UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on February 22, 2023, 03:36:20 PM
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
-
The attempts to spring him from prison by his supporters won’t help him
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/supports-killer-luke-mitchell-hatch-25023206
This 👆🏽will have gone on his prison security files
Sandra Lean
Exactly Caroline - it's something so many people just didn't realise - the sentence was "without limit of time." If he can't demonstrate a "reduction in risk," he'll never meet the criteria of "manageable risk in the community," which is what the parole board would need. But how can he demonstrate a reduction in risk, when he was never a risk in the first place? That's the dilemma - to "demonstrate" that reduction, he'd first have to accept their claims of what made him such a risk - i.e. that he murdered Jodi. For almost 20 years, he's been telling the world he is innocent, so it will just go round and round, unless or until he case is independently reviewed, or new evidence overturns the conviction.
And [moderated] and innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean hasn’t helped him at all
Numerous dangerous offenders, killers and other disturbed individuals have made public statements of having been in prison with this murderer - which could also show he’s been networking
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
Is he up for parole now then? That would explain the recent LM activity on here. I do hope he is denied it.
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon. In fact, the wider public would be more of a threat to him rather than the other way round, despite Luke's Army. There is no way he could live normally again.
Will he be joining up with Aaron Campbell when he turns 21 and moves to an adult prison?
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
And?
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon. In fact, the wider public would be more of a threat to him rather than the other way round, despite Luke's Army. There is no way he could live normally again.
Will he be joining up with Aaron Campbell when he turns 21 and moves to an adult prison?
Half his life has been stolen from him. How could he ever begin to live normally after that?
-
And?
why is his legal team lying about it?
-
Half his life has been stolen from him. How could he ever begin to live normally after that?
At least he has a life to live, unlike his victim.
-
At least he has a life to live, unlike his victim.
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
-
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
It’s amazing how many people get their kicks these days by inflicting additional pain on the families of victims of horrendous crimes.
-
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
“ Forbes on the other hand, resorts to abuse calling people, liars, trolls and imbeciles when he is challenged.”
It really is a pity that you don’t practice what you preach.
-
It’s amazing how many people get their kicks these days by inflicting additional pain on the families of victims of horrendous crimes.
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Every word spoken as always has the opposite meaning, where we can without doubt place "actions speak louder" repeatedly. The soul purpose of intent which has without doubt been to cause harm to life by whatever means, his representatives on the outside carrying his wishes out, for and on behalf of him. Being aggrieved by a system whilst pleading innocence is one thing, attacking constantly the victim, her family and others connected is something entirely different. Where we take LM's words of not wanting others to be treated wrongfully as he claimed he was and place them in the trash, empty words, and as above, only the actions that count for anything. It is constantly on repeat, it happened to the Mitchell's so we are doing it to others - Ms Lean saying that it is ok just now, it is for the greater good - Guffaw!
-
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Every word spoken as always has the opposite meaning, where we can without doubt place "actions speak louder" repeatedly. The soul purpose of intent which has without doubt been to cause harm to life by whatever means, his representatives on the outside carrying his wishes out, for and on behalf of him. Being aggrieved by a system whilst pleading innocence is one thing, attacking constantly the victim, her family and others connected is something entirely different. Where we take LM's words of not wanting others to be treated wrongfully as he claimed he was and place them in the trash, empty words, and as above, only the actions that count for anything. It is constantly on repeat, it happened to the Mitchell's so we are doing it to others - Ms Lean saying that it is ok just now, it is for the greater good - Guffaw!
Good point. Surely it would be possible for him and his team to concentrate on the so called evidence that he didn’t commit the crime without also in turn pointing the finger at others? Or is his only evidence based on making spurious claims about others and what they were supposedly up to on the day? Ie: deflection?
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon
Freedom of information requests for psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page witness statement (dated 1st July 2003), and other transcripts, should be made to the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Services (SCTS)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/23/convicted-killer-luke-muir-mitchells-22-page-witness-statement-freedom-of-information-request-part-166/
A ‘new lawful basis’ could see the transcripts requested released
-
In the unlikely event he's paroled, would he be released with his mother? I wonder if he'll be on suicide watch? Protection wing is not real life.
-
In the unlikely event he's paroled, would he be released with his mother? I wonder if he'll be on suicide watch? Protection wing is not real life.
I wonder how many of Mitchell’s champions would be entirely at ease with having him move in with them and their families?
-
I wonder how many of Mitchell’s champions would be entirely at ease with having him move in with them and their families?
Exactly. I have put it to many of them before. Never ever got an answer. Speaks volumes. I certainly wouldn't trust him around my kids.
-
Exactly. I have put it to many of them before. Never ever got an answer. Speaks volumes. I certainly wouldn't trust him around my kids.
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
But a paroled murderer and satanist, sure no problem *%87
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
-
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
to those on the far left (as Faithlilly is) using the term “gypsy” in a derogatory manner is far more troublesome than being a drug using Satan worshipper with a penchant for knives and a conviction for murder. Actually it’s just virtue signalling, and fairly typical of this particular member so par for the course.
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Heaven forbid he is ever released. Would you also welcome fellow child killers Aaron Campbell and Ian Huntley back into the community as every MOJ starts off as a conviction? You could get Rose West round for a chat too.
-
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
Prickly…no…unwilling to suffer fools gladly…absolutely and to be honest it doesn’t surprise me that you might think that I’m Dr Lean as you really aren’t too good at this research malarkey.
Would I support Luke if he confessed? What a silly question. Are you a small boy?
You’re not racist? Your own words betray you.
-
Heaven forbid he is ever released. Would you also welcome fellow child killers Aaron Campbell and Ian Huntley back into the community as every MOJ starts off as a conviction? You could get Rose West round for a chat too.
There is nothing to suggest that Aaron Campbell, Ian Huntley or Rose West have been the victims of a wrongful conviction so I think they’re best left where they are, don’t you?
I would however welcome around for a chat the Guildford four, Birmingham six and all the wrongly convicted sub-postmasters that I could fit into my front room.
-
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Do you recall what Sandra Lean said on 18th April 2021 here https://www.youtube.com/live/2_3qmU33Lfg?si=zXUiCkHoTabaWdEc from around 4:32 about “bombarding the prison governor” etc and 58:58 ref her first discredited book No Smoke
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Didn't know where to post this. It's probably old hat and irrelevant, anyway.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-killer-luke-mitchell-boasts-27144366?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#google_vignette
-
The Daily Mail wrote, "Malkinson was wrongly found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the next year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years, but he served a further 10 because he maintained his innocence." The BBC wrote, "He had always protested his innocence and was denied an earlier release on licence because he refused to accept he was guilty." I acknowledge that each legal situation may be different.
-
The Daily Mail wrote, "Malkinson was wrongly found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the next year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years, but he served a further 10 because he maintained his innocence." The BBC wrote, "He had always protested his innocence and was denied an earlier release on licence because he refused to accept he was guilty."
Classic mainstream media (MSM) propaganda
-
I tried to create a new thread about this, but it is still awaiting moderation. Anyway, after listening to LM speaking on the four-part 'Sound Of Silence' podcasts, it seems he won't be getting out of prison anytime soon, and definitely not immediately after he's served the punishment part of his sentence (i.e., twenty years). Naturally, he's a "Category 3 Level 3" MAPPA offender (the most dangerous offender category in Scotland) and it seems that the Scottish Prison Service, Police & Criminal Justice Services, because of the sheer wickedness of his crime, deem him to be unmanageable in the community and too high risk to be released yet (if ever). All of the aforementioned organisations seem to be, perhaps inevitably, evading the hard questions he puts to them and passing the buck. It's not looking good for him, is it? And rather than him highlighting the flaws, shortcomings and rigid bureaucracy within the aforementioned organisations, why does he not go into great detail of why he's innocent? The best he can offer is that he was 'kidnapped' by the state, shut down and essentially tried by the media. He has a platform and voice now, so why doesn't he tell us why he's innocent? In the clip below (one of the four Sound Of Silence podcasts), he says that he doesn't participate in Offending Behaviour Programs/Workshops (LM mentions this between 2:28 - 2:44; the way he casually says "Because I'm innocent" is not very convincing at all, imo), because he's innocent -- but offers no explanation of why. Very telling indeed.
What are your thoughts?
https://youtu.be/fx-IpEHpyOY?feature=shared
-
I tried to create a new thread about this, but it is still awaiting moderation. Anyway, after listening to LM speaking on the four-part 'Sound Of Silence' podcasts, it seems he won't be getting out of prison anytime soon, and definitely not immediately after he's served the punishment part of his sentence (i.e., twenty years). Naturally, he's a "Category 3 Level 3" MAPPA offender (the most dangerous offender category in Scotland) and it seems that the Scottish Prison Service, Police & Criminal Justice Services, because of the sheer wickedness of his crime, deem him to be unmanageable in the community and too high risk to be released yet (if ever). All of the aforementioned organisations seem to be, perhaps inevitably, evading the hard questions he puts to them and passing the buck. It's not looking good for him, is it? And rather than him highlighting the flaws, shortcomings and rigid bureaucracy within the aforementioned organisations, why does he not go into great detail of why he's innocent? The best he can offer is that he was 'kidnapped' by the state, shut down and essentially tried by the media. He has a platform and voice now, so why doesn't he tell us why he's innocent? In the clip below (one of the four Sound Of Silence podcasts), he says that he doesn't participate in Offending Behaviour Programs/Workshops (LM mentions this between 2:28 - 2:44; the way he casually says "Because I'm innocent" is not very convincing at all, imo), because he's innocent -- but offers no explanation of why. Very telling indeed.
What are your thoughts?
https://youtu.be/fx-IpEHpyOY?feature=shared
Be honest MA there’s nothing that Luke could say or do that would convince those who don’t believe in his innocence that he’s innocent. I admire his decision not to throw red meat to people like you. He’ll tell his story to individuals who can actually further his cause and that’s good enough for me.
-
Be honest MA there’s nothing that Luke could say or do that would convince those who don’t believe in his innocence that he’s innocent. I admire his decision not to throw red meat to people like you. He’ll tell his story to individuals who can actually further his cause and that’s good enough for me.
There's plenty he could say. It's extremely telling that he doesn't utter a word about why he is not guilty. There were 20 points of circumstantial evidence used to convict him, yet he chooses to address not a single one of them. Zilch. Maybe someone should press him on the more salient points of that evidence, starting with the olive green army parka that went missing? Then pick his brain about why his own brother did not corroborate the alibi and why he found the body so quickly? Now, that would be worth listening to! Instead, we are left with a psychopath and narcissist harping on about the incompetence the Criminal Justice System has thus far displayed in dealing with the management of his possible parole progression. Not all in vain, however, as there are the usual mouthbreathers who are convinced he's innocent by virtue of his eloquence and his ability to comport himself well in an interview setting.
-
From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence, "If he had played the game and enrolled on a sex offender treatment course, he could have been released after less than seven years. Instead, he maintained his innocence, which kept him behind bars for another decade." Andrew Malkinson's story is a cautionary tale.
I agree with Faith; there is nothing that LM could say that would convince the pro-guilt posters here or elsewhere of his innocence. The notion that Mia alerted LM strikes me as plausible.
-
From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence), "If he had played the game and enrolled on a sex offender treatment course, he could have been released after less than seven years. Instead, he maintained his innocence, which kept him behind bars for another decade." Andrew Malkinson's story is a cautionary tale.
I agree with Faith; there is nothing that LM could say that would convince the pro-guilt posters here or elsewhere of his innocence. The notion that Mia alerted LM strikes me as plausible.
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
-
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
Again why did the family searchers go down Roan’s Dyke path when Judith allegedly had been told by Jodi that she was mucking about in Easthouses?
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
Because he knew where she was all the time and didn't want to appear to be the one to have found her body on his own and hence raise suspicions of her family. Teenagers know their local surroundings and regular haunts like the back of their hand... I'm sure Mitchell was no exception. Over the V was a favourite concealed trysting and dope-smoking spot; witness the rubbish left there, trees carved with initials, etc. I can't remember if LM claimed to police in interviews or witness statements that he'd never been over the V when the murder occurred or any time before in his life?
-
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
Agreed. The idea that the family pet became a tracker cadaver dog only while heading west is laughable. He took twice as long going east up that path so he would be in the right place to lead the search, then the feint look over the Gino spot to introduce uncertainty. Did he look over the V break before he "found" the body, bearing in mind the body was over an 8 foot wall covered in undergrowth, 43 feet past and the dog was on a short lead?
Again, he was over the wall with no concerns despite claiming never to have been there. Having been to the scene it would be impossible for him to identify anything at that distance in the dark in that short timeframe - one of the 3 main reasons he was found guilty.
-
There's plenty he could say. It's extremely telling that he doesn't utter a word about why he is not guilty. There were 20 points of circumstantial evidence used to convict him, yet he chooses to address not a single one of them. Zilch. Maybe someone should press him on the more salient points of that evidence, starting with the olive green army parka that went missing? Then pick his brain about why his own brother did not corroborate the alibi and why he found the body so quickly? Now, that would be worth listening to!
It's clear he is unable to engage because he doesn't have any answers but is happy to orchestrate a spiteful snidey campaign against the victim's family through SL.
He could say: It wasn't me because of A, B, C etc
Or, my family are all behind me in getting me out and finding who did it
Or have some empathy for Jodi instead of jumping on one of her friends a few weeks later.
He's a pschyo-narcissist so won't think like that which is why he comes across so self-centered when speaking.
-
Mia's trainer, who trained dogs professionally, said that her tracking abilities were exceptional.
In some known or potential wrongful convictions, the convicted person has multiple alibi witnesses (for example Adam Braseel or Richard Rosario) or electronic evidence or both (for example Russ Faria) putting him or her many miles elsewhere. This case is not like those.
-
Mia's trainer, who trained dogs professionally, said that her tracking abilities were exceptional.
So why didn't he let it loose on the way up the path? 11pm at night and girlfriend missing for 6 hours and he decides to wait for another 30 mins until he's in company and keep it on a short lead, really?
-
So why didn't he let it loose on the way up the path? 11pm at night and girlfriend missing for 6 hours and he decides to wait for another 30 mins until he's in company and keep it on a short lead, really?
Luke was on the way to Judith’s, that was the plan. Mia was there because it was dark and Luke was by himself. There was no plan to go back down the path…not at least until Jodi’s gran suggested it. Taking that into consideration when do you think that Luke planned to find the body?
-
Here is a different sort of question: If Adam Braseel, Russ Faria, and others had alibis, then why did they get convicted?
-
Here is a different sort of question: If Adam Braseel, Russ Faria, and others had alibis, then why did they get convicted?
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
-
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
‘Local to you’….there in lies the rub. I think distance does lend objectivity.
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
The actual evidence tells us different - On that path by his own claims at 10:59pm, still on that path alone some 22mins later. Utter nonsense of not having the dog switched on because he rushed up any path just wanting off it as quickly as possible! Walking time less than half of 22mins, at a rushed pace, then c'mon! Idling and waiting on the others, or doing goodness knows what around that V break?! For even when the others did arrive LM was not at the top of that path, only around 2/3 by this point! Meeting physically with them around 3/4.
His mother made no attempt to make contact with the place he was claiming to head to, which tells us she had no idea of those claims of going to the Jones house. Then we add in his claim of being home, coming off that call with Judith Jones after 10:50pm, and again, where was it SM was supposed to have located that torch from downstairs? For LM to debate (claim) with mother, be ready and on that path by the next call at 10:59pm - "I smell s***e"
This dog expert, so tell us Chris? Dates and amount of sessions said dog with any training, level of skills, what it was being trained to track and so forth? What was used for any claimed tracking? - Simply repeating the standard "expert tracking" skills is not good enough. We then tie in that no defence called this claimed expert for any evidence, for two reasons perhaps, all is not as it seems with those claims that no one has seen any proof of, bar the dog fetching some toy from up a tree! To the absolute fact that LM was not anywhere near where he claimed said alert took place by said dog! You know, 'my dog alerted to something over the wall directly "parallel" to where the victims body lay on the other side - Did not happen, was not there, dog did not alert to anything of the victims body!
Under 40mins in total, just wow! - From initiating a search directly to the RDP, holding back on said path for others arriving, heading off together and LM diverts attention from searching that path by going to the wall at the first break, the Gino break, some 6ft from ground level. From initiating a search directly to the path, to diverting from searching the path and going to that wall and woodland beyond. He does the same again at the V break, enters the woodland and bingo! That miraculous find, finds the victims body that had been hidden some 43ft west of that break "Parallel" to where he lied the dog reacted on the path side! But it hadn't, he nor his dog, nor JaJ's with SK had been where LM said they were, straight to that V break, always straight to that V break, from the first to their testimony in court!
Mere minutes together on the path, mere seconds in that woodland alone, complete familiarity, and what does LM relate to the police after such a gruesome claimed find? The type of tree from 43ft away from that break in the dark, names it, that "large oak tree" The bobble and on it went - LM led that poor girls family directly to her body in under 40mins!
We go with what did take place, we do not go on if only's - We know with the times he had waited on their arrival, he knew they were heading to that path. We know this as the first thing he asked was had they brought something along for the prop, the dog, that ruse! We know the three knew he was there, supposed to be searching, we know AW shouted out upon their arrival "Is that you Luke?" We know that all communication to them had been directly to the landline of AW's home until after 11:05pm, - by the time of their departure LM was already alone on that path!
Under 40mins and it cannot be said too many times. From being home (claimed), to initiating that search directly there, to holding back, to setting off together, to finding a body that had been hidden in an area of woodland off the beaten track, in the dark, that no one was searching, no dog, just LM alone who had diverted attention from the path to the woodland, that dark woodland beyond that wall. One can keep on saying he could not possibly have killed that girl, there was no forensic evidence, but just like that alibi, one cannot show LM was home and they cannot show he did not know where the victims body was - The evidence for these two areas alone, overwhelming!
-
Instead, we are left with a psychopath and narcissist harping on about the incompetence the Criminal Justice System has thus far displayed in dealing with the management of his possible parole progression. Not all in vain, however, as there are the usual mouthbreathers who are convinced he's innocent by virtue of his eloquence and his ability to comport himself well in an interview setting.
Here is an alternative to the mouthbreather hypothesis: the pro-guilt posters avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from contemplating that someone might have been wrongfully by loudly proclaiming that LM is a psychopath and/or his supporters are gullible. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments on the Todd Willingham case comes to mind as an example of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
-
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
Than I will answer my own question. Juries convicted Mr. Rosario, Mr. Braseel, and many others because they believed eyewitness testimony (sometimes very flawed eyewitness testimony) over alibi evidence, even when there are multiple alibi witnesses. Juries may believe that the defendant's friends or family would like for him or her. Why they also sometimes ignore hard alibi evidence is not so easy to explain. More generally the reason to look into known wrongful convictions is to compare them with possible wrongful convictions, in order to look for similarities or differences. If the Russ Faria case is too far away, then the Andrew Malkinson case (which is much closer) has many salient features.
One reason I am in no hurry to answer questions today is that they are rhetorical only. "Why won't SM defend his brother" is not a real question; if SM did so, the people asking the question would say that he was lying. This inference is obvious, given that CM maintains LM's alibi. First there was "Why won't Luke say that he is innocent?" Now the goalposts shifted to "Why won't Luke address the circumstantial evidence?" A better question is, "If there really were a parka purchased before the murder, why can't the police produce a receipt?"
-
Well Chris, I salute your indefatigability, however questions regarding parka receipts really have no merit as LM was already found guilty already. Whether there was a receipt for the parka is one of many examples brought out recently to cast doubt on the conviction when there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence - take one away and the other 19 or so points still stand.
If I was an innocent in prison I would be making as much noise as possible about it which is why LM's approach doesn't match up with his claims of innocence or lack of support from anyone who knows him. Or to put it another way - what would you do if you were wrongly imprisoned? And would your family and friends rally round to support your claims of innocence or ignore you?
-
Here is an alternative to the mouthbreather hypothesis: the pro-guilt posters avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from contemplating that someone might have been wrongfully by loudly proclaiming that LM is a psychopath and/or his supporters are gullible. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments on the Todd Willingham case comes to mind as an example of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
-
Btw, can anyone tell me who is behind the "What They Found" podcasts? Who is the narrator? I'm simply curious, that's all.
-
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
‘They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them.’
Says the individual you believes that a YouTube commentator’s sister had a photograph of Luke in a parka jacket and was questioned about it in court despite not one scintilla of evidence that it ever happened. The individual who also refused to post one scintilla of proof that an alleged dialogue between them and the commentator ever took place.
Irony aside it really would be funny if it wasn’t so desperate.
-
Well Chris, I salute your indefatigability, however questions regarding parka receipts really have no merit as LM was already found guilty already. Whether there was a receipt for the parka is one of many examples brought out recently to cast doubt on the conviction when there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence - take one away and the other 19 or so points still stand.
If I was an innocent in prison I would be making as much noise as possible about it which is why LM's approach doesn't match up with his claims of innocence or lack of support from anyone who knows him. Or to put it another way - what would you do if you were wrongly imprisoned? And would your family and friends rally round to support your claims of innocence or ignore you?
If Luke is silent, the pro-guilt posters (PGP), say that that is not what they would do if they were wrongfully convicted. If he says something, he gets criticized for being disrespectful to the Jones family. If his supporters don't address the circumstantial evidence, the PGP claim it is a strong case. If they do, the PGP say that the jury made its call; therefore, it is pointless to have a conversation. One problem with the PGP position is that (as Faith noted) every wrongful conviction begins with the jury's returning a guilty verdict.
-
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
One reason to be thankful for DNA profiling is that it has led to the release of many wrongfully imprisoned people. An important ancillary benefit is that it allowed scholars to ask why these wrongful convictions happened in the first place, which in turn points the way toward reforms. To suggest that one ignore other cases when considering this one is so completely...ill-considered...that the only explanation I can find for it is extreme authoritarianism, which is the antithesis of rational skepticism. That is why I will continue to bring up other cases, and you are free to read those comments or not.
However even taken in isolation, this case presents problems. There is no murder weapon; a motive is pure conjecture; the timeline is so tight as to verge on impossibility; and so forth. Testimony purporting to identify LM is internally inconsistent. To sum up, even if one were to restrict oneself only to the facts of this case, one would still conclude that it was a hot, stinking mess.
-
‘They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them.’
Says the individual you believes that a YouTube commentator’s sister had a photograph of Luke in a parka jacket and was questioned about it in court despite not one scintilla of evidence that it ever happened. The individual who also refused to post one scintilla of proof that an alleged dialogue between them and the commentator ever took place.
Irony aside it really would be funny if it wasn’t so desperate.
So, you think I made the communication between myself and the lady in question up? As for the photo itself, there's no smoke without fire, and even if the photo wasn't shown in court (I myself believe the photo was shown in court), I believe it does exist. It's been mentioned on this forum before, before I mentioned it (by Parky41), and it would be good to know his source. I noticed, from a screenshot on someone's blog, that SL was asked about this concert and this parka, but she didn't answer (funny that, eh?). And all these other parts of incriminating circumstantial evidence gradually filtering through -- such as the Flip clothing manager's testimony regarding that replacement olive green German army parka bought from his store on 08.07.03 -- in addition to what can be sourced in the public domain, only reinforces my belief that LM is well and truly guilty. All of this only goes to show how important attending, or not attending, that long complex 42-day trial was; neither you or I, or SL herself, sat through the full 42 days of that momentous, notorious trial, and therein lies the problem. However, thankfully, owed in great measure to social media, many pieces of circumstantial evidence have filtered through from people who were at the trial, including jury members (who no doubt divulged information in private to people they know, and those people then tell other people they know, and so on). I can think of 2 other pieces of info that aren't in the public domain and only came to light via social media: the boys in the abbey who testified that LM was a lot cleaner looking that night, and the young guy from Eskbank Trading who knew LM and said under oath that he'd seen LM in that shop wearing the olive green army parka BEFORE the murder, and was very clear that his sighting was before 30.06.03, and that he remembered it because of the German army badges on the sleeves and the fact his mother owned the exact same jacket at the time. And this leads me on to another point: SL alludes to this boy's sighting in IB, but she frames it in such a way that would lead the reader to infer that it was insignificant and that the boy was mistaken; for example, she says LM hadn't seen the boy in 3 years, implied that he was mistaken about the sighting because he said "because of the murder and everything", and, significantly, she omits the crucial parts about the german badges on the sleeves and the fact the young guy's mother owned the exact same jacket. It's very telling. How can we fully trust someone who wasn't at the trial, who doesn't have access to everything that went into the very lengthy investigation, and who redacts certain info she has access to or omits certain info when it suits? I have nothing against SL, but she does have books to sell.
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
John,
What I have read about the Malkinson case indicates that he spent much longer in prison because he refused to admit guilt. I am not an expert in either British or Scottish law; therefore, I am not in a position to say much more than that. Maybe you can say a bit more.