LM & Jodi’s texts between 1634-1638 & LM’s call to the Speaking Clock at 1654.

[Mr Apples]

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-special-reports/dpic-analysis-2019-exoneration-report-implicates-use-or-threat-of-death-penalty-in-19-wrongful-convictions

"Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between the seriousness of a crime and the likelihood of a miscarriages of justice. As University of Denver professors Scott Phillips and Jamie Richardson describe it in their law review article, The Worst of the Worst: Heinous Crimes and Erroneous Evidence: “the ‘worst of the worst crimes,’ produce the ‘worst of the worst evidence.’”

The authors continued: "Phillips’ and Richardson’s review of more than 1,500 cases in which convicted prisoners were later exonerated found that “as the seriousness of a crime increases, so too does the chance of a wrongful conviction.” They explain that prosecutions for the most serious crimes tend to involve the most inaccurate and unreliable evidence, and the risks are greatest in cases producing murder convictions and death sentences."

I wish we lived in a world free of unprofessional or worse conduct from the police or prosecution, but to believe that we actually do is naive.

A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.

[faithlilly]

A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.

What pieces of evidence convinces you that he did?

[John]

Grappling as per usual, eh, Faithlilly? Just like SM developed amnesia without any medical proof to back this (ahem, self-) diagnosis up and despite being in a fairly responsible full-time job as a car mechanic for years? His accounts regarding Luke's whereabouts on the 30.06.03 were incriminatingly evasive (ie, saying that he couldn't remember if LM was there or not). No two boys could have failed to see each other in that 2-storey detached house if they were in it at the same time. And all these people who put forward the notion that the police's heavy-handed tactics made SM say things he didn't want to say is just very obtuse and absurd; the fact SM made such a big deal of LM's whereabouts is extremely telling. He either saw LM or he didn't -- not 'I don't know." Saying "I don't know" is a cop-out and only something you would say if you had something to hide. He only said he saw his brother after being coaxed by his mother. To effectively lie (for her, and for Luke). At least Shane eventually did the right thing and told the truth on the stand and said his brother wasn't there (ie, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day."). After being shown the pictures of Jodi and her injuries in court, SM's human side came to the fore and he started crying and then told the truth. Furthermore, ADT knew he was lying and SM knew that ADT knew it. (It's yet another nonsense to suggest, as SL and a few others have, that the pictures were shown in court to catch SM off guard and mess with his head. Like, him being shown those pictures would have somehow made him say things on the stand that he didn't want to say? To give a false confession? It's nonsensical and absurd; clutching at straws.) SM was never intimidated or harrassed by police into giving a false confession or telling them what they wanted to hear. Surely if you saw your brother you would simply say so and not make such a big deal about it? People who say that SM being threatened with going to jail for perverting the course of justice or his questions being manipulated by police are being very short-sighted. You would never be frightened to go to jail if you knew you were telling the truth, and more especially if your testimony could potentially prevent your own brother from going to jail for the rest of his life; SM failed to corroborate the alibi for a reason. Also significant is his (SM's) reticence to this very day.

And then there are the other 21 adminicles of circumstantial evidence presented in court ..........

I couldn't have put that together better. Shane Mitchell's evidence sealed his brothers fate regardless of the fairytale stories and theories being espoused in the background by so-called experts. The fake alibi was blown apart and that really said it all.

The two ladies in the car saw Mitchell lurking at the end of the lane as he made his way back from the murder scene, across the main road and through the woods to his home. There was really never any doubt about the identification despite the obfuscation suggested by others.

[faithlilly]

I couldn't have put that together better. Shane Mitchell's evidence sealed his brothers fate regardless of the fairytale stories and theories being espoused in the background by so-called experts. The fake alibi was blown apart and that really said it all.

The two ladies in the car saw Mitchell lurking at the end of the lane as he made his way back from the murder scene, across the main road and through the woods to his home. There was really never any doubt about the identification despite the obfuscation suggested by others.

Yet you knew this early in the case yet you supported Luke. I have asked you what changed your mind several times but have yet to receive an answer.

[Chris_Halkides]

John,

Let me summarize the FW testimony.  The police told RW not to speak with LF, one of the few instances where they did the right thing regarding potential eyewitnesses.   Against police instruction Ms. W contaminated Ms. W’s memory then probably lied about it.  Her credibility has to be judged in light of her actions, and her act contaminated Ms. F's memory.  Moreover, Ms. F was shown to be mistaken about the circumstances of seeing LM's photograph, further lowering the probative value of her testimony.  On top of that, this was a dock identification, and every source I have consulted states in no uncertain terms that dock identifications are highly unreliable.  Then there is the lack of agreement between their description of LM vs. the description of people who actually knew him and saw him in Newbattle.  Furthermore, this was a sighting of a stranger from a car, hardly an ideal set of circumstances.

Now let us consider the interpretations of their testimony.  If FW were absolutely correct, it would have little probative value anyway, putting LM a few hundred yards away from where he said that he was.  If they saw him elsewhere (meaning if the recollection of the jogger were correct), it would put Luke further from the path, shortening an already dubiously short timeline.  The alleged sighting would be more exculpatory than inculpatory.

Over the course of several months I provided quotes and citations in the “Laughable eyewitness testimony” thread documenting correct versus incorrect procedures for potential eyewitnesses.  These quotations cover more than just the FW testimony.  Moreover, the Andrew Malkinson case illustrates the danger of convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony and puts an exclamation point to the ideas encapsulated in written guidelines.  It is not surprising that false eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions.  Discussions which sidestep the arguments made and the examples of people wrongfully convicted given are unserious, among other adjectives.

[Chris_Halkides]

Let me first summarize what the police and prosecution did regarding SM.  The FLO kept telling SM that she could not accept things that he said.  They also arrested him for perverting the course of justice in a theatrical manner.  The showed him crime scene photos (at least one other witness was shown photos).  With the possible exception of the actions of the FLO, these incidents are agreed upon facts.  Examining SM’s testimony without acknowledging all of the facts is myopic.

Now I would like to interpret these incidents.  What the FLO did contradicts what the Canadian guidelines said: "The alibi witnesses should not be subjected to cross-examination or suggestions by the police that they are mistaken. The alibi witnesses should be treated with respect and courtesy. They should not be threatened or intimidated or influenced to change their position."  In addition, Shane’s revised testimony comports with other witnesses and is corroborated with other information, if I am not mistaken.

Arresting an alibi witness is police intimidation.  The lack of discussion about this as a problem that potentially extends to many other cases is a silence that shouts.  Beyond the general issue of whether this charge should ever be made against a witness prior to the trial, the only evidence of supporting the charge in April of 2004 was AB’s recollection, which itself had changed over time.

Regarding Mr. Turnbull’s tactics, there was no legitimate reason to show the photos to SM, who was not in the search party.  Professor Simon wrote, “The effects of anger were found also in studies that simulated legal decision making. One study found that presenting simulated jurors with gruesome photographs of a stabbed murder victim led to an arousal of negative emotions-including feeling anxious, anguished, disturbed, and shocked-which resulted in a doubling of the conviction rate.214 Similar findings were made in studies that contained presentations of severe brutality and mutilation.215 Importantly, in these studies, the issue in question was the identity of the perpetrator, which means that the heinousness of the act was entirely irrelevant and nondiagnostic to deciding the verdict.216”  Therefore, there was an illegitimate reason to show the photographs.  Yet Mr A claimed that this caused SM to testify truthfully; he also claimed that there was no intimidation.  My mind was boggled when I read these statements.

[Chris_Halkides]

A most unfortunate state of affairs. No legal system is perfect and never ever will be. Not ever. To compound problems, Criminal Justice Systems, for the most part, use tools and methods that aren't based on an exact science, so inevitably mistakes will happen and some innocent people will be convicted and sent to prison. As I said, it's very unfortunate -- tragic, even. I don't think it applies to this case, though. I would be utterly astounded if it emerged that LM never did it.

Fewer people will be wrongfully convicted if guidelines are followed than if they are not followed.  The Andrew Malkinson case is a good example.

[Nicholas]

His hair and fingernails were examined.  The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers.  There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken.

Were photographs ever taken of killer Luke Mitchell’s shins and shown to the jury?