Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dr Sandra Lean]

Goodness me! The Sun ran the story... six readers comments - one neutral, the rest - supportive of the suggestion that this case is a Miscarriage of Justice!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/4742333/Fury-over-killer-Luke-Mitchells-lie-test-video.html

[nugnug]

has lamont replied to your email yet.

[Dr Sandra Lean]

Yes, nugnug, he has, but I'm giving him another chance before I post!

[nugnug]

oh ok

[nugnug]

is this the same sun newspaper that is allways challenging people to take lie detector tests.

[Dr Sandra Lean]

Someone wanted to leave a message on Luke's website, but as it contained a number of questions, with that person's permission, I am posting the message here instead, so that we can answer the questions appropriately. I am posting the message in full, with my answers in between.

I remember when this incident occured and it shook the community of Dalkeith..i have some questions i would like to ask regarding this case and i hope Corinne can understand. First of all i would like to say that regardless of whether Luke murdered Jodi or not, Lothian and Borders police did a big crime of their own by not covering the body that night when it was found, however some answers still need to be given from the Mitchells regarding the ' circumstancial evidence '. I am no judge or jury.

1 - The body was found at a tree with Luke and Jodie's inititals engraved in it, a tree where they both maybe had their 1st kiss or started dating from, now surely if Jodi was walking down a path, how was an unknown killer suppose to know the whereabouts of that tree, he would take her anywhere and kill her ?

The body wasn't found at the tree with Luke and Jodi's initials carved in it - that tree was at the start of the path, close to the Easthouses end, where Luke and Jodi sometimes went for a smoke. It's quite a few hundred yards from the tree where Jodi's body was found.

2 - Why did his brother Shane say that no one was in the house when he was and he said this in the courts and was what ultimately convicted Luke, he also admitted that his mum told him to say to police that Luke was cooking, why would his own brother suddenly say he was alone in the house if was not true ?

Shane's evidence was badly misrepresented. He said at first he could not remember anything about the Monday evening. His mum reminded him that was the evening Luke burned the pies for dinner, and Shane amended his statement accordingly. I have posted Shane's police interrogations, and his evidence on the stand before - I will try to find them, and direct you to them. Police officers repeatedly refused to accept what Shane was telling them, insisting he "picture" things they suggested to him "in his head."

Although Shane and Corinne were accused of "colluding" in their statements, this was the only material change Shane made. When Turnbull could not break him on the stand, he organised for the pictures of Jodi's mutilated body to be thrust in front of Shane, with no warning, and then, with Shane clearly in shock and very distressed, launched into the "masterbating to porn" line of questioning. It was designed to make sure Shane's testimony was all over the place.

3 - We all know from reports that Luke had a knife, where did that knife disappear to suddenly and how come it wasn't found when police searched the house ? I mean he even had a knife pouch with the words "JJ 1989 - 2003" and "The finest day I ever had was when tomorrow never came", that is what killers do to kinda keep a ' Trophy '. Now if this pouch had been purchased after the killing of Jodie, it isn't the kind of place where u would put a tribute to ur murdered girlfriend, who puts a tribute on a KNIFE case.

There was no missing knife belonging to Luke. Again, this has been posted, in detail, on the forum, with the evidence to prove it, and I'll do my best to find it and direct you to it.  The knife referred to as "missing" was, in fact, handed to Luke's lawyer, Nigel Beaumont, by Corinne. The only "missing" knife in this whole story is the murder weapon, which has never been recovered. Some would say the writing on the pouch (which was bought after the murder) was foolish or ill advised, but, it doesn't provide any evidence that Luke murdered Jodi.

4 - A teacher from ST Davids also said how Luke did an essay on a woman being murdered in the woods a few weeks before Jodie's death ?

This essay was claimed to have been written by a student and handed in to a tutor at Newbattle Abbey College - it's never been claimed this was written by Luke, or had any conncetion whatsoever to Luke.

5 - Why was Luke allowed to smoke such a heavy amount of cannabis at 14 years of age and why was he allowed to carry a knife ? Cannabis in such a huge amount can make u schizophrenic, now as we know , is it possible Luke was suffering from schizophrenia and was a sick young boy with so much emotional issues ?

Luke didn't smoke a "heavy amount of cannabis." John Ferris, who supplied the cannabis Luke smoked, himself suggests a fairly small amount. Luke was not a "sick young boy with so much emotional issues" - the medical and psychiatric reports confirmed that he was a normal, healthy teenager. He was not suffering from schizophrenia, according to the medical records at the time, or any other mental condition.He had a camping knife, which he was not allowed to carry unless he was on camping trips, and a small knife that he used to cut cannabis. he also had a swiss army toolkit.

6 - Didn't Corrine already lie for him to get a tattoo at 14 years of age, i mean comon 14 is a lil young but if Luke was a schizophrenia sufferer then maybe he took violent outbursts towards Corrine and she was actually scared of him.

Luke was fifteen and a half. Corinne took him to a tattoo parlour which was known not to ask for, or check, id. The tattoo parlour staff could not provide evidence that Corinne had lied about anything - the piece of paper signed to "confirm" that Luke was over 18 had Luke's fingerprint on it, not Corinne's. The second part of your question was answered in the previous question.

I understand the facts everyone here has also gave about other people maybe being involved, a used condom found near scene but that is actually baseless, it would of been possible for a young couple to have sneaked behind the wall for a quick fumble without realising Jodie's body, am sure their mind was not on finding a body that night, more on entertaining eachother.

The story about the used condom is bizarre. The person who discarded it claimed to have gone behind the wall that night to masturbate, using a condom. he did so, he said, because he shared a room at home, so went outside for "privacy." We have a copy of the statement. He was not traced until three years after the murder, had never come forward to say he had been behind the wall that night, and, according to his own statement, he would have to have walked past Jodi's body both on the way down and on the way back. He could not have failed to notice her, as her body was lying out in the open  it was not concealed in any way. The time he said he was there is at least 4 hours after Jodi is claimed to have been killed.

I hope u can all understand as to why he was convicted by a jury because the circumstancial evidence was pretty damn liable, however in my opinion the trial should never of been in Edinburgh because of amount of media speculation..

I understand what you are saying, but so much of the so-called "circumstantial" evidence is just plain wrong. All of the points you raise here have been raised before - this is how many of them were portrayed in the media, but they were not truthful or accurate, as we have shown from the actual statements, case papers, etc. I know this is a huge thread, and it's a lot of reading, but everything I have said here has been backed up by the evidence, as it actually is, rather than as it was reported. I will not have time to find all the links for you this evening, but perhaps some of the other posters may be able to help direct you to the relevant parts, until I have more time.

I am not a judge and jury as i say, just some questions have no answers from u guys and can i also say to Corrine, nobody thinks bad of u, well i certainly don't , in my eyes ur just a mother protecting ur child and i for one am not going to be calling Luke such names as a ' murdering b*****d etc etc ' because in my eyes, whatever happened that fateful night, changed the lives of 2 families and if it was Luke and he has a mental issue, the young boy was obvisously unaware of his actions. I hope for the Mitchells and the Jone's that one day u can all live in peace and i am sure that if u all fail in ur appeals etc, that Luke will eventually come home and start living his life again. Goodluck in all the effort u are all putting in

Thank you for your kind words. Jodi's family has not had justice, as the wrong person is in prison, and all of the evidence shows this. Luke's mental health has been assessed numerous times since Jodi's death, and he has been given a clean bill of health every time. Many of the questions you raise here have been answered by us over and over again, but, since the media has, until recently, chosen to ignore this information, unless people find the site, they remain unaware of the truth.

I hope this information is helpful to you - if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

[gordo30]

Yes, nugnug, he has, but I'm giving him another chance before I post!

I'm not sure what you mean by this Sandra as it is clear to all  what has happened and the public perception is very much been a massive embarrassment to the judicial system and to the government on a whole, I know many people had this already earmarked as something they could use to change the "system" and it is now waiting for them to step forward and do just that.

I personally would love to hear what Lamont has to say, stripped bare and not some reissued statement on what you have "given  him time to respond to". I wonder just who has most to gain by some pre determined response to what has occurred these past few days, Its went global and I applaud you for that but lets hear the truth and not not some sugar coated representation of the truth!!

[nugnug]

im sure theres reasons sandra hasnt published it yet.

[openmind]

I noticed 'digitalspy' in the logs as a site quite a bit of traffic was coming from so took a look at the referring address, quite a decent discussion going on.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1783648

That thread is still going. A poster called McLaughlan has registered there to comment on it. Most of what he says is commonsensical but he gets this one wrong (on page 7, I think it was his first post):

SF was the person who went to the police to report his friend after the murder. The police didn't follow it up. He is willing to do a lie detector to prove that he is telling the truth. His friend had penned an essay about killing a girl in the woods some weeks before the murder, he looked like Luke Mitchell and was in the area on the day she was killed, couldn't remember what he'd done the day of the murder because he was too drugged up and had scratches and bruises on his face. It doesn't mean to say that he was guilty of a murder, but it demonstrates how the police dismissed more obvious suspects in favour of Luke, for reasons best known to themselves.

1) The essay notion is an allegation admittedly based on hearsay which has never been corroborated in any way. It always bothers me to see that kind of thing presented as fact by someone who is in no position to know if it's true or not.

2) The resemblance of the two is not undisputed, as regulars here will know.

3) The scratches and bruises are corroborated in the sense that 2 people (who were a couple) attested to them. What about the CCTV footage purporting to show him later on that night, or any subsequent CCTV footage? Do the alleged injuries appear there?

[nugnug]

why dont you go on there and correct him.

or have you allready.

[openmind]

I haven't because I try to limit the forums I get involved with. This seems a more appropriate venue than a forum that's mainly about television. I know some posters there are checking this forum (McLaughlan is almost certainly familiar with it) so hopefully the point will filter through.

[openmind]

While I'm at it, Sandra, are you able to confirm or otherwise my understanding that MK's DNA was finally eliminated from the case at the time of Luke's 2008 appeal? There are people still calling for this to be done so they would surely appreciate the clarification as well.

[fishy]

Oh Merry Christmas! Captain Irrelevant here, of course I can't get at the PM system without rattling the binlids round here first.
Thing is, my IP is on and off like Hamilton's wig, and the phone is right off. I'm waiting for the engineer right now. Tech q. for Billy. Does the ADSL and the dynamic IP addy thing mean every time I turn off the modem I'll have to waste your bandwidth screaming the house down in the forum? Like this?

[admin]

Hopefully after the engineer has been it won't be such an issue for you fishy, but the site information post detailing the PM situation is here - http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/welcome-to-wrongly-accused-persons-forum/site-information-and-notice-of-new-content/msg9923071/#msg9923071

Captain irrelevant! You make me laugh lol

[nugnug]

i wonder if the sun have grown weary of lie detector tests in the wake of phone hacking and the bribery allegations.

they might be worred someone will challenge them to take one.