Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[justsaying]

Again:


For starters, the pornography and masturbation was only raised when he was on the stand, so he was understandably humiliated and flummoxed. And it's true and doesn't say that Luke was in the house but doesn't say he wasn't in the house either, just that he didn't check and presumed he wasn't but he could have been.

Also, his treatment during questioning by police is extreme and he says he was left doubting anything about that night. Appeal judges later describe it as disgusting or despicable or deplorable.... I definitely wrote it down somewhere. So how reliable is any of it? It's a big muddle.

Wasn't the pornography proven to have been mere pop-ups on the computer? And a mountain was made out of a molehill?

[Baz]

You're missing the point;

Shane Mitchell knew what he had been doing (whether or not he was embarrassed is irrelevant) It may have appeared to come as a shock to him when asked about it on the stand during his brothers trial but let's face it, he must have known there was a chance the police would find out when they looked at his computer and the prosecution would raise it during the trial.

It was Shane Mitchell's decision to choose to keep this evidence from the police; I presume he also knew right from wrong? I'm referring to his omission of evidence btw.

All he was asked to do was corroborate his brothers alibi. He didn't!

How have I missed the point? Shane didn't have experience of giving evidence in a murder trial. He was embarrassed by the porn revelation. He couldn't say that Luke was definitely in the house but he also couldn't say he definitely wasn't. So he may not have been able to support the alibi but he didn't refute the alibi either.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all charges were dropped against Shane and his Mum.

Will you answer a question now? Why do you attach no significance to the rest of the search party all completely changing their statements regarding Luke's behaviour that night?

[Nicholas]

Your knowledge and opinion is based on the word of a proven liar.

My knowledge is based on a wealth of evidence (a lot being firsthand) and paperwork dating back to before Simon Hall was born.

[justsaying]

You're missing the point;

Shane Mitchell knew what he had been doing (whether or not he was embarrassed is irrelevant) It may have appeared to come as a shock to him when asked about it on the stand during his brothers trial but let's face it, he must have known there was a chance the police would find out when they looked at his computer and the prosecution would raise it during the trial.

It was Shane Mitchell's decision to choose to keep this evidence from the police; I presume he also knew right from wrong? I'm referring to his omission of evidence btw.

All he was asked to do was corroborate his brothers alibi. He didn't!

He was never asked to do this during the trial.  Had he repeated what he said about Luke being home he would have been charged with a criminal offence - even if he believed what he was saying was the truth! Baz has pointed out he never said Luke WASN'T home. It is you who clearly is not accepting facts!

[jixy]

How have I missed the point? Shane didn't have experience of giving evidence in a murder trial. He was embarrassed by the porn revelation. He couldn't say that Luke was definitely in the house but he also couldn't say he definitely wasn't. So he may not have been able to support the alibi but he didn't refute the alibi either.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all charges were dropped against Shane and his Mum.

Will you answer a question now? Why do you attach no significance to the rest of the search party all completely changing their statements regarding Luke's behaviour that night?

I asked the same question but like the prosecution, she deemed it unimportant. I think it is vital to the conviction

[Nicholas]

He was never asked to do this during the trial.  Had he repeated what he said about Luke being home he would have been charged with a criminal offence - even if he believed what he was saying was the truth! Baz has pointed out he never said Luke WASN'T home. It is you who clearly is not accepting facts!

Let's face it, You don't appear interested in facts.

You are defending a man you've never met and only have second hand knowledge of.

[justsaying]

My knowledge is based on a wealth of evidence (a lot being firsthand) and paperwork dating back to before Simon Hall was born.

We only have your word for the above...

Family members of murder suspects/murderers can and do lie for various reasons.

For example, some lie to protect their own reputations, some lie to hide family secrets, some lie out of misguided loyalty.etc

[jixy]

Let's face it, You don't appear interested in facts.

You are defending a man you've never met and only have second hand knowledge of.

So you assume. At least justsaying is working on facts not something else 

[jixy]

My knowledge is based on a wealth of evidence (a lot being firsthand) and paperwork dating back to before Simon Hall was born.

 

[jixy]

A lot of things are assumed on here just like at Luke's trial

[mrswah]

Just to remind posters that you have already been told to keep on topic. This thread is NOT about Simon Hall; it is about Luke Mitchell.

And, please could we be civil when debating with each other---makes for a nicer world.  Thank you.

[jixy]

Just to remind posters that you have already been told to keep on topic. This thread is NOT about Simon Hall; it is about Luke Mitchell.

And, please could we be civil when debating with each other---makes for a nicer world.  Thank you.

and it makes an actual debate on Lukes case far easier which is the whole point! Here's to nice posts that depends purely on keeping on topic and not attacking others!

[justsaying]

Just to remind posters that you have already been told to keep on topic. This thread is NOT about Simon Hall; it is about Luke Mitchell.

And, please could we be civil when debating with each other---makes for a nicer world.  Thank you.

You keep removing my posts, am I not allowed to defend myself against allegations which Stephanie herself has been guilty of in the past? If you do not want me to respond I suggest you move her post.

[Baz]

Just to remind posters that you have already been told to keep on topic. This thread is NOT about Simon Hall; it is about Luke Mitchell.

And, please could we be civil when debating with each other---makes for a nicer world.  Thank you.

I hope I have remained respectful, I certainly aim to.

I would suggest that if MODS genuinely want people to remain respectful then remove the option to use this: 

[justsaying]

Let's face it, You don't appear interested in facts.

You are defending a man you've never met and only have second hand knowledge of.

You did this too!