Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[Nicholas]

I do not think this would be helpful, my previous post explains why. Regardless of his relationship with his mother - this does not negate the fact that the case against Luke Mitchell is weak.

With regards the weak case as you see it, what's more important?

Actual factual innocence

or

technicallities of innocence?

Do you believe the Luke Mitchell case should be used as example to attempt to bring the Scottish legal system into disrepute, putting the actual factual innocence/guilty argument aside?

[justsaying]

With regards the weak case as you see it, what's more important?

Actual factual innocence

or

technicallities of innocence?

Of course "factual innocence" is of upmost importance - but on the other hand technicalities can also be just as important. For example, not getting a fair trial can be seen as a technicality, but as we know an unfair trial can lead to the wrong person being convicted. 

[Nicholas]

Of course "factual innocence" is of upmost importance - but on the other hand technicalities can also be just as important. For example, not getting a fair trial can be seen as a technicality, but as we know an unfair trial can lead to the wrong person being convicted.

Technicallies in law do not make a person a miscarriage of justice as the Barry George case shows. Actual factual innocence wasn't proven.

Luke Mitchell's case may show a wrongful conviction but there's nothing showing actual factual innocence IMO.

[justsaying]

Technicallies in law do not make a person a miscarriage of justice as the Barry George case shows. Actual factual innocence wasn't proven.

No they do not, but that has a lot to do with the fact that our justice system do not want to compensate people who have been wrongly convicted, nor do they want to admit their own flaws.

Barry George's conviction has been overturned, he should go back to having the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

(every person has the right to a fair trial - it is a huge technicality if that right is breached)

[Nicholas]

Of course "factual innocence" is of upmost importance - but on the other hand technicalities can also be just as important. For example, not getting a fair trial can be seen as a technicality, but as we know an unfair trial can lead to the wrong person being convicted.

Do you see Luke Mitchell's prosecution as malicious?

Did the police persue him for vindictive reasons do you think?

[Nicholas]

No they do not, but that has a lot to do with the fact that our justice system do not want to compensate people who have been wrongly convicted, nor do they want to admit their own flaws.

Barry George's conviction has been overturned, he should go back to having the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

(every person has the right to a fair trial - it is a huge technicality if that right is breached)

A wrongful conviction doesn't equal a miscarriage of justice

If you expect transparency from the justice system, shouldn't the same apply to those found wrongfully convicted?

Isn't the presumption of innocence a myth?

[justsaying]

Do you see Luke Mitchell's prosecution as malicious?

Did the police persue him for vindictive reasons do you think?

I believe the police thought he was guilty and on that basis ruled out other lines of enquiry.

[Nicholas]

I believe the police thought he was guilty and on that basis ruled out other lines of enquiry.

But you haven't answered my question.

Was Mitchell's prosecution malicious?

[Nicholas]

I believe the police thought he was guilty and on that basis ruled out other lines of enquiry.

Regarding other lines of enquiry, haven't most of the other suspects since been followed up?

Which suspects are outstanding?

[justsaying]

A wrongful conviction doesn't equal a miscarriage of justice

This depends how you define "miscarriage of justice" - I read something a long time ago (cannot remember if it was a judgment or an article - I will try to find it) where a top judge claimed even a guilty person can suffer a miscarriage of justice.

[Nicholas]

I believe the police thought he was guilty and on that basis ruled out other lines of enquiry.

And on what basis do you think the police believed he was guilty?

[Nicholas]

Do you believe the Luke Mitchell case should be used as example to attempt to bring the Scottish legal system into disrepute, putting the actual factual innocence/guilty argument aside?

[justsaying]

But you haven't answered my question.

Was Mitchell's prosecuting malicious?

I did answer your question - I believe the police think they got their man - if that is their belief it cannot be malicious.

[Nicholas]

This depends how you define "miscarriage of justice" - I read something a long time ago (cannot remember if it was a judgment or an article - I will try to find it) where a top judge claimed even a guilty person can suffer a miscarriage of justice.

I have used the definition given by the court re Barry George's compensation claim as that's what we were debating

[justsaying]

And on what basis do you think the police believed he was guilty?

Certainly not an evidentiary basis if he was convicted purely because he smoked cannabis, was a goth and found the body. There is nothing linking him directly to the crime.