Author Topic: Gofundme removes £10,000 appeal bid to clear Jodi Jones killer Luke Mitchell  (Read 985 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
These charity pages, can see right though the BS too lol, embarrassing.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15042
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
why are certan people so desprate that it not get th funding wellithinki know why.

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
why are certan people so desprate that it not get th funding wellithinki know why.

What?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
"Why are certain people so desperate that it doesn't get the funding? Well, I think I know why".

All these people screeching about the fundraiser have zero intention of donating, so why are they bothered about it at all? For those who wanted to help (and there are many), an accountancy and accountability process was in place so that the use of all money raised was completely transparent.

There is no taxpayer's money involved whatsoever. There's rarely taxpayer's money available for full reviews of cases which means, without money, there is no process by which cases can be independently reviewed and potential new evidence checked out. That was supposed to be what the S/CCRC was set up to do but it has clearly failed in so many cases.

If the reason people don't want the fundraiser to go ahead is that they don't want the case reviewed fully, then my question is simply why? It's not costing them anything and, if they're convinced the evidence proves conclusively that Luke is the murderer, then an independent review would (if they're right) reinforce their certainty. But if it doesn't? Is that the real reason they don't want it to happen?

In that case, I have some bad news for them. The review will go ahead, one way or another. Without the funding, it will take longer, but it will still happen. To be absolutely clear, I won't be conducting the review - that will be down to a team of experts, all highly regarded in their fields.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15042
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
certan people seem desprate that areveiw doesnt happen now why would that be.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7459
Seems like this is nothing unusual.


"GoFundMe page seeking ‘justice’ for confessed killer gets removed"

https://nypost.com/2018/07/25/gofundme-page-seeking-justice-for-confessed-murderer-removed/

"GoFundMe Page Started By Florida Mom Accused Of Killing Baby Deleted & Refunds Issued"

https://www.babygaga.com/gofundme-started-by-florida-mom-accused-of-murder-deleted/

Offline Davie2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
"Why are certain people so desperate that it doesn't get the funding? Well, I think I know why".

All these people screeching about the fundraiser have zero intention of donating, so why are they bothered about it at all? For those who wanted to help (and there are many), an accountancy and accountability process was in place so that the use of all money raised was completely transparent.

There is no taxpayer's money involved whatsoever. There's rarely taxpayer's money available for full reviews of cases which means, without money, there is no process by which cases can be independently reviewed and potential new evidence checked out. That was supposed to be what the S/CCRC was set up to do but it has clearly failed in so many cases.

If the reason people don't want the fundraiser to go ahead is that they don't want the case reviewed fully, then my question is simply why? It's not costing them anything and, if they're convinced the evidence proves conclusively that Luke is the murderer, then an independent review would (if they're right) reinforce their certainty. But if it doesn't? Is that the real reason they don't want it to happen?

In that case, I have some bad news for them. The review will go ahead, one way or another. Without the funding, it will take longer, but it will still happen. To be absolutely clear, I won't be conducting the review - that will be down to a team of experts, all highly regarded in their fields.

You know why? I just find it hilarious that you could not be bothered to read the T&C of these platforms. It gave us a good laugh. It got you some attention in the papers, well done. Why don't you try Patreon?

How many reviews do you want? You have had over a decade, to try get something to fit. Sensationalism does not work.

Teams of experts? Highly regarded in their fields, working for free? Or just more false promises?

But yea, I'm personally looking forward to this independent review, will it take as long as the second part of the Frontline doc upload? Or the new website? Probably be waiting years no doubt, i will get bored by then.

Offline WakeyWakey

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
If the reason people don't want the fundraiser to go ahead is that they don't want the case reviewed fully, then my question is simply why?

as unbeleivable as you may find it , a process which has a chance, altho extreme remote, of seeing a violent killer freed on some technicality is generaly going to be opposed from the outset

why stop there? why not review every guilty conviction in all of history? theres always been some mug who doesnt beleive that innocent wee laddie is capable of being a beast and if you are willling to dig deep enouugh youl always be able to jam sqaure peg in a round hole and satisfy yourself that there was reasonnable doubt, even though that  "reasonable doubt " has been anything but reasonable to the people that countt for decades.


look at david gilroy case.  astonishin levels of cognitive disssonce among the convicts family who are certain what they see as a loving famiy man was not capable of being a violent partner and in the end murderer.

do you think all guilty convictions arre worthy of reveiw sandra? presumably  not.   so if a violent murderer  potentually  finds some way out and into society  , do you not find that prospect  a bit abhorrent?   can you honestly say you question why this would be opposed in the luke case?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Quote
do you think all guilty convictions arre worthy of reveiw sandra? presumably  not.   so if a violent murderer  potentually  finds some way out and into society  , do you not find that prospect  a bit abhorrent? 

Violent murderers, rapists and paeodphiles "find a way" out and into society all the time, Wakey. It's called the end of their sentence (often with early release).  Since our prison regime is not, despite claims to the contrary, geared towards rehabilitation, there is nothing to say these people have been changed in any positive way by their  period in prison - i.e. they are just as likely to murder, rape and harm children as they were when they went in.

Do I find that abhorrent? Yes, but it's the system we've got and I find the death penalty even more abhorrent (which will, undoubtedly, be the source of some lively "debate"). So what do we do? We don't have a system, generally, that allows these people to be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives and if people are upset by the prospect of paying what is, in relative terms, a small amount for reviews of questionable cases, how would they feel about paying to keep people in prison for 30, 40, even 50 years?

Personally, I don't think whole life sentences are a particularly good idea either. Instead of heaping such vitriolic hate on those who do offend and are guilty, why don't we take a step back and consider trying to find out why they do what they do and if there is a way to ensure they don't do it again after release? Wouldn't that be a far better use of resources?

The prison sentence is seen as a way for the guilty offender to "repay his debt to society" and the length of that sentence is set to reflect the "debt" created by the crime. Once that "debt" is "paid," is it right that there can be calls for sentences to be extended on the basis that the prisoner is still a danger, when we, as a society, have done nothing to try to address or reduce that danger?

Quite simply, we can't have it all ways. The system we have says prisoners serve a sentence of a given length and then are released back into society. What can we do to make that system more effective, since, at the moment, it's all we've got?

Quote
can you honestly say you question why this would be opposed in the luke case?

Yes, I can. Why would anyone object to an independent review of evidence, conducted by experts, which is not being funded by taxpayers money, the result of which would almost certainly put the whole discussion to bed once and for all? What is wrong with that?

Of course I'm not calling for a review of all guilty cases, nor would I. But in cases like this one, where there are serious questions, even amongst the legal and expert professions, are we just to shrug our shoulders and blindly trust that there "must be an explanation"? 

I always believed the justice system existed to find out the truth. I know, now, I was wrong, but I still believe the truth matters. What if Luke Mitchell didn't murder Jodi? What justice has she had? Don't you want to know? I do.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7459
as unbeleivable as you may find it , a process which has a chance, altho extreme remote, of seeing a violent killer freed on some technicality is generaly going to be opposed from the outset

why stop there? why not review every guilty conviction in all of history? theres always been some mug who doesnt beleive that innocent wee laddie is capable of being a beast and if you are willling to dig deep enouugh youl always be able to jam sqaure peg in a round hole and satisfy yourself that there was reasonnable doubt, even though that  "reasonable doubt " has been anything but reasonable to the people that countt for decades.


look at david gilroy case.  astonishin levels of cognitive disssonce among the convicts family who are certain what they see as a loving famiy man was not capable of being a violent partner and in the end murderer.

do you think all guilty convictions arre worthy of reveiw sandra? presumably  not.   so if a violent murderer  potentually  finds some way out and into society  , do you not find that prospect  a bit abhorrent?   can you honestly say you question why this would be opposed in the luke case?

Ironically, Sandra and Corrine are inadvertently prolonging Luke's incarceration. In my opinion their influence over him is detrimental to his rehabilitation and parole prospects. I say this because it does not seem like Luke is behind his own campaign so to speak.

Jeremy Bamber pro-actively writes to people, explains his situation ect. Getting on the radio at one time. If Jeremy was idle, accepted his fate and done nothing since 1986, he wouldn't have a campaign team or this forum at present. Luke's campaign on the other hand has been created for him without any of his input and possibly not even his idea or wish. But that's conjecture on my part.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Ironically, Sandra and Corrine are inadvertently prolonging Luke's incarceration. In my opinion their influence over him is detrimental to his rehabilitation and parole prospects. I say this because it does not seem like Luke is behind his own campaign so to speak.

Jeremy Bamber pro-actively writes to people, explains his situation ect. Getting on the radio at one time. If Jeremy was idle, accepted his fate and done nothing since 1986, he wouldn't have a campaign team or this forum at present. Luke's campaign on the other hand has been created for him without any of his input and possibly not even his idea or wish. But that's conjecture on my part.

It is, indeed, conjecture, David, and you're wrong. Luke is as actively involved as it is possible for him to be. He has the final say in everything.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7459
It is, indeed, conjecture, David, and you're wrong. Luke is as actively involved as it is possible for him to be. He has the final say in everything.

If he was actively involved as it is possible for him to be. Id have expected him to provide an explanation for his missing coat and knife by now, having 15 odd years to think what may have happened to these possessions of his.

Corrine says the police have hidden his coat. You say he never had one in the first place, despite the existence of a photo of him wearing the replacement that was never initially found. These conflicting arguments demonstrate that you and Corrine are making up answers for him.

The fact of the matter is, Luke never reported these items stolen and thus only he can explain what happened to his coat and knife. The disapperence of these items were important to the prosecutions case, and the only way to refute what the prosecution alleged would be having Luke take the stand and  give an innocent explanation for his possessions going missing. It then becomes apparent why Luke was advised not to take the stand.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
This 10k? purely for Ms Leans man hours of transferring all the case notes into hard copies, for easier access.
15-20hrs  a week roughly for a year, approx:
Then these hard copies will be transferred to independent people to carry out, another full review.
A full review of what?
Ms Lean claims she is not going to be part of this review, really?
She is preparing those very files for them to review - with all of her added work contained.
Not part of it, in what way will Ms Lean not be part of it?
Now we have the added green light from Luke on everything.
What exactly is CM going to be doing over this year?
What about these other cases Ms Lean has written on and helping with?
Does the paying of her man hours for this case - free up time for those.
Cunning?

Offline Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Is there any update on the long road to justice website, or is this no longer going ahead?

Also did you manage to find a site that people can donate on?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
The Long Road website is being rebuilt. However, since starting a new and demanding job, I will not have the same time to devote to the organisation as I'd previously hoped, so discussions are currently underway to find the best way to support it.

We may have found a suitable crowdfunding platform - I'm still working on it.