid newspapers.

 

 

 

Yes, I do know. I have done enough digging to know this for a fact. If you spent more time examining all the information which is in proper newspapers, Scottish court documents, plus different statements on a variety of forums which are widely available on the internet, then you would know for a fact too.

 

 

I read the forum. I have also read other forums which have threads devoted to Luke Mitchell. I read this one.

 

 

 

I am not ignoring views that I don't like. I have asked people on this forum to give details of any evidence of his guilt they choose. So far, the replies are far from convincing. In fact, so far no-one has said anything except to blindly repeat the rubbish they have read in trashy tabloid papers.

 

 

I repeat my request that you can feel free to tell me the secret information you have which points to his guilt.

 

He did it. Fact

[BoJack Horseman]

He got proven guilty.Fact

 

So yes he does have to prove his innocence if he wants out.

 

A friends family member was on the prosecution....Defo Guilty IMO.

 

No, he was given a guilty verdict by a jury of his peers based on the circumstantial evidence provided. This is not the same as being proven guilty.

 

Tom, stop trying to get a rise out of this guy, it's pretty pathetic.

[ellie0028]

Lol @ deal

 

Can I ask AllanM did you just join here so you argue your case about luke Mitchell or do you have an interest in Heart of even football..

 

Ofcourse you can believe what ever you want,like I believe he is guilty from day one ive believed that!

[AllanM]

Just had a look at the Wrongly Accused forum - here's what happened to a post made this morning:

 

"MODERATED ? Last Edit: Today at 04:20:09 am by admin ?"

 

And that's BOOM!

 

If you had read the whole thread, or even the previous page of posts, you'd have a better idea of why that post was moderated. A local person posted the latest local gossip about a person who should have been a suspect in Jodi's murder being linked to a recent attempted murder charge, which involved a stabbing to the throat and chest. Sandra came onto the forum a short time later, and asked that nothing more be said about this, unless it was backed up by reliable sources. Any more posts on that subject will be removed.