Category: Without conscience
INNOCENCE FRAUD: Rebranding The Guilty As Innocent (Part 1)
This is the first part of an interview Roberta Glass gave her Ghislaine Maxwell trial buddy Nadia for her substack. Subscribe to “The Offbeat Effect” here
The Idaho Murders: Portrait of A Psychopath
Roberta Glass joins William Ramsey on his podcast “William Ramsey Investigates” to discuss the Idaho Murders and the psychopath accused of committing the murder of Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen and Xana Kernodle
Killer Luke Mitchell: Innocence Fraud Pusher & Hoaxer Sandra Lean (Part 120)
Marty;
You have made it abundantly clear that my posts are “totties“, still to fathom what this means.
I’ll take a guess here and assume it is not complimentary.
Amongst numerous posts I have put forward – there lies some of these examples.
Now perhaps would be a good time to read them, if you can be bothered of course.
I will however take the time to give you a handful of examples, from the list of 47 I have, to date.
Here, is a post that someone made, in response to Sandra Leans podcast.
Tell me if you believe this to be a lie, misleading or blatant misrepresentation of the facts, that Sandra Lean put out?
That warranted the following response;
I am shocked that the police took a polaroid photo of Luke Mitchell and showed only that photo to a witness.
This is not allowed and police should have shown a selection of photographs.
What they did was suggestive and leading.
We know of course that Andrina Bryson was shown 12 pictures not just one – it was a photo identification process.
Now for this, it is irrelevant how a person may feel about these 12 pictures.
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, she was shown 12 pictures.
Used to imply that Andrina Bryson was shown one picture only – it worked with the above poster.
Both Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean state that the search trio “had to walk passed Yvonne Walker’s whilst heading directly to the path”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The relevant point, is not – what these two feel this search trio should have done, the relevant point is the blatant misrepresentation of facts.
That fact is, the truth is – they did not have to walk passed here, they would have had to walk backwards to do so.
Used, to imply this search trio, should have popped in to this lady’s house whilst walking passed it.
“The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth is, the fact is – this search trio came from a bottom end of Mayfield.
Used to imply this search trio had much further to walk.
“Steven Kelly was only alibied by his girlfriend Janine Jones”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, Steven Kelly was in the company of both his girlfriend and father.
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or”
Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
Sandra Lean explained this away – claiming that all she had to go on, were, media reports and court transcripts.
And the word of both Luke and Corinne Mitchell.
Was that a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as;
In this very same book, we have;
Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true
Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08
Therefore Marty – around my various pieces of written work, It interests me, as to what motivates a person – repeatedly;
To lie, to mislead and blatantly misinform people.
Amidst these studies – I have gained further insight into this case, and realise, fundamentally, why suspicion upon Luke, fell.
I have come to a conclusion, in part – as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out – in this case.
That there is little, in the way of actual evidence – to prove that Luke is innocent.
Therefore the above – may be used for multiple purpose, but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer.
Unfortunately – is this claimed search for the truth, for Justice – the truth itself is not being put forward. Is this Just, to do so?.
Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?
Sandra Lean
Sandra Lean, yet again, shimmies away from the point – the point being, that this campaign is wrought with lies and misleading information.
Ignores what I have said completely – highlights John Scott, who is not being misleading, as he is discussing the 12 pictures.
And it is ok for Sandra Lean to lie and mislead – as the information is available to the public?
So it is OK to lie – people can see the truth elsewhere, if they can be bothered.
Therefore the lies matter not – no harm done?
Messy.
Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?
Sandra Lean
And again – completely ignores the point.
Of the blatant lies being told by both Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell.
And gives her opinion instead, of what she FEELS should have happened.
Thus believing her lies are justified?
The lie being “That the search trio HAD to walk passed YW’s whilst heading DIRECTLY to the path“
I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.
Sandra Lean
And again – excuses the lies, justifies them on behalf of Corinne Mitchell.
The lie is “That the search trio had to walk from the top of Mayfield“
The relevant point – is the lies.
That the people campaigning for innocence.
Are lying.
Messy.
Steven Kelly was only alibied by his girlfriend Janine Jones
Parky41
The truth, the fact is, Steven Kelly was in the company of both his girlfriend and father
Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?
Sandra Lean
Rubbish: Let us digest and dissect that a little.
First of all, power of attorney (POA), does not excuse Sandra Lean from being – overtly defensive of Luke, to the point of lying repeatedly.
Putting herself in the shoes, of being his defence does not equate to – “that claim was not made known to the defence”
Let us step back to 2004-5.
Steven Kelly, his statements.
Janine Jones, her statements.
Mr Kelly (Steven Kelly’s father) – his statement.
The defence – Findlay and Co.
Access to these statements.
Precognitions.
The SCCRC.
So whilst Sandra Lean claims – not to have actually read this fathers statement.
It does not equate to the defence not being aware of this alibi.
Is Sandra Lean, yet again, simply excusing herself here – from those very lies.
Caught in her own web of deceit.
More so – even IF Sandra Lean did not read this statement until 2014 it is 2019.
Corinne Mitchell also – still lying for 5yrs at least?
Messy.
Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or”
Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error
Sandra Lean
And yet again, excusing herself as this being a simple error, typo.
The typo may be – Steven Kelly rather than Leonard Kelly.–a typo of several letters not one of course. Very odd typo.
David Dickie was not on this path at the crucial time – the crucial time, being between 5 and 5.30pm.
The mystery man was not seen following Jodi onto this path.
And completely ignores the reason (lie perhaps) she gave before for this.
Of this being prior to having the case papers, of becoming POA.
In this very same chapter of the book – she refers to reading the case papers.
The statements.
Messy.
I have come to a conclusion, in part – as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out – in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning
Parky41
So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.
Sandra Lean
And again – only Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell will know the reasons behind these lies, behind those blatant misrepresentations of the facts.
For that is what they are – no interpretation needed.
So after sifting through 16years of someones work trying to catch them out, this utter pish is all you can come up with in your writings😂😂😂. Idont know what or who your supposed to be but how long have you wasted on that muck.
Marty
You cant win the arguement mate so turning you venom to hate. Just for the record nearly everyposter on here has admitted to not reading your posts at some point wonder why? I have just wasted my time on points that have been answered time and time again. But not from professor parky of course.
Marty:
Perhaps a simple thank you would have been more appropriate.
I do however agree, that these lies, blatant misrepresentation of facts, are indeed – “utter pish“
Whilst is may be admiral, to jump, to only Sandra Leans defence in your attack upon myself personally, not just my post.
Reading through these forums, online evidence and so forth – has been a far cry from sifting through 16rs of Sandra Leans work.
The lies and so forth, in abundance from these alone – plain for all to see, if they take the time.
One therefore dreads to imagine, how much more there is – amongst those 16yrs of actual work.
Such strong, personal words to use of “venom to hate” towards someone, who has highlighted some of these.
One’s time would be better served, checking what they post – prior to joining forces, of promoting lies and misinformation.
Just a suggestion, of course.
No arguments to be won Marty, how petty and somewhat futile to enter into some form of game play, of scoring points.
It matters not who may read what I post Marty – it does however matter from the campaigners side, who may read or listen to them.
Perhaps the reason why this campaign has gotten no-where, when it is founded upon lies, blanket misinformation.
Those very people who seek truth and Justice are neither truthful or Just in their actions, do you not feel that is wrong? That something is amiss?
Silly question really – when you, yourself have treated people unjustly, an innocent man from a funeral directors, being but one.
If you, were truly just the messenger of this “slipped, cat out of the bag info” Do you feel you were being used Marty?
Someone to pedal their wares, so to speak.- wares in the form of misinformation, lies?
Coughing up this coffin information – mistakenly, coughing up “utter pish” to boot?
Flying with the craws Marty?
Yet to see any explanation for the lies Marty – just some steadfast shimmying around them.
(Original forum posts here)
Link to Part 121 here
Killer Luke Mitchell: Was Shane Mitchell Disposing Of Evidence? (Part 117)
*Guest Blog*
If Luke was guilty he would, indeed, have blood on him. That last desperate fight of Jodi’s, evidenced by the blood on the branches. The removal of the clothes and the constraining of her arms…no avoiding blood contamination there…..and yet….and yet…absolutely no mention of blood contamination by Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming on the boy they saw standing, in his murderer’s mantle, leaning on the gate without a care in the world. Odd that. No mention of a bloodstained boy bolting across the road, trying to put as much distance between himself and the scene of his horrific crime by any of those occupants of the numerous cars passing by. Most odd.
By your reckoning and description “murderer’s mantle” – Completely removes this male, whomever you may have thought him to be – as having any connection at all – to this murder.
That complete distancing. Just a guy at a gate?
Not Luke Mitchell having just darted across this Road becoming aware of a car. – stopping in his tracks.
Not to be running, not to be hopping over beyond this gate – not to be seen as fleeing from somewhere?
For this male wasn’t simply leaning on this gate – this male looked up to no good. – attempting to look inconspicuous.
He was seen and this sighting can not be taken away.
And Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh did not see any other male, hanging around the entrance of Newbattle Abbey crescent on the wall.
And of the jogger, and the Esk walkway, which is between the gate and Barondale cottage.
It is only when you attempt to make time stand still can you discount the sighting of both the male and jogger together.
Of bending what both said completely out of shape. –
But of course, you are saying 100% that you have not read the defence papers.
That you have not witnessed any of this information first hand. –
You are in effect saying, you will take any little snip bits and accept this as concrete proof of anything –
It is hardly surprising that you feel this case was wafer thin, and of sifting sand? –
Then of course, if you have actually read all of these defence papers, please say – we all have lots of questions for you?
Are you now saying that Shane Mitchell possibly left home prior to 5.30pm, prior to Luke Mitchell.
Where are his 10 minutes or so waiting on dinner being finished cooked, from his second statement?
From saying hello to his mother on her arrival home at 5.05pm, of going upstairs for 10 minutes or so? of collecting dinner around 5.15pm?
But his mother did not get home until after 5.15pm?
Taking us to around 5.25pm – then taking his dinner upstairs to eat?
Or are we fast forwarding him until around 6pm when Luke Mitchell was around Barondale cottages? –
Stand firm, and stand true to what you say. Don’t swap it around to suit? –
Just stick to the truth, it was a story and Luke Mitchell was not at home.
Why did Shane Mitchell travel into Oxgangs later that evening, after 9pm to get fuel?
As this is why he said he travelled there, to fuel up the car? –
Are there any scrap merchants near Oxgangs that Shane Mitchell used? A mechanic having access to this place?
Why Oxgangs for fuel? there were many other stations to get fuel? Tesco just up the road?
Was Shane Mitchell disposing of evidence?
Why was Corinne Mitchell’s car spotted elsewhere?
Was Shane Mitchell driving it? When she claimed to be home all evening?
What are these new claims that her car was at the West end of this path later that evening? only being heard now?
Why are we not hearing about these reports from these witness’s who came forward?
Why is Sandra Lean dismissing these as being wrong or mistaken, or idle gossip? – but asking people to consider every other piece of hearsay? Or unproven claims that the defence sought not to use – why does she feel she is somewhat superior in intelligence to every expert in their field?
Why are we not getting to see these statements from the Mitchells in full?
What is Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean hiding?
Has she thought about contacting any of Jodi’s family, asking if they can publish their statements in full?
Far too much ambiguity around this excuse – can not publish, can publish what suits though?
These questions that have been set – Are they a test from reading her book? Come up with as many answers as possible?
What Happened To Luke Mitchell’s Bike?
Why was the bike not forensically examined when the question should be –
What happened to the bike that Luke Mitchell swapped, that disappeared never to be seen again?
Was it taken to the above scrapyard, with the knife, and hey presto, gone?
Truth much closer to home perhaps? – multiple conversations on these forums of Shane Mitchell being a mechanic – I asked Sandra Lean and she said she was unaware that he was? – is this true or is she shimmying away from this as per? As with the V in the wall and Luke Mitchell.
Why did Luke Mitchell deny all knowledge of this V, of the woods, of carrying knives, of cannabis – of everything?
Answers to all of these lies should be given. –
A campaign for truth and Justice on what exactly?
One needs first and foremost the truth around the Mitchells. And one of those very questions is around this bike at the V – complete and utter nonsense, this is nothing more than desperation of need, to draw those claimed rag readers? Who are openly admitting they tried Luke Mitchell by media – kicking themselves now for being foolish. One saying that she is watching the documentary for the 10th time? She: And I quote:
I think Jodis sister has found out Jodi was sleeping with sk hence the dna on the tshirt…. Janine has went after Jodi.. Joe J (stalky man) has followed Jodi as he found out Janine now knows and hes came across Janine commiting the murder the clumps of hair being pulled out by the roots is more of a bitchy fight imo moped boys have been phoned by one of them to comes help clean up the mess.
LA
This is the level of intellect required – very similar to WW who can not say who it was?
I Just wanted to highlight the reasoning and intellect here – So we have Janine Jones going after Jodi, then Joe Jones following Jodi then he comes across one sister murdering the other? What the hell happened to Janine Jones who was also following her? – And this person is an admin?? Another header of this campaign?
What happened to the bike that John Ferris saw at the East end of the path? on the school railings?
Did Luke Mitchell return for it later that evening?
Did Corinne Mitchell or Shane Mitchell collect it?
Did they take it to a scrapyard?
All this mud slinging stemming from Sandra Leans very clear and precise details of her anomalies in this case – mainly of these others.
Yet again, she is doing a startling job is she not? – I wonder what this LA: above made of the red wine scenario?
(Original forum post here)
Link to Part 118 here
Killer Luke Mitchell: DNA – Once You Are Caught In A Web Of Deceit It Is Almost Impossible To Escape (Part 116)
*Guest Blog*
One positive of Sandra Lean’s second book is the intensity of the spinning now required by Sandra Lean on a larger scale.
The more she is asked questions the more she highlights just how lacking she really is.
Common sense and intellect are not evident.
The half truths and the explanations are a shambles.
I have mentioned this several times now, it matters not who pays heed to this.
For some people there is no attempt at changing horses mid stream.
Once you are caught in a web of deceit it is almost impossible to escape.
Allowing oneself first and foremost to become entangled out of sheer foolishness will not change.
Some common sense first: –
Luke Mitchell was arrested some 10 months after Jodi’s murder.
If you have already been tangled up in the nonsense of tunnel vision, of setting out to fit Luke Mitchell up from the moment that 999 call was made. Read no further.
DNA – I am going to start here with the infamous bra strap –
Sandra Leans favourite for spinning with.
Of only recently again making claim, to some markers belonging to 4/5 others closely linked to the investigation.
Here is the half truth, that there were common markers.
To be common they have to sit in the same place.
You may have already read Chris’s technical terms around this.
We can stick with markers here.
To include someone as a donor there can be NO markers present that do not match theirs.
These others that Sandra Lean includes with markers, were EXCLUDED as being a donor.
There were markers present NOT belonging to them.
Every marker, and there were several in place, the same as Luke Mitchells included him as the donor.
The bra strap was not unique to this, there were multiple partial profiles, all with the same markers siting in the same place as Luke Mitchells, all of these partials he could NOT be excluded as being the donor of.
Those law of averages, those multiples make it almost certain they were all Luke Mitchells.
Proven not, almost certain, yes.
Did it matter – yes it did, not for Luke Mitchell and his close relationship with Jodi, but of this murder NOT pointing to A another. That of a stranger.
Doing the rounds and yet again not corrected.
This Cath Black claiming that the blood on David Dickie’s shoe was Jodi’s. Those arms and legs added with some of Luke Mitchells most avid supporters.
The type of support needed to ensure Luke Mitchell stays where he belongs. But of spinning and another posted of James Falconer’s DNA and the database:
Now I have picked up on this before, that any OTHER profiles present tell us clearly they do not belong to ANY of Sandra Leans others, (EX Steven Kelly) Robert Greens included or claimed ‘similar‘ crimes.
Where she is now putting out further half truths around this male.
Stating that he had been in trouble prior to his DNA flagging up in the system.
No shit, did the guy get stopped for speeding?
Any type of minor offence that did not warrant a DNA sample being taken.
Using this as a means to claim that anything at the time may NOT have been run through the database – BS. In Peter Pan land of some fantasy conspiracy theory, borne from those days of Jigsawman.
The powers on high were out to stitch that lad up – BS
Back to Luke Mitchell and that 10 month period in time.
Where anyone, with even a smidgeon of common sense, will see that there had to be sufficient evidence that warranted Luke Mitchell being and remaining the prime suspect in this murder.
Take your head out of any obtuse conspiracy theory and think.
This was 10 months, there was no rush, no drive to get a quick arrest, to nail someone for this murder. This brutal murder of a 14 year old girl.
Add in every other male that had been known through this. Steven Kelly, the duo, the brother, Mark Kane and that condom. All known almost instantly.
It does NOT matter that the duo and condom mans actual ID was not knowing to the police until after the 1st of July.
The duo were known to the police almost instantly. they knew that two youths had been seen near to the locus. They were instantly prime in this investigation.
The very reason that appeal was put out.
The ID of them knowing to the police within the week.
The condom and some real common sense, not Sandra Leans “he may have tried to put it in his pocket and dropped it.” Of the crow flies measurements and all else.
There was nothing that is 0 of his DNA at the immediate locus or in sight of it. If there had have been, it would have raised more than a ? with Donald Findlay.
Yes we know, Sandra Lean has him down as inadequate too.
This nonsense and the database, that profile upon the deceased’s shoe. Nothing flagged up and irrelevant. A sperm head (1) from a woodland, who would have thought?
Now to draw back to this DNA.
This person who has written a book where those who are that blinded, do not even pick up on the fact that there is actually no proper referencing to any witness statements.
Just that they come from the defence papers. And those forensic reports.
Blagging her way through any type of nonsense.
Where this further spinning is required.
She is being asked direct questions and the answer is “I never thought of that!”
As we had with the female element of DNA present in semen.
Book written before any expertise given.
Blagging and further blagging.
This was the brutal murder of a 14yr old girl and the woman is blagging her way through a book.
Her sole aim, to draw the reader onto other possible people of interest.
To blag about them, the police, the defence and all else – to have a chapter in her book called “The agreed Facts!” which is the agreement made between Sandra Lean and Luke Mitchell.
Nothing to do with facts as we know it.
The most blatant half truth in it all. Luke Mitchells LIES labelled as FACTS.
(Original forum post here)
Link to Part 117 here
Killer Luke Mitchell: Pretend Criminologist & Con-Artist Sandra Lean’s HOAX Was Exposed Years Ago (Part 112)
*Guest Blog*
Lets draw in at this point: COINCIDENCES.
The coincidence of Jodi getting out earlier than anticipated:
The coincidence of leaving to meet Luke at this earlier time:
The coincidence that there is no other form of evidence, to suggest she was doing anything other than this.
The coincidence that a male and female were spotted at their usual meet place, on the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence that this matched the time it would take Jodi to get there.
The coincidence that according to Judith, they were to be hanging around in her area.
The coincidence that the description given of these two’s clothing were of similar colour and style. Dark, baggy and green.
The coincidence that Luke’s hair did stick out.
The coincidence that Jodi’s hair was tied back.
The coincidence that not one but two male youths, were witnessed at both the Eashouses and Newbattle area of this path.
The coincidence that these two males, in appearance were one and the same.
The coincidence that IF not Luke, or the female being Jodi, that these TWO have never been traced.
The coincidence of time between these two sightings and the disappearance of this female – most certainly.
The coincidence of cannabis being in this girls system, no more than an hour before death.
The coincidence that this would be with someone whom she smoked it regularly with.
The unlikely coincidence of this being prior to her leaving home – due to recently being punishment for smoking.
The coincidence of this girl being murdered in a stretch of woodland she most definitely did frequent with Luke Mitchell.
The coincidence of him lying about frequenting this woodland.
The coincidence of the initials in the tree to show he was lying.
The coincidence of Leonard Kelly hearing noises from this woodland around the presumed TOD.
The unlikely coincidence of this girl walking this path alone – far less in this woodland alone.
The coincidence of the duo on the bike, being on this path after these noises, heard by Leonard Kelly.
The coincidence that stocky man was eliminated, he was out of the country on this day.
The further coincidence of yet another mystery source, of yet another stocky man, being claimed.
The coincidence of calling the landline rather than her mothers mobile at 5.32 and 5.38,
the point of contact that had been used earlier by Jodi. – why not text or call this, when making out he believed she would still be at home? When there was no answer the first time, or rang long enough, to be heard to be answered.
The coincidence of two unrelated people – stating that Luke had said, he thought Jodi had been grounded again, and not coming out.
The coincidence that he had been told, Jodi had already left – why therefore grounded or not coming out?
The coincidence of claiming to be in a given area for 90mins with very little sightings –
The coincidence of phoning his friends more than once, wondering where they were?
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house by 9.00pm rather than his usual 10pm.
The coincidence of claiming to be in his house until 10.30pm but coincidently seen by his neighbour,
entering his house at 10pm
The coincidence of there being a fire in the Mitchell garden – on this dreek night.
The coincidence of buying a parka jacket matching one that the police were looking for.
The coincidence of knowing what colour her hair fastener was – in the dark, from a distance.
The coincidence of knowing that she lay behind a large Oak tree..
The coincidence of buying another knife of the type used to murder this girl.
The coincidence of this knife not being found after the house being thoroughly searched, by a professional search team.
The coincidence of this knife supposedly being in a bag under the dogs bowls – the search team had run their fingers through said meat in these bowl, yet missed this bag.
The coincidence of purchasing a magazine that had a free CD which showed the murder of a girl, by a bladed instrument, in a woodland.
The coincidence of not knowing of the existence of this V break in the wall, on a path he had used many, many times, leading into the woodland he claimed not to frequent.
The coincidence that from that very first text there are no witnesses to him being at home.
The coincidence that his brother has absolutely no memory of seeing him that day at that time.
The coincidence of being asked to go back and change his statement, by his mother – urgently.
The coincidence of music claiming to be played – clearly there wasn’t – Shane Mitchell didn’t hear it.
So the coincidence of not only his brother not seeing him at home, but did not hear him at home either.
The coincidence of his mother remembering clearly what he had been wearing.
The coincidence of cooking other items for dinner, to replace the brandishing broccoli.
The coincidence of this laddie cooking the family dinner, yet did nothing else at home.
The coincidence of pies (chicken or steak?) being burnt, whilst this laddie was watching over them – or
the coincidence of these pies being put onto cook prior to him leaving – then they burnt.
The coincidence that this laddie supposedly waited for his mothers arrival home, before asking her about the broccoli.
The coincidence that dinner that day was to be upon the mothers arrival home, rather than around 5.45pm
The coincidence that dinner, had obviously been implied to have been made earlier, thus;
the coincidence of Luke and his mother, finishing off making this tea, after her arrival home at 5.15,
the ensuing conversation about the limp broccoli, the making of the prawns, the scraping of the burnt bits,
the mashing of the tatties, the heating of the beans, the dishing out of said food, was completed, the collecting of this dinner by Shane and taking his upstairs, Corrine into the wet garden to eat, Luke into the livingroom. Dinner is over, he gets ready and leaves his house by 5.30pm. The clear description of his clothing noted by his mother. The conversation had around it.
The coincidence that he claims, to have waited until he got out, onto Newbattle Road, before phoning the Jones landline.
The coincidence that he is hanging around, with a phone in his hand, waiting to make a further call due to the first not connecting, on a road with little pedestrians yet was not seen.
The further coincidence that Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh spotted his doppelgänger further up Newbattle Road, yet did not spot, the dude at the gates doppledanger, further down the road – that would be something that would definitely stand out.
The coincidence that their first statements stated they saw this youth on Newbattle road near to where the Abbey is.
The coincidence that when you are driving this road, you are at this Abbey entrance, in a car in seconds.
The coincidence when going over this route with the police – they gave the exact location as being the wooden gate.
The coincidence being that they spotted him whilst driving towards him, once passing, again by looking in rear view mirror,
the coincidence that by this point, you are approaching a turn in the road, enabling the cyclist to be seen also, further ahead.
Let’s not forget the coincidence again of this youth in green clothing was a doppledanger for the one at the Easthouses entrance of this path.
The coincidence of no further communication from Jodi to Luke, to keep him informed as to why she had not turned up.
The further coincidence that shows the holes as to why this neither concerned him, either.
The remarkable coincidence that he did phone the Jones household, needing only to speak once,
the coincidence that this shows, he had to be seen, to be implying looking for her – he did not know those texts were erased, he knew for a fact that her parents would be expecting her to be with him and only him.
The rather strange coincidence of his mothers word given of “ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing” when he arrived home, as claimed at 9pm. Corinne knowing too that this girl was, technically not supposed to use this path alone, that she had been going to meet with Luke, that she had not turned up – simply said “ach, she will have met up with some girlfriends and got gabbing” for 4hrs. Not, oh I think you should call her to check and make sure everything is ok.
The further coincidence of when Judith text Luke’s phone this changed to, worrying that she may have had an asthma attack?
Which takes us onto the biggest coincidence of all.
That this girls mother had text Luke’s phone at 10.40pm.
That he met with members of this girls family shortly after 11pm
That by 11.40pm this girl had been found:
In an area of woodland, off the beaten track, behind a tall, thick wall.
Not only the coincidence of how hidden this girl was, out of sight of anyone, who may go into the usual walk way of this woodland. She was indeed behind a large Oak tree, and she did have a red fastener in her hair, tangled out of sight,
so much so that the pathologist did not spot it at first.
The rather odd coincidence of claim of this girl being moved prior to the pathologist arrivals.
What you can be sure of here, this would have been done with great care and respect.
This moving would NOT have tangled this hair fastener out of sight.
It was clearly known by Luke to have been in her hair for one reason only.
The coincidence being that the account given by this search party,
were so far removed from Luke’s version of events – they rang alarm bells instantly.
That of:
The amazing abilities of said, partially trained guard dogs tracking skills.
The remarkable coincidence that Luke did search the path on the way up –
no wait a minute he did not search the path on the way up-
One account given as to why the search party wanted to continue down the path he had come up,
if Luke had already searched it.
The other account given that he did not put the dog in tracker mode, he was at haste to get up this path,
The dog may have been acting frantically on the way up whilst nearing the parallel spot, he did not notice this,
he just wanted up this path quickly.
Yet, yes he had already searched it? choosing to use his tracker skills rather than the dogs?
Messy, eh?
And further coincidences, the gran wants to continue down this path, to search properly, worried that her granddaughter may have falling and hurt herself – something worse probably not entering her mind, the unthinkable.
They all know that Jodi isn’t supposed to walk down here on her own, searching the woodland behind this wall does not enter their heads – bar Luke.
He coincidently climbs this wall near to where they meet – at the ‘Gino‘ spot.
Further down at this V point he again looks into the woodland – the dog is jumping about.
He goes over and walks down to his left – he barely covers any distance and shouts he has found something.
A remarkable account of amazing coincidence – that not only in the dark, but the darkness of this woodland,
he is able to see this red hair fastener, and knows the type of tree. That they had barely been on this path together for 20 mins and this girl is found, within seconds of him entering this dark woodland.
She had not been found in daylight that entire evening – left hidden.
And people wonder why suspicion fell upon Luke.
They claim there was absolutely no evidence to warrant that suspicion.
They claim that the police badly shoehorned evidence together.
Would that be the – no evidence shoehorned together.
We have these coincidences of Luke being officially a suspect by the 3rd of July, and that this girls family were treated differently.
Those first statements are why this family became less suspect and Luke more so.
There clearly were, no alarm bells ringing from the accounts they gave.
Why therefore should they have been treated the same?
Because this brother has health issues and behavioural problems? yet
absolutely no evidence to support claims of suspicion, that warranted extra grief being heaped on this family.
But it’s not fair is it, it does not matter if there is no evidence to merit him being put through the ringer like Luke.
These claims and innuendoes of said brother;
Lets apply back that same rod to Luke outwith the above:
Holding a knife to a girls throat, threatening to gut her.
Brushed off afterwards as a joke.
Threatening another girl with a knife, if she did not have sex with him.
Habitually carrying a knife around with him –
not some little camping tool but a skunting knife
Reports of worrying behaviour meriting suggestion of external help/counselling.
Heavy user of cannabis at 14.
Allowed to smoke.
Allowed to drink.
Allowed to have under age sex at home.
Allowed to drive.
Allowed to get a tattoo at 15.
Jabbing Jodi in the leg with a knife.
Buying large quantities of cannabis at 14 and dealing it out.
Pulled up at cadets for possession of a knife.
Knives bought for him after the brutal murder of his girlfriend with a knife.
So heavily sedated – its claimed, thus no emotion, yet
out partying up town within weeks of this girls murder.
Still sharing sleeping quarters with his mother some 9 months after this murder.
The storing of bottles of urine in his coup of a room, clearly showing he used these stairs frequently whilst, supposedly heavily sedated.
Allowed to drink alcohol whilst under claimed medication.
Reports of numerous accounts of cruelty to animals.
Describing the best way to kill someone, by slitting their throat.
Tie this in with the other coincidences above.
Was the evidence badly shoehorned –
or does it simply stand out on its own?
Did the police choose to target an innocent wee smite,
with absolutely nothing to go on?
Did the police let the real killer go –
the one or more who had no evidence, of a clearly disturbing set of events against them?
Did they choose to go with the easy target? rather than the clear suspect?
Was their aim solely to get results, to get any old, made up killer off the streets?
Did the police not care if they were going to be leaving this danger out on the streets,
with the likelihood of killing more innocents young girls.
Or did the police firmly believe they were getting this killer off the streets,
that they could neither turn a blind eye to the evidence above or eliminate it?
(Original forum post here)
Link to Part 113 here
Killer Luke Mitchell: “Rabid Dog” Sandra Lean Sold HER Innocence Fraud Story In 2007/08 & Again In 2018 (PART 111)
*Guest Blog*
Every case needs a ” Colombo ” on the scene !! Fictional, yes, but like a dog with a bone and that’s how the law should be towards criminals, until they break. Never mind giving up until a case runs cold !
What criminals are needing broken? in this case? by this dog with a bone?
In contrast to the police in their “Colombo” act within this scene. They being relentless with their bone in the form of Luke Mitchell – unwilling to let go, most certainly having no intention of letting this case run cold.
Their persistence being rewarded in the jailing of said criminal above.
In complete contrast to there being nothing to warrant their belief in Luke’s guilt, there was ample marrow in their bone enabling them to keep gnawing away.
It was Luke Mitchell’s actions, Luke’s testimony that reeked such a stench, giving these police “dogs” no opportunity to let go – no sleeping dogs to leave lying, continuously keeping them alert with just about everything he put forward.
What we have in place now is something possibly akin to a rabid dog, let loose in their attack of all involved in this case –
This simply has not been the role of dishing out facts, more so the riddler packed full of Jokerman – or should that be Jigsawman?
A massive misrepresentation of facts – economical with truth to the point of ridicule – A Jigsaw that has never been completed. Simply not possible to do – no matching of pieces in the puzzle – unlike the case against Luke, which fitted together wonderfully.
There is absolutely nothing Just in the Justice they cry out for.
A mismatch of information that would never stand the test of a trial – simply no case to be had in this wilderness of theories.
But it’s good to keep pushing that information out – it matters not of the people involved, their innocence stands for zero.
It’s good to be reminded constantly though of the deserved privacy of Shane Mitchell and his father Philip Mitchell.
The only four people who count for anything are this family – no other person/s deserve to be left alone.
Even IF, and that is an almighty IF, one of those others were to be guilty – what about the rest?
For even in that almighty IF 95% roughly have to be innocent of anything statistically.
So What – it is each and everyone’s own fault for either knowing this girl or having been brought up in the investigation to catch the above criminal.
And IF it should so happen one day that innocence is proven for this laddie, that other lives may have been infected and affected in this search, causing irreversible damage. They are after all, only pawns.
I often wonder if some new followers of this rather rabid pack, may one day seek vengeance on the many suspects spouted out, time and time again.
Much like the vigilantes who burnt down the Mitchell business – those of the nature who may reek some action upon any of these chosen suspects.
But no blame will lie at the feet of those who feed them – after all, the leader of the pack is only pushing information out – its up to each how they interpret it.
Mark Kane deserves all that he gets – it’s his fault for any actions he may have taken up in his life.
Absolutely nothing to warrant him being listed as a suspect.
This leader of the pack knows fine well he was on CCTV much later in the evening and he did not walk passed Roans Dyke path but in the opposite direction – tough.
He had scratches on his face, certainly not from the victims fingernails and bollocks to being tested wrong!
He supposedly wrote an essay – denied by the tutor this was linked to.
Guess what though – he owned a parka jacket, bugger the fact that he would have had to have been – both at the top and bottom of this path wearing it.
For this male was obviously, one and the same – don’t let little things like remarkable coincidences get in the way.
That this girl did not know him but decided to wander in to the woods with him.
Know what – what does it really matter, it’s only someone else, innocent someone else who is getting chucked into the mix. Absolutely nothing, with any sense that ties him into this girls murder.
That it is possible it may have been him rather than Luke Mitchell at this wooden gate – not that the leader Is implying any involvement but that this could simply be a answer to Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh’s sighting? of mistaken identity? you know the sighting that wasn’t a sighting of anything at all?? Figment of their imagination. Fair and Just?
John Ferris and Gordon Dickie – they truly deserve all that is heaped upon them, they did not come forward.
Because they did not come forward, because they were on this path for all of 10 mins, this surely must merit guilt, in some form.
Are the lies they told, anything in comparison to the consistent lies of Luke Mitchell?
That he did not possess knives.
That he did not supply cannabis.
That he had no contact or planned meet with Kimberly Thomson from Kenmore.
That he did not frequent this woodland area.
That he knew not of the existence of this V break in the wall.
Are but five of the most simplest of lies from Luke.
That he did not say to David or Judith about Jodi “not coming out” perhaps because she had “been grounded again“
Back to the duo:
It does not matter of any other person who may have been in these lads company, after their trip up this path.
It does not matter if there was nothing – to show anything that connected them to this murder.
What we have instead is a multitude of little snip bits thrown in to draw more suspicion upon them.
We have a traveller in car, going up the Beeches who spotted this duos bike unmanned on Roans dyke Path.
There is no certainty of time established.
They had no way of knowing how long this bike was at a standstill.
They most certainly did not see this bike unmanned at this V but close to it?
We have a gang hut thrown in, that this duo used for dealing drugs, in this woodland strip.
By appointment it would seem.
Now this gang hut isn’t just anywhere in this woodland, it is feet! away from where Jodi was found.
Would that be some 100+ feet away – does not matter because technically it is still feet – isn’t it?
Close to this V, well most areas of this path, are technically close to this V.
John cut his hair – nope, sorry he hacked it off.
Thrown in with this is the constant message of fine hair found at the locus.
It wasn’t this dudes hair though – oh wait, we don’t know that because they only tested this hair against Luke Mitchell’s.
More bollocks.
This dude didnt hide the fact he had been on the path, he readily spread the word within hours of this girl being found.
Lets chuck in the family ties of not only John being a cousin but Gordon is Johns cousin so all nice and cozy.
The truth being that John Ferris is not Jodi’s cousin making Gordon even more distant.
Sounds a lot better though to imply all are close – implication stronger that family may cover for each other.
Little trivial things really, in their reality – but damn it sounds better to draw it in.
To hang with the actual truth.
So what did this duo do that merits these claims of?
Not being those two who were actually on this bike!
That John hacked his hair off to look like someone else!
Who was it he was trying to look like exactly?
Maybe his cousin – family can often be similar in looks – wait a minute though – the person implied to look alike, isn’t even a cousin?
Maybe just one of those strange things, where two people, unrelated can be uncannily similar.
Like Mark Kane and Luke Mitchell – well not really but we know we all have that doppledanger somewhere.
Jodi certainly did – both her and Kimberly Thomson, the girlfriend from Kenmore most definitely were.
The gloves down a radiator with a condom inside – ah so more than one condom in the mix of suspicion.
Well we will never know if they were from the same pack, will we – because, guess what again – they were never tested – is that more bollocks?
The implication being, yet again that neither gloves or condom were tested, shoddy work for the ever consistent bad police work.
They did not test for anything other than Luke Mitchell DNA.
God knows how James Falconer popped up then after three years, or Steven Kelly’s DNA or the unknown sperm head on trainer.
You know that wee minute amount again – most likely picked up from traipsing in said woodland.
So yes, whilst there is no full DNA profiles to point this murder at Luke, there most certainly isn’t any,
to strongly point it at A another either.
The probability that most of those sperm heads came from Steven Kelly in transferral.
We know from Luke’s statements that Jodi was wearing her sisters trousers.
We know from the investigation that Jodi was wearing her sisters t-shirt.
All rubbish of course, it was those policemen again putting ideas in peoples heads, or perhaps it was a journalist?
The reality here of course being – this duo were spotted numerous times, in that short period of time.
Luke spent nearly 1 1/2 hours, supposedly on and around Newbattle R’d, witnessed, by his account, only between 5.55pm and 6.15pm. Pretty good going?
Steven Kelly.
Guess what – this guy deserves all he gets or may get too.
Damn him for having an intimate relationship with Jodi’s sister.
Absolutely nothing other than this minute amount of sperm DNA that ties him in with this murder.
And yes minute – couple of full profiles obtained from the millions ejaculation releases.
Even if ejaculation had taken place that evening – the rain would not have washed away so much, leaving in its place an old stain – that had some sperm heads in it – not multitudes.
This guy, not only witnessed this horror that evening – he too was shown pictures of the deceased in court.
The fumbling around with his statements, trying to break them down into something suspicious.
What is blatantly clear about them – there was no concoction of story, nothing preplanned to say.
There simply was no need to do so.
His alibi from his father – guess what.
The leader of the pack has never seen it.
Guess what again – it must have been buried, only to be unburied by the SCCRC.
Does this tell us, all is not in this leaders hands, as claimed.
Making the bias of information even more so.
The guy is married. children, trying to get on with life after this traumatic experience.
He deserves nothing, because he had sex with this girls sister.
Poor Shane Mitchell – to hell with Steven Kelly.
Fair and Just?
The brother:
It’s so unfair, here is a dude with mental health problems.
Closely known to the victim, yes they’re siblings.
History of carrying and threatening with bladed instruments.
Unpredictable behaviour.
Cannabis user.
Charges, convictions of this violent behaviour with bladed instruments.
Correct, there appears to be none.
Attacking his mother with a knife.
Threatening to murder the leader of this pack.
How did this violent, unstable thug manage to escape the police radar,
or worse still, get simply pushed aside whilst they went after an
innocent wee laddie.
We have already established that far from being swept aside, there was;
medical reports obtained for this brother.
There were statements taken.
He was in police presence from the onset.
This threatening to murder/ABH turned out to be a visit to the leaders door.
He was so unstable, threatening, that she invited him into her home,
to show him the DNA results.
He was charged it seems, with what?
ABH? carrying of weapons or fists? or breach of the peace? aggravating behaviour?
Let’s exaggerate like Nugnug, that of murder – sounds damn good.
James Falconer – reeks of guilt.
Silly policemen.
Here’s a whole condom of my sperm, it don’t get better than that.
Did you miss it, here’s some more.
Map reading skills of this pack leader.
The one who walks backwards when going from A to B?
The one who claims this V is easily missed when supporting Luke Mitchell’s lies, yet is readily seen by others..
The one who doesnt know there is a woodland path behind ye old wooden gate on Newbattle Road.
A path that takes you into Newbattle Abbey Crescent out of site from traffic on Newbattle Road.
The one who misses out 97% of statements only seeing/using the required parts.
Why not, it is what is played out at trial – with combat skills. These facts that are dished out, would be swiftly swept into oblivion.
The one who shows that Newbattle high school colours are anything but dark blue, maybe she sent her daughters in the wrong colours?
Sounds good though to drop that clanger in – re Andrina Bryson’s description.
Again economical with the truth – when established the colour was not described as a lighter blue.
This guy did the same sex act the next again day.
Appears he may like the thrill of perhaps being caught, more in the open this time.
What does that really tell us about where this sex act happened in this woodland stretch.
Hidden away on route past where this girl was hidden or completely in the opposite direction,
more on the beaten track rather than deeper away from it.
The main area of access and easiest being this V break.
More importantly – why did the SCCRC read this guys directions of route – completely different?
Guess that will be another work man and tools scenario.
It’s not the leader of the packs fault if the SCCRC did not see from their point of view – in what was submitted by them.
After all it wasn’t all their work – lots of fully qualified professionals done most – pro bono?
Maybe is was simply all their work that didn’t ring true – the leaders, very little so not responsibility there.
Clearly not anything serious – no conviction? Again truth in its economical sense being
stretched to the extreme, to make it sound better, give it that edge.
How serious do we therefore take these other claims.
Let’s include them all with the realisation, that these would have been known to the police at the time,
that they would have been investigated thoroughly.
In all of that there warranted nothing to suggest or make possible, that he had caused harm to his sister that day.
Let us also be fair here and include those of Luke.
We have already established that he can’t possibly be a clone for John Ferris with his hair hacked off.
As with Steven Kelly, there appears to be no setting of stories, no concoction of events that rang alarm bells.
Again as before, that people connected in some way, are thoroughly investigated prior to elimination,
not because they are suspects but because it is part of the procedure.
These people, especially those with ? marks against them, have to be properly eliminated.
Behaviour does not make a murderer.
DNA does not make a murderer.
Locality does not make a murderer.
A clear sequence of events does:
There was only one person in this investigation that the latter applied to.
That person was Luke Mitchell.
It was his account, his testimonies that were so full of holes – that police could not eliminate him.
From his very first account of what happened on the evening of the 30th of June.
His following accounts only highlighting more the suspicion drawn from the first.
(Original forum post here)
Link to Part 112 here
Killer Luke Mitchell: Malignant Narcissist Sandra Lean’s Bad Habits (Part 109)
*Guest Blog*
For this post I’m going to work backwards, these highlight some of the areas that stood out amongst the miraculous coincidences in this case.
At 10.40pm this girls mother sent a text to Luke Mitchell’s phone, she appears somewhat miffed at her daughter being 40mins past her curfew time, at this point.
Luke upon receiving this text phones Judith, he informs her that he has not been with Jodi, at all that evening.
It is upon this phone call that Judith becomes instantly worried, this isn’t some short time as earlier in the evening, at this point her daughter has not been, where she was supposed to have been for nearly 6hrs.
The instant worry this brings and what appears to be panic – shows that this is something that is not of the norm. There may have been an occurrence at some earlier date, in which, this girl had stayed out late, her mother subsequently tracking her down. There is nothing in this earlier occurrence that is made clear upon the circumstances. What it does show, is that this, appeared to be singular incident, thus highlighting it was not a frequent event.
What is sure about the evening of the 30th of June 2003, is that Judith had been of the sound opinion, that Jodi was with Luke and nowhere else, it is this that draws this deep concern. And rightly so.
It appears at this point Judith contacted her mothers house to see if Jodi was there, she wasn’t, which furthers this mothers worry.
Judith phoned Luke back, she informs him that she is going to phone the police, that she is most definitely, by this point, somewhat frantic with worry.
Between this first text at 10.40pm until just after 11pm, there appear to be a series of calls between various people. Luke, Judith, the gran, sister and the police.
Sandra Lean puts the gran, sister and Steven Kelly at this path at 10.58pm. A somewhat precise time?
There is no information as to why she has this time, no source – nothing, but uses this to infer the search party had left the house before knowing this girl was missing?
What is clear, is that there is numerous times of contact between Judith, Luke and the grans house phone, who do we imagine Judith was talking to when the house phone was answered in the grans? And presumably more calls to this grans mobile whilst out. Why does Sandra Lean miss out all of those, along with any information given.
Is this precise 10.58pm yet again another mystery source.
We know that one of Sandra Lean’s sources for information is John Ferris whom she claims, said in one of his statements that, the search party walked passed Yvonne Walker’s house, which in itself would mean that this search trio walked backwards, rather than head directly to said path? Did he give a time, did Sandra Lean subsequently walk this backward route, and determine the time being at 10.58pm?
We have also seen mention, as to why this search trio did not go into Scotts Caravans on their way past? Which begs the question why? She had not been with Luke all evening, why go into his mothers work place?
It is also clear, that in one of these conversations, Luke informs Judith that he is at the Newbattle end of this path – there appears to be some confusion between a bike and a dog? by Sandra Lean’s information given.
What would appear correct is that Judith informed the other members of her family as to Luke’s whereabouts. It is these factors that seem to determine why all four met on this path.
Steven Kelly, Janine and this gran heading to meet Luke to search and vice versa. It also appears that this meet had taken place near the Easthouses entrance not at the entrance. Whilst Luke was approaching an area of sight he saw the other members heading towards him, not at a standstill, plus the entrance not being within sight itself.
Would be fair to assume here?, that both parties knew they were going to meet up to search.
When they met, this trio had already been searching to this point on the path, they realised that Luke had not searched, only that he had not noticed anything on the actual path, on his haste up it. It was this it would seem, that got them all walking down to actually search, properly.
This not being allowed to walk this path alone, seems quite prominent in any debate, why search a path Jodi was not supposed to use – would it not be fair, at this point for this to be of no value, she was to be meeting Luke, the connecting area is this path, by whatever conversations between the parties, the agreement was to search this path.
What does seem evident, that whilst 3 members of this search party, looked in the field and overgrowth, to the side of this path, she shouldn’t really have used, it did not enter their heads to search this woodland – unlikely perhaps in their minds, that it was one thing, this girl maybe walking this path alone, walking in the woods alone was something else, entirely different. It was only Luke Mitchell whom saw fit to do so?
They reach a Gino point (graffiti on the wall) where the wall is slightly broken on top. Luke climbs up on this wall and shines his torch into the woodland.
At his point, without any alert from his dog, he already puts in motion to look into this wood. Perhaps showing at this point, it is an area that he knew Jodi to go into with him. Even though he is later to deny having frequented the woodland side of this wall. Evidence produced to the contrary. One of the first slip ups whilst trying to distance himself, from any knowledge of being in this woodland before, far less of frequenting it.
From this point all members are searching to the field and to the overgrowth beside the wall, until, they reach the V point. At this point again, Luke shines his torch into the woodland.
It is in those very first accounts by this search party that there is a dispute, as to whether this dog reacted, first where and the reaction itself.
There is nothing it would appear in any of those statements that tally with Luke’s version of events, to where this dog reacted, outwith around this V.
His first account being that he had walked not even 20yds when his dog bounded over to the wall, scrabbling and sniffing the air?
The only accounts given by the search party, are of the dog standing against this wall, nose level with the V.
Luke after shining his torch over, climbs over at this easier access point and turns to his left, this is witnessed by other members of the search party.
Contrary to not being able to see over, it would appear that the bottom (V) of this V is somewhat 4ft from ground level and opens out up in its shape.
Here’s what to think of, two members give account of seeing Luke turn left over this V,
What is also shown is that he hands the dogs lead to this granny? witnessed by other search party members. This clarifies that all members of this search party where around this V point when this happens, and not some distance away, in the dark.
If 3 member of this party had walked some distance passed, then Luke backtracked, Steven Kelly and Janine would have been some 30+ passed by this point.
Unable to see this handing over of the dog lead. The dogs head level with this V or indeed see Luke and the granny at all?
He goes over and turns left, direction he is shining his torch.
It is at this point that Steven Kelly and Janine continue to walk this 10 – 15ft passed when Luke shouts he has found something.
They then back track to this V point beside granny.
What was clearly shown in court is whilst they had walked this 10-15ft so had Luke on the other side, it was from this distance into the overgrowth of this woodland that he managed to see something, some 30ft down?
He not only in his first statements gave details of how far he had walked but of this red bobble and large Oak Tree..
Now whilst it may be so, that an interviewing office may have mentioned this tree, it was after Luke doing so, further on, into his statements. Same with this bobble, how ridiculous is it to hint at the press putting this in his head?? Really?
So to highlight main points here, there is nothing in those first statements that clearly say, that all members of this search party, gave any indication, whatsoever of having walked some distance passed this V point, and at that point the dog jumping up onto this wall. It is clear that this happened around the V.
As further statements were taken, these events in their clarity showed how vastly different they all were. From Luke within 3 days drawing a diagram for his family liaison officer (FLO). These were what drew suspicion.
That this search trio had not been out searching before realising this girl was missing – ludicrous in its stretching to the extreme of any actual facts.
Did this search party, in its infancy in investigation give rough times which were later determined by other factors. Phone records and so forth. Like all investigations, first accounts are investigated, went over and flaws picked out. It is clear whose statements showed major flaws.
One thing that is very evident in all of this, is:
This girl was hidden from any usual thoroughfare of walked routes, on this woodland side of this wall.
She was not discovered in the course of this evening.
Within approx.: 20mins of this search party meeting up she was discovered, in the dark, in this hidden area by the only person to look there. Both at the Gino point and the V.
This dog was nowhere near to where Jodi lay on the other side of this wall – there is nothing in any of the search party members statements, from the off, that say it did.
This is why, it was pointless for Donald Findlay to introduce evidence from dog tracking experts.
Him, in his expertise saw the futility in this.
There would have been nothing to show, that this family guard dog/pet had the abilities to sense this girl from the distance they were at.
People appear to be somewhat confused by dog walkers finding bodies. yes, if the dog is actually in an accessible area, running around.
This dog had no access, it was a damp, dreek night.
He did give statements which showed vast difference in the account of this happening between those of the other search party members.
Sandra Lean has a somewhat bad habit of taking timings from accounts that had been determined to be wrong after investigation.
Those of this girls mother in her first statements of given an approximate timing of events. A mother whom clearly was blocked mentally by this horrific discovery of her child, as those of the search party were too, all but Luke Mitchell and Corinne Mitchell whose accounts sang totally in tune.
Whatever those accounts given by this girls family of their first recollection of events on the 30th of June, did not sing in tune, there clearly was no concoction of stories to prove false, to show that they were hiding anything. Timing tied together, of the fathers account getting home to this girl leaving. He did not see her. Clearly shows that she had infact left before 5pm.
These other sightings – girl whom knew Jodi, is this the girl who saw her on the main Easthouses road? not outside her own home, and showing to be at an earlier time, off the school bus perhaps?
This neighbour, what neighbour? again a loose feeble point. not disregarded but shown to be not after 5pm on this day, upon further investigation.
IF there had been anything untoward in respect of this male member, be it Joey Jones or Steven Kelly it would have stood out, it didn’t.
This account also of why the granny. sister and Steven Kelly and not the mother, father and brother went searching?
What else is in those statements, what were the reasons given for this?
The only thing that seems feasible in all of this, is. The speed at which all of the above events took place, from that first text to the finding of this girl.
The call to the police? Were these other members simply waiting on the police arriving at this girls house? The granny making the decision to go and search with Luke whilst this happened?
None of this family, at any point imagining the events which would unfold so quickly.
So again, this somewhat bizarre coincidence, that in reality, once all four members were together, that this girls body was found, within an extremely short timescale.
This in itself showing clearly that only the person responsible would have been able to show where this girl was – and he did. Not his dog, which was nowhere near to where Jodi lay.
What is clear in all of this is the somewhat blinkered view. From a person whose sole source of information came mainly from the Mitchell household. From their belief in innocence becoming stronger once power of attorney (POA) was established. The pushing out of economical truths with heavily biased opinion. The result somewhat nonsensical.
(Original forum post here)
Link to Part 110 here
Killer Luke Mitchell Had All Of This Time Over This Evening To Dispose, Clean & So Forth & Proxy Abuser, & Pretend Criminologist Sandra Lean’s Web Of Deceit To Reach Maslow’s Pyramid (Part 108)
*Guest Blog*
The only time Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi Jones was 5.15. If she was murdered at 5.15 then the only time she could have been seen by Andrina Bryson at the end of the path was ~4.50. If Andrina Bryson saw her at ~4.50, then Mrs Bryson must have been driving north, towards the house she wanted to see, not south away from it (as she stated in her original statement?) If Andrina Bryson saw Luke Mitchell in Easthouses at ~4.50 then his mother and brother are lying about him having been at home, in the house, until 5.30. Bingo we got him!
Rolfe
You got it in one!
Sandra Lean
What dictated the police timeline? Please bear with me – this gets messy!! Basically, the other evidence that couldn’t be manipulated. The 5.32pm call from Luke’s mobile to the Jones’ landline was on record. He was seen sitting on a wall at the end of his street at between 5.50pm and 6pm by boys who knew him. A woman returning videos to a rental store saw him on the Newbattle Road at 6.15pm.
Sandra Lean
Got it in one – however, it’s not about this being the “only time” Luke Mitchell could have murdered Jodi, it is the clear time that fits around the evidence, once police had established timings.
It actually. only gets messy, when you try to bear with Sandra Lean’s many different attempts at trying to break this evidence down. It’s not an easy feat – to dissolve something that has many mitigating factors to back it up.
Interestingly here we have this first basis of truth – the sightings around 5.55pm and 6.15pm.
Luke claims to have made the call to the Jones household from the entrance, at this wall he was sitting on at 5.32pm.
This being. one of the two times in a day that this road is at its busiest with commuters.
No sighting for a whole 25mins. – except of course Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh around 5:40 once he had come into sight, when crossing over from his exit from path, after making these calls, hidden from view.
Let’s say they’d gone for the time between that 6.15pm sighting and 7pm when he met his pals. That would have knocked out the Bryson sighting – for Luke to have got from the Newbattle Road to the Easthouses end to be seen by Bryson, he’d have needed 18 – 20 minutes (depending on where, on the Newbattle Road, he started off), then another 9 minutes to get back down the path to the V break. He’d need 10 minutes back from the murder scene to where he met his pals. So the to-ing and fro-ing alone would have taken up 37 – 39 minutes of that 45 minute window (leaving not enough time for the murder) and lost them the only eyewitness they had.
Sandra Lean
Why,” let’s say” they had gone with the timing between 6.15pm and 7pm – there is nothing to go on here outwith there being no sightings of him.
You can’t simply assume someone committed a murder because they were not seen.
What about all of the other factors?
He had no alibi set in place for this time, the reason why, is because only he knew, by this point which time this murder had taken place. The time he would most definitely need an alibi.
On the 30th of June until after his first interviews, Luke Mitchell had no way of knowing if these texts had been erased from her mothers phone.
He solely has to go on this information alone.
That her parents would know she was meeting him.
That he would have known she was getting out earlier than expected.
The time of her leaving her house to go and do so.
That crucial area of time, that would be focused on, once the police had this information in their hands.
This is not about looking for any window of opportunity, over the period of this evening it is about the window of happening.
The police did not pick this time frame of alibi, the evidence in itself did so.
Those first statements of Judith and Allen, the similarities in them – his arrival home from his work, of Jodi leaving whilst in the toilet. He did not see her that day.
Timings which would have differed as they were not concocted to try and give false witness on anything.
The police checking this out, Allen seen on CCTV in a petrol station that he had stopped at on his way home, which ties in with his first accounts.
The police take the timing of this visit and drive the route to their house, approx.: time in the loo, this is what established Jodi’s time of leaving.
Not any guesstimated times, of anyone.
Other factors also no doubt given.
Jodi getting out earlier than expected, that she was going to meet Luke.
Andrina Bryson – did the police think, yes, first timing after 5.30pm, Luke has no claimed alibi at this point. –
No, like everything else, every account of information of whereabouts, the police look for other solid factors to ascertain more accurate times.
Corinne Mitchell on CCTV in local shop – route driven to estimate time home.
Shane Mitchell also other factors sought to give a more accurate account.
Lorraine Fleming and Rosemary Walsh, boys on the bike, lady going to video shop, boys on the moped, Leonard Kelly on the path.
The search party – multiple accounts from statements and phone records.
The police did not manipulate all of these, there were sound areas of evidence used. CCTV, bank and till receipts, phone records and so forth. Routes taken and timings ascertained.
Resulting in:
Shane Mitchell not seeing his brother in the house at that time.
A rather neat set of accounts given by Luke and Corrine Mitchell on what happened in that ‘window of opportunity/happening’
For nearly 90mins, a very small window of sightings, in which Luke Mitchell makes himself seen.
He phoned this girls landline, as above because at this point he knows it is he, whom Jodi is supposed to be with.
That her parents know this.
We have a sighting by Andrina Bryson which, once investigated ties in with the time established of Jodi leaving her house.
We have from 4.25 (call to Scotts caravans from the Mitchell landline) until the sighting of the boys on the bike around 5.55pm.
From Andrina Bryson sighting until then we actually have around 60minutes – For this meet, for attack/murder and initial clean up.
Sounds quite different now. Then we have a further substantial amount of time up until 7pm and thereafter for further disposal.
Then we have from 9pm until 11pm. For disposal.
Whilst there may have been some slim chance of this girls being found, from where she was clearly hidden – there is the timescale of Identification.
Whatever way you look at it – Luke Mitchell had all of this time, over this evening to dispose, clean and so forth.
To set his story straight – yet it was by these very means, of rather eccentric accounts that drew this suspicion from the off.
(Original forum post here)
INNOCENCE FRAUD PHENOMENON 