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

[Venturi Swirl]

I disagree with your premise that justice has been proven to have done in this instance, but that is more properly debated on different threads.  I am less strongly in  disagreement with the notion that any case in which justice was proven to have been done cannot be used as a basis for reforms.  The reason why I disagree less strongly is a practical one, namely that it is potentially easiest to generate interest in reforms when one is confronted with a clearcut wrongful conviction.  When the case is disputed, it is not as easy.  When a case was clearly decided correctly, it is even more of an uphill battle.

What I believe is that if a jury in any case sees wrongful conduct on the basis of the investigators, they should disregard any piece of evidence generated from that conduct.  If they see unprofessional or incompetent work, they should discount that piece of evidence accordingly.

Thank you for your respectful reply.  I think you may slightly misunderstand my position in this case.  I am open minded on the issue of whether LM was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, mainly because I don’t have full access to all the facts as presented in court.  I believe from what I have read that he is guilty and I don’t think the case made by his supporters for his innocence is convincing.   I didn’t  like the one sided CH5 documentary (which initially had me fooled, but which I now realise was more propaganda than trustworthy documentary) and I dont like the way Luke’s supporters are so keen to point the finger at others, particularly Jodi’s own family members.

[KenMair]

KenMore,

Thank you for making crystal clear that we are at an impasse with respect to this discussion.

Chris, feel free to continue. After yesterday's protest of adults encouraging kids to chant for a childkiller's release, you might understand emotions might be high. I have had direct contact with MK before he died, met many friends of Shane and pupils of St Davids High and not one of them has given me a single inclination of LMs innocence. I have met a member of the jury (who couldn't/wouldn't discuss the case) but said he had no doubt of his decision.

The only people who have cast doubt on this case are, in my opinion, the local weirdo SL and a fantastist ex-armed robber SF - although I understand they are now estranged.  Regarding the police interview, LM gave as good as he got and was taunting them about DNA. It's fair to say the recent campaign furore is conjecture and based on deflection and gossip.

[TruthSeeker2003]

I disagree with your premise that justice has been proven to have done in this instance, but that is more properly debated on different threads.  I am less strongly in  disagreement with the notion that any case in which justice was proven to have been done cannot be used as a basis for reforms.  The reason why I disagree less strongly is a practical one, namely that it is potentially easiest to generate interest in reforms when one is confronted with a clearcut wrongful conviction.  When the case is disputed, it is not as easy.  When a case was clearly decided correctly, it is even more of an uphill battle.

What I believe is that if a jury in any case sees wrongful conduct on the basis of the investigators, they should disregard any piece of evidence generated from that conduct.  If they see unprofessional or incompetent work, they should discount that piece of evidence accordingly.

Thank you for trying to get Viennese swirl to understand. She is a bit crumbly

[Venturi Swirl]

Thank you for trying to get Viennese swirl to understand. She is a bit crumbly

time to start emulating Chris and behaving like an adult.

[TruthSeeker2003]

time to start emulating Chris and behaving like an adult.

Time you went and read the Broons or something. If you can read that is.

I am off to create a new thread please don't follow me. You are starting to creep me out with your wee crush noo.

[Venturi Swirl]

Time you went and read the Broons or something. If you can read that is.

I am off to create a new thread please don't follow me. You are starting to creep me out with your wee crush noo.

Which part of what I have written on this thread do you actually disagree with and why?

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris, feel free to continue. After yesterday's protest of adults encouraging kids to chant for a childkiller's release, you might understand emotions might be high. I have had direct contact with MK before he died, met many friends of Shane and pupils of St Davids High and not one of them has given me a single inclination of LMs innocence. I have met a member of the jury (who couldn't/wouldn't discuss the case) but said he had no doubt of his decision.

The only people who have cast doubt on this case are, in my opinion, the local weirdo SL and a fantastist ex-armed robber SF - although I understand they are now estranged.  Regarding the police interview, LM gave as good as he got and was taunting them about DNA. It's fair to say the recent campaign furore is conjecture and based on deflection and gossip.

I am happy to expand on why we are at an impasse.  Close to twenty years ago, I became convinced that waterboarding and other highly coercive techniques would not produce useful information.  Putting it another way (and as a purely practical matter), if a jury heard evidence obtained through waterboarding, they should give it zero weight.  Since that time I have become familiar with many instances of false confessions.  My conclusion is that one does not need to go to the extreme of waterboarding to elicit nonsense during an interrogation.

Your comment about emotions running high is worth exploring.  A particularly heinous crime is likely to anger the general public, and anger is inimical to good practice in the criminal justice system.  For one thing public outrage puts pressure on the police to wrap up a case quickly.  For another it puts (possibly subconscious) pressure on witnesses to go along with the prevailing narrative (the Steven Truscott case comes to mind). The people who protested are not advocating for a child killer; they are advocating for a someone they believe (correctly or incorrectly) was wrongfully convicted.

With respect to Luke's response to his interrogation, Luke displayed a better understanding of DNA evidence than quite a few people.  Whether other aspects of his response was appropriate or not is not germane to the question of whether or not the interrogation should have ever unfolded the way that it did.  It is incontrovertible that the interrogation was grossly mishandled; Lord Hamilton said as much.  With respect to other aspects of your comment, they are better discussed in a different thread. 

[faithlilly]

I am happy to expand on why we are at an impasse.  Close to twenty years ago, I became convinced that waterboarding and other highly coercive techniques would not produce useful information.  Putting it another way (and as a purely practical matter), if a jury heard evidence obtained through waterboarding, they should give it zero weight.  Since that time I have become familiar with many instances of false confessions.  My conclusion is that one does not need to go to the extreme of waterboarding to elicit nonsense during an interrogation.

Your comment about emotions running high is worth exploring.  A particularly heinous crime is likely to anger the general public, and anger is inimical to good practice in the criminal justice system.  For one thing public outrage puts pressure on the police to wrap up a case quickly.  For another it puts (possibly subconscious) pressure on witnesses to go along with the prevailing narrative (the Steven Truscott case comes to mind). The people who protested are not advocating for a child killer; they are advocating for a someone they believe (correctly or incorrectly) was wrongfully convicted.

With respect to Luke's response to his interrogation, Luke displayed a better understanding of DNA evidence than quite a few people.  Whether other aspects of his response was appropriate or not is not germane to the question of whether or not the interrogation should have ever unfolded the way that it did.  It is incontrovertible that the interrogation was grossly mishandled; Lord Hamilton said as much.  With respect to other aspects of your comment, they are better discussed in a different thread.

Excellent post.

We can appreciate the pressure the  police were under but more importantly the PF who, although he had refused to give permission for the police to charge Luke in November, gave it in April the next year even though nothing substantive had been added to the case file since the November before. This suggests the pressure to charge someone, anyone, was building.

[Parky41]

Excellent post.

We can appreciate the pressure the  police were under but more importantly the PF who, although he had refused to give permission for the police to charge Luke in November, gave it in April the next year even though nothing substantive had been added to the case file since the November before. This suggests the pressure to charge someone, anyone, was building.

Far from it -------

The infamous bleat - They had nothing, the case kept getting knocked back, no it did not. They were working together, QC, PF and the investigating officer. Why? Because of reform. Part of the reform also, those changes in techniques around information gathering strategies, lapses of time between each. Sound familiar?

Reform, audio on to video recording of interviews - You bleat on repeat the infamous couple of minutes of the "interrogation" but leave as usual to the side, the vast majority of the interviews being around Information gathering techniques, with them all.

Two people given alibi to the third - A clever and effective reform where SM was concerned, also seeing those changes, the lapses in memory of what one had said from one to the next. You are told they were consistent, far from it.

The winging it parts from the beginning, believing fully for some that it had worked, in again, more information gathering and bang. The time lapses of relaxing and fully believing that no arrest would come - Bang.

So yes, they did not have forensic evidence to use in conjunction with the murder, it had been destroyed, they knew this. They had three people interlinked with the alibi again knowing it was false. They had methodology in place around new techniques, putting that case carefully together in conjunction with each other. Having the suspect and those backing him, believing there was nothing and no arrest would come.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+GOT+R+RIGHT+KILLER%3b+PROSECUTOR+IN+JODI+TRIAL+SPEAKS+OUT+FOR+FIRST...-a0128589047?fbclid=IwAR3DBaATW-XnXm[Name removed]jQhCrAEkR4drf6DcmX5h_rwGrm_DuKZRy_5Xi22T_RM

[faithlilly]

Far from it -------

The infamous bleat - They had nothing, the case kept getting knocked back, no it did not. They were working together, QC, PF and the investigating officer. Why? Because of reform. Part of the reform also, those changes in techniques around information gathering strategies, lapses of time between each. Sound familiar?

Reform, audio on to video recording of interviews - You bleat on repeat the infamous couple of minutes of the "interrogation" but leave as usual to the side, the vast majority of the interviews being around Information gathering techniques, with them all.

Two people given alibi to the third - A clever and effective reform where SM was concerned, also seeing those changes, the lapses in memory of what one had said from one to the next. You are told they were consistent, far from it.

The winging it parts from the beginning, believing fully for some that it had worked, in again, more information gathering and bang. The time lapses of relaxing and fully believing that no arrest would come - Bang.

So yes, they did not have forensic evidence to use in conjunction with the murder, it had been destroyed, they knew this. They had three people interlinked with the alibi again knowing it was false. They had methodology in place around new techniques, putting that case carefully together in conjunction with each other. Having the suspect and those backing him, believing there was nothing and no arrest would come.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+GOT+R+RIGHT+KILLER%3b+PROSECUTOR+IN+JODI+TRIAL+SPEAKS+OUT+FOR+FIRST...-a0128589047?fbclid=IwAR3DBaATW-XnXm[Name removed]jQhCrAEkR4drf6DcmX5h_rwGrm_DuKZRy_5Xi22T_RM

My, my Turnbull got his defence in early, didn’t he….if it all went pear shaped he was making sure that the blame was going to be evenly distributed. Certainly from that article he does appear more Saul Goodman than Atticus Finch.

I have to apologise, I was wrong. Reports were sent to the PF in both September 2003 and again in November 2003, not just the latter. It can be presumed that there wasn’t enough evidence in September to charge after the submission of the first report so, with little more evidence, a report was submitted again in the November of the same year. However it wasn’t until April 2004, a full 4 months later, that Luke was actually charged.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

“On 5 September 2003 considerable publicity had been given to the fact that the procurator fiscal was then considering whether there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution against the appellant, who was named as the subject of a police report.”


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6634611.stm

“3 November, 2003 - Mitchell is named as the only suspect in a leaked report to the procurator fiscal”