Der Kaiser Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 ²Watched 2nd episode. That drive by was utter nonsense as already been said on this thread. Former detectives pushing that as potentially casting doubt is just bullshit. Private Investigators? No...more Inspector Clueless. That duo really appeared as if proving a miscarriage of justice is for their notability rather than Luke Mitchells innocence. 2nd episode didn't offer anything damning on either side. The guy who says his flatmate had scratches on his face would suggest his DNA would be found under Jodies fingernails? Lie detector devices....proven unreliable and also fallible. (Aside....Do you normally get made aware of the questions that will be asked beforehand in a lie detector test?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Furious Styles said: Did his brother not fail to corroborate his alibi? Perhaps as a family they no longer speak to each other. My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time? That definitely rings a bell. Edited February 26, 2021 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 38 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time? That definitely rings a bell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William H. Bonney Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 47 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: My mind might be playing tricks, but was he not having a wank at the time? That definitely rings a bell. maybe he’s the mysterious condom man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 A bit awkward if every time he has a wank it rings a bell. Not a lot of privacy there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, Tazio said: A bit awkward if every time he has a wank it rings a bell. Not a lot of privacy there. My mind would be scrambled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 49 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said: My mind would be scrambled. I'd have tinnitus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, jonnothejambo said: A wank ? At the time of what ? At the same the time his brother was murdering Jodi Jones. Hence why he couldn't corroborate Luke Mitchell's alibi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Furious Styles said: maybe he’s the mysterious condom man? I'm not sure if he admitted to a posh wank, or not. They're a really strange family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleLafferty Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Furious Styles said: maybe he’s the mysterious condom man? He’s not condom man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 18 hours ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you mean as in unbelievable a 14 year old could do the actual crime? 2 ten year old kids tortured and brutally killed 2 year old James Bulger. Led him away, lied to passers by about being with him and even tried to make his death look accidental.... Not a reflection of the dna evidence aspect granted..... but ultimately there are just deplorable people living amongst us capable of real horror and frightenly some are children. Apologies if you meant believe he could do it and be dna free. That said If you kill someone you know in the open (so the actual harm could be done initially without the person suspicious of your intent), get rid of your clothes and shower well is it not conceivable that you can be dna free or at the least not at a level of detection possible 17 years ago? If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing. Also what about the moped boys? its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 22 minutes ago, JamesM48 said: If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing. Also what about the moped boys? its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. We should maybe be careful of the "facts" that were given on programme, given that it really amounted to a case for the defence. Not much balance in there. Not much about Luke Mitchell other than he was a bit strange. His wee gesture, shown on the film, towards the press, didn't suggest that he was some kind of shy boy. Nothing about his liking of knives or that he couldn't explain them missing after the murder. I'm not saying that he did it or not, just that any 14 year old boy who likes knives just may not be a normal boy. As far as the chap Kerr is concerned, it's very convenient that he isn't around to give his side of the story. He was mentioned as living within Newbattle Abbey. Unless he was living there alone, which is unlikely, who is to say that he wouldn't have been seen going around the Abbey grounds covered in blood? In the summer, there are many people who go walking around there, well into the evening. Whoever did this seems to have planned it very well. No dna or other clues left behind doesn't sound like a random, opportunistic attack. Whover did this either knew that Jodie would walking along the path, which her mother had seemingly implored her not to do alone, or it could have been anyone unlucky enough to be there at the wrong time. As said before, that path is too well used to carry out the attack, which is presumably why the crime was carried out over the wall. My question would be why Jodie went over the wall. Was there someone she knew either already over there, or going over into there with her? Forcing her to go over would be very risky due to the public area involved. The cover of trees and bushes is not that thick on many parts of that path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 11 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said: We should maybe be careful of the "facts" that were given on programme, given that it really amounted to a case for the defence. Not much balance in there. Not much about Luke Mitchell other than he was a bit strange. His wee gesture, shown on the film, towards the press, didn't suggest that he was some kind of shy boy. Nothing about his liking of knives or that he couldn't explain them missing after the murder. I'm not saying that he did it or not, just that any 14 year old boy who likes knives just may not be a normal boy. As far as the chap Kerr is concerned, it's very convenient that he isn't around to give his side of the story. He was mentioned as living within Newbattle Abbey. Unless he was living there alone, which is unlikely, who is to say that he wouldn't have been seen going around the Abbey grounds covered in blood? In the summer, there are many people who go walking around there, well into the evening. Whoever did this seems to have planned it very well. No dna or other clues left behind doesn't sound like a random, opportunistic attack. Whover did this either knew that Jodie would walking along the path, which her mother had seemingly implored her not to do alone, or it could have been anyone unlucky enough to be there at the wrong time. As said before, that path is too well used to carry out the attack, which is presumably why the crime was carried out over the wall. My question would be why Jodie went over the wall. Was there someone she knew either already over there, or going over into there with her? Forcing her to go over would be very risky due to the public area involved. The cover of trees and bushes is not that thick on many parts of that path. It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superjack Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, JamesM48 said: If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing. Also what about the moped boys? its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. I don't know the area in the slightest, but is there another route avoiding people that Mitchell could have taken home? To me that's the only way it could have been him. As others have said, if he walked the normal route home from the murder scene, someone would have noticed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, KyleLafferty said: He’s not condom man. "Starched Sock man" maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going. That was my impression. Very one sided and some of the scenes used for comment were very strange and looked to be people trying to look interesting. Like those strange shots of the woman who appeared many times sitting in a car, with the door open, to give us her revelations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, JamesM48 said: If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing. Also what about the moped boys? its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good". No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough. 27 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: It was proper Channel 5 fodder and very low on credibility. Certain people are doing well out of keeping this case and this story going. FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ? Edited February 26, 2021 by felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 19 minutes ago, felix said: He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good". No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough. FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ? 👍👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 19 minutes ago, felix said: He was seen James, by two witnesses, who stated he looked like he'd been "up to no good". No mention of blood stained clothes or scratches right enough. FFS . Who's keeping this case going for financial gain ? It wouldn’t surprise me if he is guilty . Just seems odd they managed a conviction from the evidence and why did that eye witness not identify him in court ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 hours ago, JamesM48 said: If he did kill her how was he not seen heading home afterwards? I have an issue with that. Especially if he had blood over him which surely he must have. Hence it leads me to think more about Mark Kane as he could have ran over the fields after the killing. Also what about the moped boys? its a bit of a coincidence their moped was spotted at the exact same area of the murder. Why did one of them cut his hair short the next day? All very bizarre. I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag. Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple. A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said: I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag. Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple. A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her. All good points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said: I think he planned to kill her so not walking home covered in blood can be argued as he may have had other clothes or a bag. Ultimately Luke wasn't seen (if we ignore his Mums alibi) for quite a few hours giving time to change, longer route home, dispose of clothes etc I think she went with him through the wall and he was able to kill her because she had no reason to suspect his intentions as they were a couple. A lot of her injuries were thought to be inflicted after her death so...slit someone's throat unsuspected ([I have a surprise close your eyes sort of idea)....stand back at a distance....wait for her to die.....then mutilate her. He was seen around one hour after the murder, by two people - it's in the court appeal docs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 7 minutes ago, felix said: He was seen around one hour after the murder, by two people - it's in the court appeal docs. Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewjambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 25 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime. 'An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003. Two other female witnesses identified the appellant as the young man they had seen at the Newbattle end of the Path about 50 minutes later.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Was there any suggestion of what the motive was? Liking knives and hiding bottles of pish notwithstanding, it was a brutal murder and they were obviously couple, wasn't some random person to satisfy blood lust. Disclaimer: no judgement either way on guilt intended from this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Der Kaiser said: Do you know where by any chance? An hour is a long time and plenty to commit the crime. ".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June. There's a lot that's odd in his case, all giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done. 36 minutes ago, andrewjambo said: 'An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003. Two other female witnesses identified the appellant as the young man they had seen at the Newbattle end of the Path about 50 minutes later.' Didn't A Brson fail to pick out the accused in court ? Edited February 26, 2021 by felix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewjambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 28 minutes ago, felix said: ".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June. There's a lot that's odd in his case, all giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done. You missed part of that sentence - 'at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house, Miss Fleming suggesting that it appeared that he had been "up to no good".' Didn't A Brson fail to pick out the accused in court ? Yes she didn't identify him - 'Asked by Mr Turnbull whether she recognised the person in court, the witness replied: "I don't know". Asked whether anyone in court was "similar" to the person she identified, she replied: "I can't say".' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 39 minutes ago, felix said: ".. at a gate between the west end of the path and the appellant's house" No mention of the accused..being blood stained,.scratched..or wearing a parka...in June. There's a lot that's odd in his case, all giving grounds for reasonale doubt imo. but hypothetical, since what's done is done. Didn't A Brson fail to pick out the accused in court ? Yes Judging by the way she entered into court, it didn’t look like she wanted to be there. Seemingly two other witnesses are supposed to have seen him alone at the other end of the path. No mention of them being in court though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu_HMFC Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Never watched this but hearing what people had to say about it in the work they are all under an impression Mitchell is innocent after two channel 5 docs 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events. Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up. It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either. One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Stu_HMFC said: Never watched this but hearing what people had to say about it in the work they are all under an impression Mitchell is innocent after two channel 5 docs 🙄 Scary how gullible some folk are. Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence. A couple of very biased programmes full of demented ramblings can prove otherwise though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 11 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said: It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events. Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up. It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either. One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that. Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off? The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 15 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said: It was so one sided and left out a lot of crucial evidence which didn't fit their version of events. Search the name of those two ex cops now "private investigators" from the programme and some interesting stuff comes up. It seems like the mum claiming to be living in her office is not true either. One of their arguments was that it was terrible that this young man could be accused with no evidence. They then proceed to accuse a whole range of young men with even less evidence. One of whom is conveniently no longer around to defend himself. The boy making that accusation also used to claim to be part of Luke Mitchell's legal team. I forget the PI's names. What's online about them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 13 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said: Scary how gullible some folk are. Numerous trials, appeals etc have all reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence. A couple of very biased programmes full of demented ramblings can prove otherwise though. Can you put a number on these "numerous trials, appeals etc"? The ones that looked at all the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Sounds like a big number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 14 minutes ago, graygo said: The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that. Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off? The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference. You seem to know a lot about it. I take it you know the real reason she had money problems, nothing to do with Luke? Convenient that he's not around to defend himself, as I said in my post. 10 minutes ago, graygo said: Can you put a number on these "numerous trials, appeals etc"? The ones that looked at all the evidence and reached the same conclusion. Sounds like a big number. Google is your friend. 13 minutes ago, Homme said: I forget the PI's names. What's online about them? John Sallens and Michael Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 Wee aside, I was driving through Dalkeith one pouring wet summer night about ten years ago and was confronted by Mitchell's ma walking alone in the middle of the road. Nobody else was about, was quite weird. She could rent out her face to haunt hooses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 The HiddenInjustice Twitter page is worth a read for anyone looking for more info on the case. Debunks the absolute nonsense from the Channel 5 programme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 I see the very professional second episode has been pulled already for naming someone Utter amateur hour. And just read about the PI's. They seem like two really upstanding blokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 Just now, Homme said: I see the very professional second episode has been pulled already for naming someone Utter amateur hour. And just read about the PI's. They seem like two really upstanding blokes. What a shambles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 57 minutes ago, graygo said: The mum lived in that office until a few days ago, pretty sure the program was filmed before that. Convenient that the boy died, what does that even mean? He'd be in the clear if he was alive? They had him bumped off? The claim isn't that it was terrible to accuse Mitchell with no evidence, they are claiming that it is terrible to convict him, big difference. The boy they named, then discovered was now dead, in complete surprise, was, according to the informant, living at Newbattle Abbey, along with other people. Are we to suppose that he could have sneaked home whilst high on drugs, as they stated, without anyone seeing him covered in blood? Would he have been coherent enough to successfully end his evening of murder without encountering anyone else on the way to his room? Or is he being offered up as a convenient distraction from the evidence that various legal obstacles have agreed with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 Certainly plenty doubt in the case,,, go back to court me thinks, see what pans out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 9 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Certainly plenty doubt in the case,,, go back to court me thinks, see what pans out Its been to court several times, how many times do you want it to go back to see "how it pans out"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said: Its been to court several times, how many times do you want it to go back to see "how it pans out"? As many as it takes .. as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 31 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: As many as it takes .. as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ?? Nowt, how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 34 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: As many as it takes .. as long as there is doubt, why not.. what you bothered about if it goes back again ?? Got to ask now, is that you Luke? Do you have a phone stuffed up yer arse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 But posted how many times ,, gid one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, FinnBarr Saunders said: Got to ask now, is that you Luke? Do you have a phone stuffed up yer arse? Canny wait till you hit 15k posts .. everyone a gem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Canny wait till you hit 15k posts .. everyone a gem He rers another petal, are you Lukes mum or that Zoomer thats trying to defend him? Edited February 27, 2021 by FinnBarr Saunders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 1 minute ago, FinnBarr Saunders said: Hears another petal, are you Lukes mum or that Zoomer thats trying to defend him? Phone up the jacksy.. petal.. only ever suggested from the off that there was some doubt I can only imagine the likes of you on a jury, god forbid that ,but post away ,, nearly 15k of shite to look back on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Phone up the jacksy.. petal.. only ever suggested from the off that there was some doubt I can only imagine the likes of you on a jury, god forbid that ,but post away ,, nearly 15k of shite to look back on So are you Lukes mum or the roaster pal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.