Re: The murder of Jodi Jones

[gordo30]

Sandra’s demeanour and driving force behind this whole agenda is one of sheer desperation, infatuation and obsession.  The tone in which she uses towards the Criminal Justice System as a whole is drizzled in bitterness, which comes from her failings in a subject that she so passionately studied at PhD level for three years.  It is probable that her infatuation with the Mitchell case led her to this, but listening to her speak in those podcasts shows a woman lost in an endless dark, black hole.  Her disgust towards the Criminal Justice System, by in large, plagues her like a disease.  It’s as though she can’t accept that society is not just, never will be just, and never has been just.  Human beings are not democratic.  They are swines, through and through.  They are greedy, vengeful and evil, and the sooner she let’s go of this hunch, she may then be able to dig her way out the dark hole.  I don’t agree with the system either, but I don’t let it impinge on my life.  I don’t agree with capitalism, but I also don’t let it adversely affect my life.  I don’t harbour bitterness towards those involved in such systems because, quite simply, it won’t change.  It can’t change.  Sandra, in my opinion, albeit has been very helpful in answering my previous posts, is deluded, infatuated and obsessed.  To allow such a crime to take over your life for the best part of 16 years is a sign of someone who can’t see the wood for the trees.  This woman has to stop.  Someone has to stop her.  Someone has to say, listen, I commend all your efforts of which there is no greater accolade to criminology, but please withdraw from it and put it to bed.  The case will never be solved.   Any forensic evidence is lost, and has been lost, forever.  Mitchell is detained for life, and it is simply tough titty.  A Jury convicted him.  Game over.

What an appalling post based on what exactly! Her demeanour on sites like these? When always answering what’s put before with candour and honesty. Doing while always being wary of attacks like these and having to keep within the moral and legal constraints placed upon her when working on these cases. She is driven that’s for sure and her drive comes from trying her best to wright what’s went wrong, brave also in having to bring up a family in an area where tensions and hostility towards her are real. Taking things to a level where she was in the position to get a doctorate to be qualified in her assumptions. How exactly are you qualified to make such a scathing attack based on nothing.

Why do you spend so much of your time on two forums debating this case if you feel it’s is unprovable? Some sick form of enjoyment? Questioning Sandra about crime scene photos, taking the time out to go to the scene itself to take pictures, are you some weird sort of fantasist who gets there kicks from brutal crimes? Of course my assessment of you is probably wrong but then I’m not qualified to make them but you can see where I derive them from.

She doesn’t hide behind a fancy moniker, she’s assessable and available unlike the majority of those who would attack her. She won’t be put off by this as it’s the normal run of the mill post she has had to put up with for years. She will carry on and that’s admirable.

[TheArmchairDetective]

Gordo, I’m not even going to write back to you as I would be here all day.

One thing I will draw your attention to though is a twitter post of Sandra’s where she speaks about the podcast with James English.  She makes reference to the truth eventually coming out, and that those who are hiding things should “Be afraid.  Be very afraid”

Now to me, that is a bit pot-kettle - she claims she is the victim and is under attack from online trolls.  It’s difficult to deal with this, however, when she’s making remarks like this.  She does this through her wording in the book too, which by the way is massively biased towards Mitchell, of course.

It’s as though it is ok for her to point blame at others yet can’t seem to take any criticism when matters are reversed.  She’s a professional.  She’s telling people to be afraid.  To me, that sounds like she’s getting a rise from doing what she’s doing.  I’m my opinion, all she is doing is mixing the pot over and over and over and over. 

She needs to stop.

Reference - https://mobile.twitter.com/sandralean5?lang=en

Post - June 13

[gordo30]

You never been to the scene Gordo?

Never felt the need to mate and I’m about a 45 min drive away. What would I gain from it.

[Bullseye]

been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help?  Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!

Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.

Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?

Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?

Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?

[sandra L]

Are we all feeling better having got all of that off our chests? None of you know me, none of you know why I do what I do and, anyway, your opinions are none of my business. I do think, however, that continually misquoting me to "prove" what you say is somewhat hypocritical. Anyway, back to the discussion.

been a couple of things on the red forum I’ve been chatting about, a few questions have come up, can Sandra or anyone else help?  Also was wondering Sandra, if there is any reason you don’t post there, I assume it’s due to all the stuff that gets posted, don’t think I could be arsed with all that either!

I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run and (b) the things that are allowed there.

Shane’s knife collection? Did he have one? How many did he have? Did the police take them, where were they kept.

No, he didn't have one, to the best of my knowledge.

Where was Shane when Luke went out with the dog after the call from Jodi’s mum?

In his house. Luke went up to ask if he could borrow the torch, Shane got it for him and then went back up to his room.

Where was the knife pouch found and was the knife from the pouch the same one that was handed in by Luke’s mum? Was this also the brown handled knife witnesses have seen him with?

In Luke's bedroom, on a shelf/chest of drawers (i.e. not hidden away). From memory, the knife Corinne handed to Luke's solicitor, who then handed it to the police, was the knife that belonged to the pouch - they were bought together. The solicitor's statement is in the case papers. The brown handled knife is one that was described by Ferris as belonging to Luke. He (Ferris) later accepted it was his own knife, not Luke's. It was not the knife that belonged to the pouch.

Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?

Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.

[Guiltyascharged]

I've never posted there and have no intention of doing so because of (a) the way it's run

Will your new forum be run just like your old wap one, more control over posts and accounts? Is billy involved at all?

http://longroadtojustice.com/community/luke-mitchell/

Edit: stuff on forum has since been deleted

[sandra L]

This woman has to stop.  Someone has to stop her.

 

Really? Who might that be ... and why?

STOP FUCKIN LYIN

Yes, please do!

He also "reportedly owned a parka around the time of the murder" - Sandra.

But apparently the parka is an irrelevant red herring? Now it might have been MK because he owned one? You can't have it both ways.

This is what I mean about misquoting me. I said the "identification" by the witnesses on the Newbattle Road may have been a mistaken identification - that in no way suggests the murderer was MK - it suggests he might have been the person seen by those witnesses as he made his way up the Newbattle Road for beer that evening. Perfectly innocent reason for being there, potentially perfectly innocent mistake by the witnesses.

"He was also reportedly a fan of Marilyn Manson" - Sandra

despite constantly reiterating how irrelevant Manson/Black Dahlia is to this murder.

Another misrepresentation (did you actually read the book?) There was information in the police investigation that someone had offered information to the police regarding someone who had accessed the Marilyn Manson website, specifically to view the Dahlia paintings, and had shown these to others. The point I made in the book was that this information was later drafted into the "evidence" against Luke, even though the initial reports named a different person. The Manson/Black Dahlia connection is irrelevant - it always has been - what I was trying to demonstrate was how it came to be involved in the case at all and how it later became "linked" to Luke.

I've neither the time nor the inclination to keep going round in these ludicrous circles. I've explained all of this many times before, I've put it in the book for everyone to read and make up their own minds - I'm done with it now.

In her Youtube video answering questions, she replied to a post someone telling her to stop with a smug grin along the lines of "nahhh, I'll decide when I stop

Demonstrably incorrect. Replying to someone who said "Please don't answer back, you've said enough already," I replied, "No, I decide when I've said enough, thank you very much."

[TheArmchairDetective]

I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway

[gordo30]

In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.

[sandra L]

In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.

Exactly

[TheArmchairDetective]

It is about him.  It always has been about him and you know it.  The way Sandra writes the book is done in an attempt to make it look and seem as though it could happen to anyone.  We know it could.  There’s no mistaking that.  However, she’s clearly built up an extremely strong relationship with his mother over the years which in my opinion is why she is still continuing to work on it.  Clearly, Corrine is her friend and she would be doing her an injustice if she dropped the case.  Dropping the case would jeopardise their relationship.  She’s clearly not wanting to do this.  Anyone looking at such a case has to do so from an objective standpoint.  How can she be objective when Corrine is clearly her best buddy?  Is Sandra going to dispute this? If she does, then it shows you that she’s not even being reasonable or realistic.  I’ve thought it all along - she’s too heavily involved to be able to offer this case any more value, and I consider her portrayal of the Criminal Justice System to be more of an attack rather than a perspective.  At points during the reading of her book, I actually had to give myself a shake and remind myself that it’s Corrine Mitchell’s son who this happened to.  Not Sandra’s.   I would actually be surprised if she isn’t sued for it to be honest.  It’s bitter, scathing and harsh.  It goes beyond the point of honesty and, in my opinion, reveals too many hints and opinions.  She’s overly critiques what appear to be the case papers, and goes off on tangents towards avenues of blame.  Moreover, not only is it a biased account, but lacks an objective summary and profile of Mitchell himself.  An objective author would have included this to highlight the importance of how a biased story may be misleading.  Again, she’s friends with Corrine so clearly this book will tilt this way.  The book is merely a scathing attack on as many people as possible.

[Bullseye]

Thanks for the info Sandra.

In the end it’s not about this one case or this one person! It’s about all of us and the realisation that it could happen to anyone.

Spot on

[TheArmchairDetective]

This has probably never been mentioned before, but does anyone else get the impression that Corrine Mitchell might be into the occult/witchcraft? She strikes me as the type who would have a darkened house, dark curtains, spiritual ornaments and references to the occult in her house.  Does she have skulls and candles in her house? I’m just trying to pinpoint precisely where her son developed his interest and knowledge of satanism.  After watching her videos with James English, I got a very strong feeling that she’s into all of this.  I don’t know why.  I’d have said that even without the knowledge of what her son has done.  He must have developed this interest from somewhere.  His school jotters and knife pouch were covered in satanic slogans.  Even his writings during his time behind bars have suggested this, as has his desire to have satanic material delivered to him.  Is his mother a witch or something? She doesn’t look the full shilling.  She seems unhinged and I suspect she has an array of Ouija boards at her disposal.

[Caroline]

It could happen to you I suppose if you have an obsession with knives and your girlfriend is murdered with a knife while meeting you. Seriously how many people would all the factors that convicted Luke apply to? This "it could happen to anyone" just isn't true. It would never happen to me.

I don't know much about this case but I was thinking the very same thing. People say the same thing about Bamber but not many people find themselves in the same circumstances!

[Bullseye]

I just don’t understand why anyone would waste 16 years of their life to a fuckwit who frankly doesn’t care if he’s on the inside or out anyway

I see it as someone who believes something to be true and has the courage to stand up and say so. We all have to stand up for what we believe including those who believe Luke to be guilty, don’t we? I for one still can’t say one way or another but I respect Sandra for taking a stand and fighting for what she believes all these years. But if it is proven to her that Luke is in fact guilty, I’m sure that would be a dark day, but her work over the past 16 years is more than just Luke.

What makes you say Luke couldn’t care if he got out or not?