Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[faithlilly]

Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.

Further to my previous post in reply to the claim above, the only mention I can find about any contact between the CID and Luke is from Luke himself when he describes talking to them AFTER the murder of his girlfriend.

I’d be obliged if you could post your cite for any pre-murder contact?

[Chris_Halkides]

Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".

Repeatedly perhaps, but the source for the taunting claim is Craig Dobbie and therefore not reliable.

[Venturi Swirl]

Repeatedly perhaps, but the source for the taunting claim is Craig Dobbie and therefore not reliable.

Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.

[Parky41]

Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.

Spot on - I do believe Chris needs to refresh himself on what the meaning of taunting actually is. Then apply this to what has been produced so far from his interviews! And that is only seeing fragments of it in black and white.

[faithlilly]

Spot on - I do believe Chris needs to refresh himself on what the meaning of taunting actually is. Then apply this to what has been produced so far from his interviews! And that is only seeing fragments of it in black and white.

I think that you’re missing the point here. No matter how Luke behaved HE WAS A CHILD and therefore should not have been subjected to the bullying tactics the police employed.

From Luke Mitchell-v-Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.

‘ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.’

[Venturi Swirl]

I think that you’re missing the point here. No matter how Luke behaved HE WAS A CHILD and therefore should not have been subjected to the bullying tactics the police employed.

From Luke Mitchell-v-Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.

‘ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.’

Always wise not to take excerpts out of context, because the next bit says
“However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted”.

So, despite “deploring” Mitchell’s questioning, no miscarriage of justice was said to have taken place, that’s the salient point.

[Parky41]

Always wise not to take excerpts out of context, because the next bit says
“However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted”.

So, despite “deploring” Mitchell’s questioning, no miscarriage of justice was said to have taken place, that’s the salient point.

Isn't it just. It has forever been applying things out of context.

[KenMair]

Further to my previous post in reply to the claim above, the only mention I can find about any contact between the CID and Luke is from Luke himself when he describes talking to them AFTER the murder of his girlfriend.

I’d be obliged if you could post your cite for any pre-murder contact?

Seek and ye shall find. DC Alan Towers CID, transcript Page 36. "Probably once on a one to one basis". This was at his initial police witness statement interview. If only you were so strict in applying the same standards to your own claims.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html

[Chris_Halkides]

Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12087.0
Craig Dobbie made statements which are untrue, and his credibility has to be judged with this in mind (see examples within the thread linked above).  The Daily Mail reported: "Mr Findlay said official guidelines said that an ID parade should have been organised instead...Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects."  Either Mr Dobbie is grossly incompetent, or he is deliberately speaking falsely.  You are also tip-toeing around the inconvenient fact that the appeals court called his questioning outrageous.  The passage that you quoted indicates that the police were in command of the interrogation.  The fact that a fifteen year old person can be subjected to this without the benefit of counsel is obviously wrong, yet the pro-guilt commenters cannot bring themselves to say so.

[Venturi Swirl]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12087.0
Craig Dobbie made statements which are untrue, and his credibility has to be judged with this in mind (see examples within the thread linked above).  The Daily Mail reported: "Mr Findlay said official guidelines said that an ID parade should have been organised instead...Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects."  Either Mr Dobbie is grossly incompetent, or he is deliberately speaking falsely.  You are also tip-toeing around the inconvenient fact that the appeals court called his questioning outrageous.  The passage that you quoted indicates that the police were in command of the interrogation.  The fact that a fifteen year old person can be subjected to this without the benefit of counsel is obviously wrong, yet the pro-guilt commenters cannot bring themselves to say so.

You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me that everything Dobbie said should be ignored on the basis that it is all likely to be untrue.  I agree Mitchell should have had counsel, why was he denied this?

[faithlilly]

Seek and ye shall find. DC Alan Towers CID, transcript Page 36. "Probably once on a one to one basis". This was at his initial police witness statement interview. If only you were so strict in applying the same standards to your own claims.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html

Sorry I shouldn’t laugh. Is this what you mean?

“DF….Well exactly. Because how often have you met the boy before?
DCAT….Probably once on a one to one basis.


Notice the present tense ‘have’, as in before that day in court. The past tense ‘had’ would have been more appropriate if asking about before the murder.


Of course there’s context as well. If DC Thompson had met Luke before the murder we have no information on what basis that meeting took place. Was it as a witness to a crime perhaps or perhaps he was buying caravan accessories from Scott’s caravans? We have no idea but what we do know is that from the brief exchange above you have no basis to claim that not only had Luke come to the notice of the CID but had been questioned by them pre-murder.

[faithlilly]

Isn't it just. It has forever been applying things out of context.

The outcome of the appeal does not change the opinion of the learned appeal judges.

[Parky41]

You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me that everything Dobbie said should be ignored on the basis that it is all likely to be untrue.  I agree Mitchell should have had counsel, why was he denied this?

He had no legal right to counsel. His legal right then was to be questioned for X amount of hours with an appropriate adult present which is what took place. The law was around having any interview video recorded which it was. This later changed to everyone being entitled to legal representation and the length of being able to hold a person increased? something like up to 6hrs without to then always having legal representation and 48hrs with? Don't quote me on that however!

Thus why I mentioned reform in previous post. The "Cadder ruling" of Peter Cadder in 2010.

[KenMair]

Sorry I shouldn’t laugh. Is this what you mean?

“DF….Well exactly. Because how often have you met the boy before?
DCAT….Probably once on a one to one basis.

Notice the present tense ‘have’, as in before that day in court. The past tense ‘had’ would have been more appropriate if asking about before the murder.

Of course there’s context as well. If DC Thompson had met Luke before the murder we have no information on what basis that meeting took place. Was it as a witness to a crime perhaps or perhaps he was buying caravan accessories from Scott’s caravans? We have no idea but what we do know is that from the brief exchange above you have no basis to claim that not only had Luke come to the notice of the CID but had been questioned by them pre-murder.

Only the very few could surmise that DF meant after the murder. It's obvious DC Towers (not Thomson) had already met LM as it was him who was taking his statement that night. On a one to one basis suggests it was not a social or informal exchange. Unless he was buying drugs off him? Do you know if DC Towers owned a caravan or that a child worked in Scotts caravan without adult supervision?

[Venturi Swirl]

The outcome of the appeal does not change the opinion of the learned appeal judges.

Aren’t you trying to suggest that the alleged poor treatment of Mitchell by the police in questioning is at least partly responsible for a miscarriage of justice?  Because that’s not what the learned appeal judges decided, so why is it relevant anyway?