Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[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)

The problem for Barry George is he's in limbo.

Using Mark Williams Thomas to re investigate the case against him wasn't a very clever move IMO.

If Barry George is actually factually innocent I don't understand why he or "team Barry" don't disclose the medical evidence to support his claims. What have they got to lose, or hide as the case may be?

[justsaying]

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?

On that basis (and others) I question her integrity to look at the Luke Mitchell case objectively with regards factual innocence. Whilst I recognise the numerous flaws and failings by the police, and others, I have lurking doubts regarding the motives and agendas of those who are campaigning to overturn this conviction.

Yes, if there is even the slightest possibility that a 14 year old child was sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he did not commit.

[Nicholas]

Yes, if there is even the slightest possibility that a 14 year old child was sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he did not commit.

That goes without saying but how do you propose Luke Mitchell and his supporters prove beyond any doubt his actual factual guilt or innocence, given all what's been publicly presented over the years?

[justsaying]

That goes without saying but how do you propose Luke Mitchell and his supporters prove beyond any doubt his actual factual guilt or innocence, given all what's been publicly presented over the years?

That is a difficult question to answer - but just because it has never happened yet does not mean it never will. There are numerous cases who have had their convictions overturned after fighting for many, many years.

[Nicholas]

That is a difficult question to answer - but just because it has never happened yet does not mean it never will. There are numerous cases who have had their convictions overturned after fighting for many, many years.

But as I've said, over turning a conviction based on technicalities doesn't prove actual factual innocence.

Numerous alternative suspects have been named over the years by Mitchell and his supporters;  therefore if Luke Mitchell didn't commit this murder - who did?

I firmly believe Sandra Lean's thesis is fundamentally flawed for a variety of reasons.

On that basis (and others) I question her integrity to look at the Luke Mitchell case objectively with regards factual innocence. Whilst I recognise the numerous flaws and failings by the police, and others, I have lurking doubts regarding the motives and agendas of those who are campaigning to overturn this conviction.

It's clear there's been honest and ethical debate on this case over the years as well as tactical and dishonest debate.

I favour the former.

Are Mitchell supporters claiming the real killer is being protected?

[justsaying]

But as I've said, over turning a conviction based on technicalities doesn't prove actual factual innocence.

Numerous alternative suspects have been named over the years by Mitchell and his supporters;  therefore if Luke Mitchell didn't commit this murder - who did?

Are Mitchell supporters claiming the real killer is being protected?

But even the court of appeal do not look at a person's guilt or innocence - they look at whether the conviction is safe - on that basis, can anyone prove factual innocence?

I cannot answer for other people - I myself do not believe the real killer is being protected, as I have said previously, I believe the police think they have got their man, but how many times have the police been wrong in murder cases?

[justsaying]

But even the court of appeal do not look at a person's guilt or innocence - they look at whether the conviction is safe - on that basis, can anyone prove factual innocence?

I cannot answer for other people - I myself do not believe the real killer is being protected, as I have said previously, I believe the police think they have got their man, but how many times have the police been wrong in murder cases?

Sam Hallam's case is a prime example - he has photographic evidence proving he was elsewhere at the time of the murder and yet the ministry of justice said the new evidence did not show "beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hallam did not commit the offence". Yet it was this "new evidence" which overturned his murder conviction.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33045706

[Nicholas]

But even the court of appeal do not look at a person's guilt or innocence - they look at whether the conviction is safe - on that basis, can anyone prove factual innocence?

I cannot answer for other people - I myself do not believe the real killer is being protected, as I have said previously, I believe the police think they have got their man, but how many times have the police been wrong in murder cases?

Luke Mitchell and his supporters have named several other alternative suspects. Where have these claims got them?

And what's the deal with Scott Forbes? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12458908.man-named-in-appeal-tried-to-sell-story-to-newspapers/

Did he ask for a "massive payout" as reported?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.0

And Is he still involved with the MOJ organisation?

[justsaying]

Luke Mitchell and his supporters have named several other alternative suspects. Where have these claims got them?

I cannot answer for those people.

And what's the deal with Scott Forbes?

Care to elaborate? I see your link - I do not know what the deal is, perhaps he just wanted money or fame - who knows. Crimes like this bring all sorts of weirdo's out of the woodwork. If you had information which could free an innocent person would you want paying for it? I know I certainly would not.

[Nicholas]

I cannot answer for those people.

Care to elaborate?

Se above 

[Nicholas]

I cannot answer for those people.

Care to elaborate? I see your link - I do not know what the deal is, perhaps he just wanted money or fame - who knows. Crimes like this bring all sorts of weirdo's out of the woodwork. If you had information which could free an innocent person would you want paying for it? I know I certainly would not.

Is Scott Forbes still involved with mojo?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg489278#msg489278

[justsaying]

Is Scott Forbes still involved with mojo?

I have no idea what he is involved in.

[Nicholas]

I have no idea what he is involved in.

It would be interesting to learn if Scott Forbes is still working for MOJO, alongside Sandra Lean, and if so in what capacity.


"A new campaign is now being launched, being led by a Scots criminologist, Dr Sandra Lean, who has dedicated her life to fighting injustice and defending those she believes have been wrongfully convicted. She has dedicated her career to the case, which happened in her hometown of Dalkeith 15 years ago and is set to publish a book later this year which she claims shows failings in the original police investigation.
Speaking to the Herald she said: “This would be the biggest embarrassment possibly ever for the Scottish police
ridiculous and small-town mentality– a lot of gossip.
an said that she had doubts over whether or not Mitchell was guilty, and after gaining a PHD in criminal justice and has become a campaigner for those wrongfully convicted and currently works with the charity, the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation
“Then over time, more bits of pieces just seemed strange, and his mother Corrine put a note through the door of my workplace one day.
“It said, ‘I’ve heard what you’re saying about my son’s situation, can you help us?’ I knew nothing about the justice system or anything, but I agreed to meet her and Luke, and they started telling me about what had been going on and where some of the stories that were doing the rounds had come from.
“What convinced me he was innocent finally, was access to all of the case papers in 2009.”
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/fresh-appeal-launched-to-clear-name-of-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4800387

Sept 2018
Sandra Lean stated:
"That's not a decision for me, Marty - although I'm involved with the review team, I'm not the principal decision-maker.
However, there are discussions underway regarding an online presence for the case and the best way to go about that - I should be able to report back on this within the next couple of weeks.
As soon as I know what's happening, I will post here - Luke's had some really good support on this forum, so it's only right that this should be one of the first places to know about new developments.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg447236.html#msg447236

[Nicholas]

Ive just ordered it. Wishing Sandra all the very best as always

When you've read it maybe you can tell us if all of Luke Mitchell's psychological assessments and any and all supporting documentation showing a normal 14 year old boy have been included.

Would also be interesting to see what any school reports showed.

If Luke Mitchell is actually factually innocent what would he have to lose by putting these into the public domain?

[Nicholas]

By Luke Mitchell's own admission, he was a drug addict. How many joints did he say he smoked each day/week?

Cathy Molly from MOJO reminded me in 2013 that drug addicts are not to be trusted!

What makes Luke Mitchell different?

For what reason did he self medicate and why didn't his mother seek help for him from a medical professional?

Didn't Shane Mitchell also smoke dope?