What IF Luke Mitchell is proven guilty after the remaining samples are tested?

[Venturi Swirl]

Sorry you can’t see the bigger picture. This isn’t the thread for you. I am also sorry for your inability to understand.

How patronizing.  Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed?  No you can’t.  All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point. 

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm still wondering why these untested samples will prove who the killer is?  If they are tested and found to be LM, will it make any difference, and if it is AN Other, how will it prove they were the killer and eliminate all the evidence and witness statements provided at the trial?

Genuinely curious.

Me too, but don’t expect any sensible answers on here.

[KenMair]

Me too, but don’t expect any sensible answers on here.

People quoting Forbes as a credible source without a hint of irony would suggest a certain level of insensibilty. Mind you, some people have to believe in something.

[Chris_Halkides]

Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed?  No you can’t.  All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point.

Let me address this one example at a time.  Even the authorities indicated that aspects of how Luke Mitchell was questioned were "outrageous."  For argument's sake, let's assume that he is guilty.  The next 15-year old may not be, and unless reforms are put into place, he or she might falsely confess, leading to a wrongful conviction.  Examples available upon request.

[faithlilly]

People quoting Forbes as a credible source without a hint of irony would suggest a certain level of insensibilty. Mind you, some people have to believe in something.

Not matter what you think of Forbes it’s a fact that he has a greater knowledge and understanding of the case than you or I by dint of having studied the defence papers. Of course it’s always good practice, where possible, to obtain a corroborating source for any claims no matter where they come from.

Of course there are always some who are still hoodwinked by a tabloid headline or a poster on a forum with an agenda. They say that a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still getting it’s boots on….that’s never been more true than in this case.

[Chris_Halkides]

I'm still wondering why these untested samples will prove who the killer is?  If they are tested and found to be LM, will it make any difference, and if it is AN Other, how will it prove they were the killer and eliminate all the evidence and witness statements provided at the trial?

Genuinely curious.

David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..."  The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems.  In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.

[TruthSeeker2003]

How patronizing.  Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed?  No you can’t.  All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point.

All the deliberate action that was taken to secure a conviction at all costs. None of it ethical or legal for that matter even if he was guilty.

I again apologise for your inability to comprehend the point of this thread. I am not patronising you. I am simply stating saying it as I find it.

[TruthSeeker2003]

Let me address this one example at a time.  Even the authorities indicated that aspects of how Luke Mitchell was questioned were "outrageous."  For argument's sake, let's assume that he is guilty.  The next 15-year old may not be, and unless reforms are put into place, he or she might falsely confess, leading to a wrongful conviction.  Examples available upon request.

@venturi swirl 🌀 this enable you to understand?

Thank you Chris. You get exactly my point!

[TruthSeeker2003]

David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..."  The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems.  In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.

Exactly! Get it now Venturi Swirl 🌀?

[Venturi Swirl]

David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..."  The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems.  In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.

Isn’t this one man’s point of view, someone who by his own admission does not have the full facts of the case and who makes a living out of sensationalist tv programmes?   Other professional and more knowledgeable view points may vary. 

[Chris_Halkides]

Isn’t this one man’s point of view, someone who by his own admission does not have the full facts of the case and who makes a living out of sensationalist tv programmes?   Other professional and more knowledgeable view points may vary.

Regardless of your opinion of Professor Wilson, the problems with the witness testimony remain.  As an aside, one of the places in which these problems were highlighted was at the International Skeptics Forum, where there is also a thread on this case.  Rolfe's comments on Ms. Bryson's testimony were particularly helpful IMO.  But my main focus is not on the problems as much as it is on how there came to be so much testimony that changed over time.  An investigation can really go off the rails when the police cajole witnesses to alter what they initially said.

[faithlilly]

Regardless of your opinion of Professor Wilson, the problems with the witness testimony remain.  As an aside, one of the places in which these problems were highlighted was at the International Skeptics Forum, where there is also a thread on this case.  Rolfe's comments on Ms. Bryson's testimony were particularly helpful IMO.  But my main focus is not on the problems as much as it is on how there came to be so much testimony that changed over time.  An investigation can really go off the rails when the police cajole witnesses to alter what they initially said.

Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.

[Venturi Swirl]

Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.

”there is talk”.  You’ll have to do better than that.  Why hasn’t this man come forward to say he was coerced by the police to lie?

[Nicholas]

Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.

Leonard Kelly was home by around 5,15pm

Killer Luke Mitchell committed his murder earlier than 5:15pm!

TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/

[faithlilly]

Leonard Kelly was home by around 5,15pm

Killer Luke Mitchell committed his murder earlier than 5:15pm!

TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/

Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?