Jump to content

Luke Mitchell


Johanes de Silentio

Recommended Posts

Yon Luke Mitchell is one unlucky chap isn't he?

 

He goes to meet his girlfriend at a pre arranged time, when he arrives someone has already managed to commit an absolutely brutal murder that would have taken a fair bit of time.

 

So unlucky!

 

Even more unlucky is the fact his mother decided to have a cheeky wee bon fire the night it happened.

 

Absolute nightmare!

 

Then he lost his knife!

 

Sare yin!

 

Poor Luke. Let's free him.

 

I've got to agree regarding the bonfire. Why and what was she burning? And was it a regular thing for Mrs Mitchell to burn stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 712
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Denny Crane

AllanM

 

Still waiting for the answer to the question raised in post 150 of this thread. Why the delay? Is Sandra offline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just posting to say that I have other fish to fry, but I will come back later to answer any questions and deal with any other posts.. Please do feel free to tell me any information I don't know. I am very willing to listen to proper information and also to share what I know about the case. Meantime, I do encourage you to read more about the case.. There are various forums around the internet, but I do feel that the Wrongly Accused Person forum, which is carefully checked by Sandra Lean, is the only source of factual information, which is posted by Sandra herself directly from the police records, forensic reports and witness statements which were collected by the police at the time of the murder. I have a great respect for her now, having read through over 800 pages of discussion there, plus supplementary material which is available on other links at that site. I have also read widely across other forums, and other sources of information, including the Scottish Courts webiste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Plissken

There's a link to this Kickback thread on Sandra Lean's forum - I'm guessing that's how he found us.

 

Ah okay.

 

This her?

 

SandraLean.jpg

 

Six-pinter, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Yon Luke Mitchell is one unlucky chap isn't he?

 

He goes to meet his girlfriend at a pre arranged time, when he arrives someone has already managed to commit an absolutely brutal murder that would have taken a fair bit of time.

 

So unlucky!

 

Even more unlucky is the fact his mother decided to have a cheeky wee bon fire the night it happened.

 

Absolute nightmare!

 

Then he lost his knife!

 

Sare yin!

 

Poor Luke. Let's free him.

 

Are you really struggling that hard to understand what circumstantial evidence is? It's not a difficult concept to grasp Sten, give it an honest try.

 

Sandra Lean

 

I'm sure that it was posted on here somewhere that Sandra Lean is a a lawyer. The link above doesn't mention this. However it does have this sentence in it.

 

"I was offered a PhD studentship in 2008, which I accepted, still working to support myself and my kids. At the same time, I completed a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law."

 

Why would a lawyer be doing a qualification as a paralegal?

 

And why does she describe herself as an author?

 

Maybe the appeals aren't going too well as they are being pushed along by someone with no practical knowledge of the law apart from what they have read?

 

I have no opinion on this Sandra Lean character, but how else is one meant to learn about the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

I've got to agree regarding the bonfire. Why and what was she burning? And was it a regular thing for Mrs Mitchell to burn stuff?

 

It's not a matter of whether it was a regular thing or not. The matter is that we don't know. For all we know she liked to burn her rubbish all the time, or she cooked on the bbq often or she burns her grass cuttings. Who the hell knows? She does. Not me though. And certainly not you, or Sten, or anyone else on this thread.

 

Why are so many people peddling what they've read in the papers as fact? It's astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have no opinion on this Sandra Lean character, but how else is one meant to learn about the law?

 

The important word in my sentence is "practical"

 

My main point though is why she was described as a lawyer when it appears she is an author who took a paralegal qualification after becoming interested in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah okay.

 

This her?

 

SandraLean.jpg

 

Six-pinter, IMO.

 

 

She'd get it :thumbsup:

 

No such thing as bad plublicity either, never heard of her prior to this thread,now know lots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambogaza

It's not a matter of whether it was a regular thing or not. The matter is that we don't know. For all we know she liked to burn her rubbish all the time, or she cooked on the bbq often or she burns her grass cuttings. Who the hell knows? She does. Not me though. And certainly not you, or Sten, or anyone else on this thread.

 

Why are so many people peddling what they've read in the papers as fact? It's astounding.

 

Does she deny burning anything at all? If not, it would be considered a fairly significant piece of circumstantial evidence in court I'd imagine and for a jury to ignore it would be lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Does she deny burning anything at all? If not, it would be considered a fairly significant piece of circumstantial evidence in court I'd imagine and for a jury to ignore it would be lunacy.

 

I genuinely don't know. I agree, if a neighbour said she smelt burning, the mother denied that she had burned anything and then it turned out she actually had then that is straight up perverting the course of justice.

 

However, from what I can gather, one neighbour claimed to smell burning, the mother didn't deny that, the ashes were tested for anything erroneous and nothing was found. To jump to the conclusion that because she was burning something, that something must be evidence is what I don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notorious BIG

There's a link to this Kickback thread on Sandra Lean's forum - I'm guessing that's how he found us.

 

What does it say about the link :woot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now AllanM

 

I don't know if he's guilty or not, but I do know that a jury were satisfied with the evidence that was provided by the prosecution at the trial, so if you are looking for evidence that he is guilty to be provided by us KBers then I'll shall put that forward.

 

Until the stuff that your burd/that woman your stalking Sandra Lean is putting around as Facts is also tested in a court of law then it must be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Pretty much on a level with 'facts' about the moon landings not taking place.

 

I understand that your love for Sandra may be clouding your judgement here, but I thought that it was a pretty cheap shot when you mentioned that Jodie tested positive for drugs, but Luke didn't, I think we can take it as fact that she was indeed murdered and if she was or was not on drugs at the time has little to do with it. Where is your evidence to back it up anyway and unlike the murderer she is not here to defend herself against such an accusation.

 

Would hazard a guess that the autopsy report would have included a blood test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

I do think it was a low blow to point out the different levels of drugs in the systems of a murder victim and the man convicted of the murder.

 

Not if it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of whether it was a regular thing or not. The matter is that we don't know. For all we know she liked to burn her rubbish all the time, or she cooked on the bbq often or she burns her grass cuttings. Who the hell knows? She does. Not me though. And certainly not you, or Sten, or anyone else on this thread.

 

Why are so many people peddling what they've read in the papers as fact? It's astounding.

 

Put it this way. If she's never burned any garden waste or anything else in her garden before, and she was burning this night, why on this particular night and what was it? Perfectly valid questions to ask I'd have thought. And if a reasonable answer was put forward by his mum then you're right, it would have no relevance. I don't know if these questions were asked or answered, hence the reason why I posted them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Crane

I'm just posting to say that I have other fish to fry, but I will come back later to answer any questions and deal with any other posts.. Please do feel free to tell me any information I don't know. I am very willing to listen to proper information and also to share what I know about the case. Meantime, I do encourage you to read more about the case.. There are various forums around the internet, but I do feel that the Wrongly Accused Person forum, which is carefully checked by Sandra Lean, is the only source of factual information, which is posted by Sandra herself directly from the police records, forensic reports and witness statements which were collected by the police at the time of the murder. I have a great respect for her now, having read through over 800 pages of discussion there, plus supplementary material which is available on other links at that site. I have also read widely across other forums, and other sources of information, including the Scottish Courts webiste.

 

So you can't then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

So you can't then?

 

Looking forward to AllanM answering a few of my questions anaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson

Walter White making Sten Guns look like a ###### with the debating skills of a chimp :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Put it this way. If she's never burned any garden waste or anything else in her garden before, and she was burning this night, why on this particular night and what was it? Perfectly valid questions to ask I'd have thought. And if a reasonable answer was put forward by his mum then you're right, it would have no relevance. I don't know if these questions were asked or answered, hence the reason why I posted them.

 

Completely agree. As I said, I don't know the circumstances regarding the burning of anything. I'm sure the questions were asked and answered and as the mother hasn't been convicted of anything you'd have to imagine that her reasoning was water tight. What I have a problem with is Sten Guns claiming that because she was burning something on the night of the murder that the boy is guilty. He's not loosely linking the two incidents, he's straight up saying that the fact that she was burning something is admission of guilt. He has absolutely zero basis for this other than his own superiority complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, that wasn't really my main point though, I just rambled into that one.

 

I do think it was a low blow to point out the different levels of drugs in the systems of a murder victim and the man convicted of the murder.

 

Would say it would be a fairly valid point when the prosecution were discrediting Mitchell as a 'Heavy drug user'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Completely agree. As I said, I don't know the circumstances regarding the burning of anything. I'm sure the questions were asked and answered and as the mother hasn't been convicted of anything you'd have to imagine that her reasoning was water tight. What I have a problem with is Sten Guns claiming that because she was burning something on the night of the murder that the boy is guilty. He's not loosely linking the two incidents, he's straight up saying that the fact that she was burning something is admission of guilt. He has absolutely zero basis for this other than his own superiority complex.

 

:facepalm:

 

Show me where I have said the burning issue alone is a straight up admission of guilt.

 

You are having an absolute mare.

 

Dunno how many times I have said its a price of circumstantial evidence that put together with many others, paints a bigger picture.

 

But that doesn't suit your agenda eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

You are having an absolute mare.

 

You've got a ******* cheek! :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This about sums it up for me. It seemed to be trial by media, with the police then providing stories that appeared to back up other stories, but with precious little evidence or proof. :unsure:

 

I agree with you, Gasman. It is a sorry state of affairs that this ordeal was visited on a 14 year old child, based on police prejudice and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

:facepalm:

 

Show me where I have said the burning issue alone is a straight up admission of guilt.

 

You are having an absolute mare.

 

Dunno how many times I have said its a price of circumstantial evidence that put together with many others, paints a bigger picture.

 

But that doesn't suit your agenda eh.

 

Wow. I'm having a mare? You believe that don't you? Try come up with your own retorts Sten, instead of using mine.

 

Yon Luke Mitchell is one unlucky chap isn't he?

 

He goes to meet his girlfriend at a pre arranged time, when he arrives someone has already managed to commit an absolutely brutal murder that would have taken a fair bit of time.

 

So unlucky!

 

Even more unlucky is the fact his mother decided to have a cheeky wee bon fire the night it happened.

 

Absolute nightmare!

 

Then he lost his knife!

 

Sare yin!

 

Poor Luke. Let's free him.

 

You present the fact that she was burning something in the garden as the evidence. No mention of what she was burning, the analysis of the ashes or if this was out of place for her.

 

Luke Mitchell sets out to meet Jodi.

 

They meet, she tells him it's time to split up as he has been pumping other birds.

 

He isn't happy and is stoned out his box for a change. Flies in to a rage with his knife and brutally kills her.

 

He pretends to phone her home to see where she is. Aye good one, Luke.

 

He goes home, his loving mum burns his clothes. They hide the knife.

 

Luke helps look for Jodi, amazingly he finds the body. Blames the dug.

 

A knife is miraculously missing.

 

A fire was miraculously innocently lit that night?!

 

The brother breaks the alibi.

 

A bunch of leftys aren't happy the conviction isn't 100% irrefutable and find it trendy to try and get one over the legal system.

 

Bolt, bunch of throbbers. Attempting to free a killer that evil.

 

Well done to L&B, The Judge and The Jury. You got the right person despite the difficulty in proving it.

 

Again, you're using the fire as some sort of evidence against him.

 

Corrine was burning stuff?

 

 

 

Jodi died just as she was about to meet, Luke.

 

 

 

He lost a knife.

 

 

 

They were going to split up. (motive)

 

 

 

He found the body.

 

 

 

Heavy drug user.

 

 

 

Obsessed with knifes.

 

 

 

You are so blinkered man.

 

And here.

 

So miraculously his mother claims the missing knife was incorrect. Smashing argument!

There was no evidence it was burnt clothes, but likewise there was no evidence it wasn't burnt clothes. They don't know what it was!

 

Why on earth was she burning stuff the night Jodi was murdered! Have a word with yourself man!

 

It's blindingly obvious what happened, just difficult to prove. But the jury got there, thankfully!

 

Links to proof of other mens DNA / seamen on the body please? Would like to read them.

 

And here. Clearly you admit that there was no evidence of burnt clothes but the fact she was burning something at all is apparently evidence enough.

 

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

 

Interesting eh?

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

There is LOADS about this case you don't know. There will be a barrow full of information that lead to his conviction that isn't in the public domain.

 

Regardless of how happy you are with the evidence presented, he did it, well done to the jury.

 

So close to getting away with it too. Worrying.

 

And here.

 

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.

 

And here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AllanM

 

you claim that the Wrongly Accused Person forum is "the only source of factual information" but from what i have seen (admittedly ive only read threw a few pages because there are tones) is its about 5 people claiming the police and the media were out to get Luke.

 

apart from these 5 people you have

Sandra Lean, she has a book to promote you know! do you think she will give evidence to go against her book?? hell no! she would want people to believe what she is saying so she makes money,

 

you also have Lukes Mum! aye shes gonna be spouting that her son is a murderer right enough! :rolleyes:

 

at one part in the forum they were saying that the jones family and most other people giving evidence were lying :woot: Why would the jones family lie in court to send Luke to Jail? i would of thought the jones family would want justice for there Daughter/Granddaughter/Sister/Niece and want her killer jailed and off the street and not some spotty teenager?

 

then there is the police, they claim the police were trying to pin it on Luke and were not interested in the facts. c'mon do you really believe that? the police, who some of prob live close by and likely to have daughters of there own, would want a violent killer of the street to protect the locals and there own family,

 

that forum is as one sided as the cup final is gonna be,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Wow. I'm having a mare? You believe that don't you? Try come up with your own retorts Sten, instead of using mine.

 

 

 

You present the fact that she was burning something in the garden as the evidence. No mention of what she was burning, the analysis of the ashes or if this was out of place for her.

 

 

 

Again, you're using the fire as some sort of evidence against him.

 

 

 

And here.

 

 

 

And here. Clearly you admit that there was no evidence of burnt clothes but the fact she was burning something at all is apparently evidence enough.

 

 

 

And here.

 

 

 

And here.

 

:rofl:

 

Ha ha ha ha

 

So I never said that alone was a straight up admission of guilt.

 

Thanks for saving me the time of quoting myself.

 

Cheers, champ :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries. I do mean forensic or witnesses. It depends what constitutes as 'everything'. In this case I wouldn't use things like finding the body quickly, liking knives, pissing in bottles, one neighbour smelling smoke or having a pony tail as evidence of guilt. Circumstantial evidence can really help when there's at least some forensic evidence to back it up. Guilty verdicts solely based on circumstantial evidence are wrong in my opinion, unless of course it's overwhelming.

 

I agree entirely. I also would like to point out that most of their "circumstantial evidence" was not actually circumstantial evidence. It was character assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

:rofl:

 

Ha ha ha ha

 

So I never said that alone was a straight up admission of guilt.

 

Thanks for saving me the time of quoting myself.

 

Cheers, champ :thumbsup:

 

You're so far gone you don't even know what you've been saying.

 

Presenting that as evidence is very much saying that fact A = B is guilty.

 

If I present a series of circumstantial evidence, each piece needs to at least point to the verdict of guilty. I'm very much certain that the burning of anything was not presented to the courts as "LOOK YOUR HONOUR, SHE WAS BURNING STUFF, SEE! WHO BURNS STUFF?!" But this is the manner in which you are presenting it, suggesting that burning things is the act of a guilty person. Otherwise, why mention it? You may as well throw in other random facts such as "She was clipping her toe nails, Your Honour." "She brushed her teeth twice that day.", "She watched Neighbours in the morning AND the afternoon!".

 

Understand? No, probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what a lot of people are overlooking is that I had a shan haircut and liked Nirvana when I was 14, and I'm a weapons grade rasper.

 

One to think about, that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

This thread is mental.

 

unsure.gif

 

What Luke done to Jodi was mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

You're so far gone you don't even know what you've been saying.

 

Presenting that as evidence is very much saying that fact A = B is guilty.

 

If I present a series of circumstantial evidence, each piece needs to at least point to the verdict of guilty. I'm very much certain that the burning of anything was not presented to the courts as "LOOK YOUR HONOUR, SHE WAS BURNING STUFF, SEE! WHO BURNS STUFF?!" But this is the manner in which you are presenting it, suggesting that burning things is the act of a guilty person. Otherwise, why mention it? You may as well throw in other random facts such as "She was clipping her toe nails, Your Honour." "She brushed her teeth twice that day.", "She watched Neighbours in the morning AND the afternoon!".

 

Understand? No, probably not.

 

:cornette:

 

Utterly horrific desperation at the fact you can't back up your woeful claims.

 

Unlucky my man. But I'm sure you will get over it.

 

Burning stuff alone isn't enough for conviction, but when grouped with all the other circumstantial evidence, the outstanding judge and jury were able to convict the evil *******.

 

Simples :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Luke's Alibi.

 

:keys:

 

LUKE Mitchell's brother recoiled in horror yesterday as he was shown gruesome?pictures of Jodi Jones' naked and mutilated?body.

 

Witness Shane Mitchell, 23, turned away after being shown the first photo of the teenager and immediately asked for a break.

 

After wiping away tears he was forced to look at four more photos.

 

He then described how, when he returned home on the day Jodi died, he watched porn on his computer because he thought he was alone in the house.

 

Luke Mitchell, now 16, who is on trial for murdering Jodi, insists he was at his home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, or in its immediate vicinity, between 5pm and 5.45pm on June 30 2003. Shane told the High Court in Edinburgh he arrived at the house at about 4.50pm.

 

He went upstairs to his bedroom and watched porn on the internet.

 

Advocate depute?Alan Turnbull, QC, asked him if he did anything else. After Shane denied it, Mr Turnbull asked him to look at photos of 14-year-old Jodi's body.

 

He said: "I'm not surprised at your reaction. These are not pleasant. The reason I've asked you to view them is so you can appreciate what we're dealing with here.

 

"Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?"

 

Shane said: "Yes."

 

He then admitted he had committed a sex act on himself and that he wouldn't have done so if he thought he wasn't home alone. Mr Turnbull added: "Who did you think was in the house?"

 

Shane: "No one at that time."

 

Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."

 

Shane said his mum arrived home about 5.15pm and shortly after that he joined her downstairs.

 

Mr Turnbull read out a police statement from Luke Mitchell in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.

 

And Mitchell had added: "Shane was not in when I left."

 

Shane agreed that if his brother had been in each would have been able to see the other.

 

Mitchell denies murder and has lodged a special defence of alibi and incrimination. He has also pleaded not guilty to carrying a knife or knives and supplying cannabis. The trial continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't register with the wrongly accused forum.

 

They're saying I'm someone else :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AllanM, where is Luke's missing knife?

 

Interesting eh?

 

Plus what kind of 14 year old likes knives?

 

Hmmm.

 

Why was Corrine burning stuff??

 

Crazy coincidence, right?

 

There is LOADS about this case you don't know. There will be a barrow full of information that lead to his conviction that isn't in the public domain.

 

Regardless of how happy you are with the evidence presented, he did it, well done to the jury.

 

So close to getting away with it too. Worrying.

 

I have already explained about the knife. Perhaps you have been indulging in the whacky baccy too, which would account for your deplorable memory problem.

 

A. A knife sheath was found which had contained a knife. The police thought that this proved that there was a "missing" knife.

 

B. The knife from the sheath had been handed over to Luke's lawyer, so it was not missing. This fact was not made plain by his lawyer.

 

C. I have seen a photograph of the sheath on the WAP forum. The knife which had fitted that sheath was too short to be the murder weapon, in my opinion, for reasons I have already stated earlier in this thread.

 

D. Even if there was a missing knife, it doesn't matter. The knife was bought for Luke to go camping/fishing, and many people would buy their children knives for fishing or camping purposes. If Luke had, indeed, lost the knife, it would not be significant. Lots of people lose things, particularly children. I have already posted that I am missing knives myself.. Knives, scissors, sellotape, gardening tools and clothing. I am lucky that no-one I know was ever murdered, because they'd have had a field day with me. In spite of losing plenty of knives, I have knives "concealed" in my kitchen drawers, utility room drawers, and other places too. Do I like knives? No, but I own quite a number of them. Did Luke Mitchell like knives? I don't know, but the police didn't find any knives in his room, or pictures of knives on his school graffiti, or present proper evidence that he liked knives, or read out statements which he had made saying he liked them. Having the say-so of the police, and the say-so of the tabloid press seemed to be enough to convince the public and the jury.

 

Corinne was NOT burning anything. It was high summer and someone locally smelled smoke, which could have been a barbecue or a bonfire in any back garden. They couldn't see where the smoke was coming from. Just because there is a smell of smoke does not mean that it is coming from Luke Michell's garden. Incidentally, I believe it is possible to identify whether man-made material has been burned, because it does not burn the same way as organic matter, so it does, in fact, leave chemical residue and remains. The fact that nothing incriminating was found in the garden burner, is, in fact, significant. Corinne Mitchell also passed a lie detector test with regard to this particular issue, which does not surprise me.

 

Yes, I agree that there is loads that I don't know about, however, there is a great deal I do know already. One of the things I know already is that in the time frame allowed, Luke Mitchell could not have committed this crime, gone home to shower and change his clothing, and got back to a wall where he was seen by several school friends who knew him. He also could not have committed this crime without getting Jodi's DNA on him, because apart from the amount of blood, and the spray effect, involved as a result of injury to the carotid artery, Jodi was moved after death without being dragged, to the location under the trees where she was found. (That location was known as a local "gang-hut" for a group of men who went there to trade drugs etc. Luke and Jodi were not part of that group, being much younger.) The fact that no trace of blood was found in Luke's noticably unwashed hair or DNA anywhere on his body most certainly points to his innocence.

 

As far as not knowing everything, it has now been discovered that a vast amount of evidence was not presented to the jury. This omission is the reason that Luke Mitchell was found guilty, along with the incompetence of L & B police, and the disgraceful witch-hunt conducted by the tabloid press. The jury was made up of people like you and all the other people on this forum who are proclaiming his guilt, in spite of everything I am telling you which is disquieting and disturbing. You haven't heard the evidence either, and yet you are condemning him and so convinced you know better than I do - when I have told you that I have spent thousands of hours researching this case. Sandra Lean has spent years researching it. Don't you think that if she thought he was guilty, then she'd find something better to do with her time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

:cornette:

 

Utterly horrific desperation at the fact you can't back up your woeful claims.

 

Unlucky my man. But I'm sure you will get over it.

 

Burning stuff alone isn't enough for conviction, but when grouped with all the other circumstantial evidence, the outstanding judge and jury were able to convict the evil *******.

 

Simples :thumbsup:

 

You're just not getting it.

 

I'm very much happy to admit when I'm wrong Sten, and I'm intelligent enough to gauge my own intellect. You apparently can do neither. I'm sure you're a happy man in blissful ignorance but to all and everyone you meet you're clearly a few shades short of Crayola box.

 

You know absolutely nothing about this case. Nothing. As much as I do. But you think you've got it all figured out. You are not but a sheep.

 

I have stated on countless occasions that I have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case, yet you constantly try refer to me as if I'm part of his legal team and 'one up' me. It's not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

While I respect that you have taken an interest and and considered all the information available to you, I also respect that the jury had more information and had to balance evidence on both sides. I also respect the fact the the PF does not put up a case unless his office believes there is a case to answer. It is perfectly natural for a mother to protect her son to the nth degree, that in its self questions the validity of the presentation. It's now all about balance of probability and in all probability the jury had better information. There is no new evidence that compells the case to re-open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Crane

Looking forward to AllanM answering a few of my questions anaw.

 

Think we are in for a long wait.

 

@ AllanM

 

Why so reticent? You are banging on about evidence in relation to this case so it is therefore only fair that you provide evidence in relation to the question I have asked you. Your earlier claim, on the surface, appears to be nothing more than a sweeping statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

You're just not getting it.

 

I'm very much happy to admit when I'm wrong Sten, and I'm intelligent enough to gauge my own intellect. You apparently can do neither. I'm sure you're a happy man in blissful ignorance but to all and everyone you meet you're clearly a few shades short of Crayola box.

 

You know absolutely nothing about this case. Nothing. As much as I do. But you think you've got it all figured out. You are not but a sheep.

 

I have stated on countless occasions that I have no interest in the Luke Mitchell case, yet you constantly try refer to me as if I'm part of his legal team and 'one up' me. It's not working.

 

Your really toiling eh?

 

Struggling massively.

 

Cheers up big boy. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

 

I know a hell of a lot more about the case than you do san. :smuggy:

 

I see you have changed to this path after being unable to back up your earlier claims, which resulted in you quoting me to prove me correct. :lol:

 

You also have no interest in the case, yet you have posted 27 times.

 

:Vlad-Stupid:

 

Soon to be 28.

 

:greggy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, it's not enough.

 

But it helps build a picture.

 

Just like the David Gilroy conviction, loads of small peices put together to build a picture. Which on their own werent enough.

 

There is circumstantial evidence, and there is defamation.

 

What was presented in court in the case of David Gilroy was circumstantial evidence. It included injuries to his hands, purchasing or borrowing of items which could have been used to conceal a crime, many miles travelled unaccounted for during a trip up North, and vegetation clinging to the underside of the car, pointing to off-road driving. I have no idea about his case, nor would I venture any opinion as to his guilt or otherwise. However, the evidence presented and reported in the news was circumstantial and not defamatory.

 

In contrast, the "evidence" produced for the jury which convicted Luke Mitchell was laughable. It was not circumstantial evidence. It was character assassination, not only aimed at destroying his reputation, but by implying that he had an "unnatural relationship" with his mother, her reputation was destroyed too, which helped to establish her as a villain and nullify Luke's alibi. Look at the way people here are castigating her, filled with hatred. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

There is circumstantial evidence, and there is defamation.

 

What was presented in court in the case of David Gilroy was circumstantial evidence. It included injuries to his hands, purchasing or borrowing of items which could have been used to conceal a crime, many miles travelled unaccounted for during a trip up North, and vegetation clinging to the underside of the car, pointing to off-road driving. I have no idea about his case, nor would I venture any opinion as to his guilt or otherwise. However, the evidence presented and reported in the news was circumstantial and not defamatory.

 

In contrast, the "evidence" produced for the jury which convicted Luke Mitchell was laughable. It was not circumstantial evidence. It was character assassination, not only aimed at destroying his reputation, but by implying that he had an "unnatural relationship" with his mother, her reputation was destroyed too, which helped to establish her as a villain and nullify Luke's alibi. Look at the way people here are castigating her, filled with hatred. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.

 

Gilroy cut his hands doing gardening. You never cut your hands?

 

He borrowed items related to his job. You never needed to do that?

 

He travelled to a site he often visited for work purposes. Pretty normal?

 

Gilroy took an unusual path and an unusual amount of time as he was skiving. You never skived a little?

 

You see how easy this is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Crane

There is circumstantial evidence, and there is defamation.

 

What was presented in court in the case of David Gilroy was circumstantial evidence. It included injuries to his hands, purchasing or borrowing of items which could have been used to conceal a crime, many miles travelled unaccounted for during a trip up North, and vegetation clinging to the underside of the car, pointing to off-road driving. I have no idea about his case, nor would I venture any opinion as to his guilt or otherwise. However, the evidence presented and reported in the news was circumstantial and not defamatory.

 

In contrast, the "evidence" produced for the jury which convicted Luke Mitchell was laughable. It was not circumstantial evidence. It was character assassination, not only aimed at destroying his reputation, but by implying that he had an "unnatural relationship" with his mother, her reputation was destroyed too, which helped to establish her as a villain and nullify Luke's alibi. Look at the way people here are castigating her, filled with hatred. It is a sad, sad state of affairs.

 

Now about the question I raised back in post 150 of this thread (given that evidence is your thing).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - You said "I don't believe you" thereby insinuating that I am lying, which I'm not.

 

2 - I was blocked.

 

3 - Lean's forum is quite clearly regularly moderated.

 

4 - Sandra Lean posts A LOT on her forum and REGULARLY - she doesn't seem interested in views that differ from her own.

 

5 - You do not know for sure whether Luke Mitchell is guilty or innocent.

 

6 - This isn't the right forum for debating the alleged facts - Lean's forum is - she wouldn't let me on it - she doesn't want to be challenged.

 

7 - Open your eyes and remove the blinkers - try to see it from both sides.

 

I still do not believe that the Wrongly Accused website, or any other website, would block you personally, unless you had already proven yourself to be a trouble-maker, because anyone can join and post and there are no blocks to posting. How would they know your IP address, for a start, in order to block you? You need to learn a bit more about technology, my friend, before you make claims like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not believe that the Wrongly Accused website, or any other website, would block you personally, unless you had already proven yourself to be a trouble-maker, because anyone can join and post and there are no blocks to posting. How would they know your IP address, for a start, in order to block you? You need to learn a bit more about technology, my friend, before you make claims like this.

 

Perhaps Paranoid Android has been wrongly accused of being someone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just posting to say that I have other fish to fry, again, but I will come back later to answer any questions and deal with any other posts.. Please do feel free to tell me any information I don't know. I am very willing to listen to proper information and also to share what I know about the case. Meantime, I do encourage you to read more about the case.. There are various forums around the internet, but I do feel that the Wrongly Accused Person forum, which is carefully checked by Sandra Lean, is the only source of factual information, which is posted by Sandra herself directly from the police records, forensic reports and witness statements which were collected by the police at the time of the murder. I have a great respect for her now, having read through over 800 pages of discussion there, plus supplementary material which is available on other links at that site. I have also read widely across other forums, and other sources of information, including the Scottish Courts webiste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Your really toiling eh?

 

Struggling massively.

 

Cheers up big boy. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.

 

I know a hell of a lot more about the case than you do san. :smuggy:

 

I see you have changed to this path after being unable to back up your earlier claims, which resulted in you quoting me to prove me correct. :lol:

 

You also have no interest in the case, yet you have posted 27 times.

 

:Vlad-Stupid:

 

Soon to be 28.

 

:greggy:

 

This is like having an argument with a child. How old are you out of interest? You're an incredibly immature individual. I haven't ran out of ideas Sten, that's why I'm replying. It's you that's chosen now to avoid any sort of confrontation and purely troll this thread for whatever reason you've got. Telling me I'm struggling is not a retort, that's you struggling. Please tell me, as I'm really interested to know, what have I gotten wrong here? What have I said that is false? What do you believe that you are right about that I am not? Please tell.

 

What was my earlier claim that I've backed away from? I can't think of anything that I've claimed, never mind a claim I've chosen to now ignore.

 

I have no interest in this case. I think you'll find that the majority of my posts, including this one, aren't about the specific case, but more to do with the ignorant and ill-informed (mainly you) that think they know everything about it when it's clear as day that they (you) don't.

 

Now, even though I might not 100% agree with AllanM in regards to Luke being innocent, he definitely appears a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than you. Granted, that's not hard, but if he says that Corinne wasn't burning anything and that her burning anything wasn't used as evidence against Luke then I'll believe him. In such a case, your persistence of using this as part of your evidence for Luke being guilty is entirely unfounded. I think you know less about this case than you think you do Sten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

End of.

 

Unshakeable legal argument there! I concur. Do the twenty sonny and stop wasting taxpayers money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rossthejambo

I have already explained about the knife. Perhaps you have been indulging in the whacky baccy too, which would account for your deplorable memory problem.

 

A. A knife sheath was found which had contained a knife. The police thought that this proved that there was a "missing" knife.

 

B. The knife from the sheath had been handed over to Luke's lawyer, so it was not missing. This fact was not made plain by his lawyer.

 

C. I have seen a photograph of the sheath on the WAP forum. The knife which had fitted that sheath was too short to be the murder weapon, in my opinion, for reasons I have already stated earlier in this thread.

 

D. Even if there was a missing knife, it doesn't matter. The knife was bought for Luke to go camping/fishing, and many people would buy their children knives for fishing or camping purposes. If Luke had, indeed, lost the knife, it would not be significant. Lots of people lose things, particularly children. I have already posted that I am missing knives myself.. Knives, scissors, sellotape, gardening tools and clothing. I am lucky that no-one I know was ever murdered, because they'd have had a field day with me. In spite of losing plenty of knives, I have knives "concealed" in my kitchen drawers, utility room drawers, and other places too. Do I like knives? No, but I own quite a number of them. Did Luke Mitchell like knives? I don't know, but the police didn't find any knives in his room, or pictures of knives on his school graffiti, or present proper evidence that he liked knives, or read out statements which he had made saying he liked them. Having the say-so of the police, and the say-so of the tabloid press seemed to be enough to convince the public and the jury.

 

Corinne was NOT burning anything. It was high summer and someone locally smelled smoke, which could have been a barbecue or a bonfire in any back garden. They couldn't see where the smoke was coming from. Just because there is a smell of smoke does not mean that it is coming from Luke Michell's garden. Incidentally, I believe it is possible to identify whether man-made material has been burned, because it does not burn the same way as organic matter, so it does, in fact, leave chemical residue and remains. The fact that nothing incriminating was found in the garden burner, is, in fact, significant. Corinne Mitchell also passed a lie detector test with regard to this particular issue, which does not surprise me.

 

Yes, I agree that there is loads that I don't know about, however, there is a great deal I do know already. One of the things I know already is that in the time frame allowed, Luke Mitchell could not have committed this crime, gone home to shower and change his clothing, and got back to a wall where he was seen by several school friends who knew him. He also could not have committed this crime without getting Jodi's DNA on him, because apart from the amount of blood, and the spray effect, involved as a result of injury to the carotid artery, Jodi was moved after death without being dragged, to the location under the trees where she was found. (That location was known as a local "gang-hut" for a group of men who went there to trade drugs etc. Luke and Jodi were not part of that group, being much younger.) The fact that no trace of blood was found in Luke's noticably unwashed hair or DNA anywhere on his body most certainly points to his innocence.

 

As far as not knowing everything, it has now been discovered that a vast amount of evidence was not presented to the jury. This omission is the reason that Luke Mitchell was found guilty, along with the incompetence of L & B police, and the disgraceful witch-hunt conducted by the tabloid press. The jury was made up of people like you and all the other people on this forum who are proclaiming his guilt, in spite of everything I am telling you which is disquieting and disturbing. You haven't heard the evidence either, and yet you are condemning him and so convinced you know better than I do - when I have told you that I have spent thousands of hours researching this case. Sandra Lean has spent years researching it. Don't you think that if she thought he was guilty, then she'd find something better to do with her time?

 

You're telling me that a criminal defence lawyer failed to tell the court that the "missing knife" was in his possession? Assuming what you say is true, I'm struggling to believe it tbh, why is his appeal constantly getting thrown out. I don't think for a second that the Scottish justice system is that inept that they'd throw out appeal after appeal with such questionable evidence kicking about.

 

You seem to base an awful lot of your argument on the media's character assassination of him which I honestly think is the wrong way about it, I think it detracts away from your, albeit flimsy, argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...