A Persepective The Jury Didn't Get To Hear...You Decide...

[Holly Goodhead]

Or can mean something completely different.  Did Scott explain that part?

Not sure what you mean John?

[Brietta]

I would have defined circumstantial evidence the same way as Holly did, so what is the correct definition?

Nobody "promotes murderers", as far as I'm aware, at least, not knowingly, but some of us question convictions.  It's a good thing people do, otherwise MOJ's would never come to light.

Basically, under Scots Law it takes corroborated evidence to secure a conviction.  Circumstantial evidence in scots law is nothing new nor is it 'inferior' in any way.  It is valid evidence which most certainly does not amount to "pointing the finger".

I think it possible that had Mitchell not gone for the defence of alibi it might have left the door open for members of the the jury to presume reasonable doubt.  But that door was slammed shut in theirs and Mitchell's face when his brother did not substantiate the narrative.

The Scottish Law of Evidence is a complex issue and I have seen one or two explanations provided in context by John on the forum which are worth checking out.  Bearing in mind he has first hand training and experience of this.

I also recommend you type - circumstantial evidence in scots law - or words to that effect into your search engine which should provide you with accurate information.

[Holly Goodhead]

Popular musician!!!... What a complete pile of poo!!!  Some people will listen to any old tripe!  You need your ears syringing, Holly Gothhead.

Hello You! 

Its a rite of passage for teenagers to be somewhat rebellious by way of listening to controversial music and dressing provactively perhaps in an attempt to shock their elders!  In my day it was heavy rock, glam rock, punks and new romantics. 

We see all this stuff with Bamber eg claims he wore make-up and feminine clothing. 

[Brietta]

May I suggest you reread the post you refer to above.  I provided the link, along with the time, to QC John Scott's explanation of circumstantial evidence which I transcribed verbatim from 'Murder in a Small Town'.  If you find it risible then I suggest you take it up with him:

https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about

That would be Sandra  Lean's book you are quoting, would it 😉

[Holly Goodhead]

I find the due process of the law courts preferable to the conspiracy theories rampant on the internet based on no information, misinformation and misunderstanding where the accused does not have a voice and there is no right of appeal.

None of that is applicable to Mitchell's conviction but it most certainly is for those who have had nooses put over their heads by the ignorant lieges of the kangaroo courts of the internet.

Well thankfully the above do not get to influence due process of law unlike the tabloid media. 

[Brietta]

I can't take credit for the explanation.  I simply transcribed it verbatim from QC John Scott's input to 'Murder in a Small Town':

John Scott QC @ 3.30:

https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6

"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".

https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about

You qualified what was said in the Channel5 documentary with your own interpretation
"Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt." Holly G

A singular which is the very antithesis of what constitutes 'circumstantial evidence' acceptable to a court of law.

[Holly Goodhead]

That would be Sandra  Lean's book you are quoting, would it 😉

Brie I don't wish to sound rude but I really don't think I can be any clearer.  Final attempt.  I was quoting John Scott QC verbatim, direct from the horse's mouth, from his input to the docu: 'Murder in a Small Town'. 

ohn Scott QC @ 3.30:

https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-2-7daa9d42-eaf4-4a10-9aa6-b3ea8501ffa6

"Circumstantial evidence is a number of different circumstances which taken on their own might mean little or sometimes nothing but when put together in a particular way point the finger towards the accused".

https://johnscottqc.co.uk/about

I have not read Sandra Lean's book but might well do in the near future.

[Brietta]

Or can mean something completely different.  Did Scott explain that part?

Maybe he did and it ended up on the cutting room floor?

I think there is so much cherry picking around this case it is no wonder the internet is awash with confusion.

[Holly Goodhead]

You qualified what was said in the Channel5 documentary with your own interpretation
"Pointing the finger at someone does not amount to conclusive guilt." Holly G

A singular which is the very antithesis of what constitutes 'circumstantial evidence' acceptable to a court of law.

I made it perfectly clear from the quotation marks what originated from John Scott QC:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12048.msg648356#msg648356

[Brietta]

Well thankfully the above do not get to influence due process of law unlike the tabloid media.

I beg your pardon!  What is it you think that Lean et al are doing with themselves if it is not to influence due process?

[Brietta]

I made it perfectly clear from the quotation marks what originated from John Scott QC:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12048.msg648356#msg648356

What was the point when you used it to repeat three words taken from it out of context to illustrate your opinion. 

[William Wallace]

What an absolute cop-out.

Just state the alleged motive - if you're not naming names, there's no harm done.

Actually, if you have anything solid, you're obliged to report it to the authorities - do that.

Anyone who mutilates a body post mortem surely does so for thrills - it's clearly the case that many murders have been committed because the murderer liked doing it.

How long before you change your mind again?

No it's not a cop out. You know that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people disappeared after that!

Check out these Twitter posts below.

[Rusty]

No it's not a cop out. You know perfectly well that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people were banned, because 2 at least never posted again lol.

I have now received a WARNING !! Why have I received a warning ??? At no time have I named who I think did it, but I'm being given yellow cards with an imminent red card no doubt being prepared. For what? For putting forward an alternative theory which would point the finger away from Mitchell?

I thought there was free speech in here as long as you don't say Mr or Mrs X did it. Seemingly any theories which could prove Mitchell is innocent merit a warning. That tells you something, or it should do.

Before they ban me have a look at some of the stuff that's been posted on Twitter very recently by Judas Iscariot and under the name of THE SEER. Are they going to ban me for mentioning these?

Whoever issued me with the unjust warning because I didn't name anyone or accuse anyone, I can tell you gagging people won't work I'm afraid. The snowball has already started rolling down the mountain. The truth has been suppressed for 17 years. The walls are closing in on the real killer.

I find your crazy theories hilarious. But that is all they are. You have provided no links/sources/quotes to back up anything you have said 

[Paranoid Android]

No it's not a cop out. You know perfectly well that naming people on here is BANNED. Remember what happened when a certain male was being named by numerous people?? The names were removed, the posts edited and certain people were banned, because 2 at least never posted again lol.

I have now received a WARNING !!

No-one's asking you to name names - you were asked to state the motive, which you claim to have worked out somehow.

We know you've received a warning, because you've posted as much on three threads.

I'll make it easier for you - does the motive concern a drug debt?

[William Wallace]

I

The drug debt question, the short answer is NO. J was known to smoke hash, she wasn't known to habitually use more expensive drugs like Class A. I really don't think anyone would carry out an extreme murder like this over a debt owed relating to some hash.