Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[Nicholas]

LAWS31062 Miscarriages of Justice Claire McGourlay 2018-2019

By Claire Mcgourlay
an academic
Andrew Green and Fintan Walker also involved in course delivery

Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right - Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck 2003
Book  Not essential reading but a good overview of the USA system
 

Innocents betrayed: a true story of justice abandoned - Sandra Lean 2018
Book Further
 
 
Informative Pre-course Reading 2 items
These are not hard books to read and should give you a sense of what the course will be about.
The secret barrister: stories of the law and how it's broken 2018
Book  Also available as an eBook via VLE books - follow the 'Online Resource' link
 
Guilty until proven innocent: the crisis in our justice system - Jon Robbins 2018
Book  Also available as an EBSCO eBook - follow the 'Online Resource' link


https://manchester.rl.talis.com/lists/778B24E0-BE72-A647-1228-AC3012287E29.html

 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg494098#msg494098

Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1.   In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2.   As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3.   You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?
https://www.thejusticegap.com/open-letter-ccrc-2/

Professor Claire McGourlay
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/claire.mcgourlay.html

[Nicholas]

LAWS31062 Miscarriages of Justice Claire McGourlay 2018-2019

By Claire Mcgourlay
an academic
Andrew Green and Fintan Walker also involved in course delivery

Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right - Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck 2003
Book  Not essential reading but a good overview of the USA system
 

Innocents betrayed: a true story of justice abandoned - Sandra Lean 2018
Book Further
 
 
Informative Pre-course Reading 2 items
These are not hard books to read and should give you a sense of what the course will be about.
The secret barrister: stories of the law and how it's broken 2018
Book  Also available as an eBook via VLE books - follow the 'Online Resource' link
 
Guilty until proven innocent: the crisis in our justice system - Jon Robbins 2018
Book  Also available as an EBSCO eBook - follow the 'Online Resource' link


https://manchester.rl.talis.com/lists/778B24E0-BE72-A647-1228-AC3012287E29.html

 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg494098#msg494098

Claire McGourlay says:
April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Although this letter was not an open letter about you here is our answer to you.
Since you took an arbitrary decision two years ago to close down the network that linked innocence projects (rather than reform it into a democratic mutual support organization), you are not entitled to statistics from us (particularly when you tweet about how useless we all are-very unnecessary in my opinion and I can’t reply as you have blocked me and my students) and yes we have moved on and are doing very well indeed.
We have no fear of transparency, so here is some information.
We have 13 active clients, not including dormant cases i.e. those that we can’t work on, or which are with the CCRC.
We also did a significant amount of work on Danny Major’s case but no longer can as we’ve been prevented by the intervention of Greater Manchester Police.
How long do we work on a case? Varies, and as you well know, is out of our control: delays caused by CPS, lawyers, clients, discoveries of potential fresh evidence that have to be followed up, clients becoming uncontactable at times.
Requests/applications to the police or CPS for access to exhibits or biological samples for testing by new techniques? Irrelevant in most of our cases (only 1 of our cases involved this).
Applications to the CCRC? One refusal and 3 cases currently under consideration by CCRC. Additionally, actively compiling applications on behalf of 4 clients. Others are delayed due to new lines of inquiry opening up which are likely to produce additional significant fresh evidence, which we are pursuing on the instructions of our clients.
As you are well aware there are no simple answers to such complex questions where complex and detailed responses are required. We do not need to spend further time on this, as we have cases to work on. All our clients are informed about how we work when we offer to take on their cases, and kept informed of progress or problems when they occur. We also publish an annual report and anyone is welcome to it.
In a similar spirit of transparency, I trust that you will answer my following questions:
1.   In May 2013 (the latest time for which the Inquiry newsletter – edition 8 – posts such data), INUK claims that 110 cases had been referred to member projects, and there was a further waiting list of 113. Please let us know how those figures are broken down and what happened to those on the waiting list when you disbanded INUK.
2.   As regards INUK’s current status, there is clear confusion about what INUK now is, and the website is misleading. It is not a membership organisation; it is not a network; it does not represent the UK. Will you please urgently amend the website wording to clarify that confusion so that vulnerable people looking for help know exactly what INUK now is and what it is not?
3.   You say you are doing casework. How many cases are you working on, and what stages are they at? Who is doing this casework?
https://www.thejusticegap.com/open-letter-ccrc-2/

Professor Claire McGourlay
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/claire.mcgourlay.html

I wonder if people like Trudi Benjamin have enrolled on this course?

“Legal student & Director of the The Jeremy Bamber Campaign (JB Campaign Ltd) Dedicated to raising awareness & funds for Jeremy's wrongful conviction
https://mobile.twitter.com/tru68?lang=en

[Nicholas]

Clothes
What clothing was Luke wearing that night, I think the police took the clothing the same night?
Witness top of lane- green hip length fishing style jacket
Witness at bottom of lane - green bomber style jacket with orange lining
Police looking for Parker jacket and combat shirt, which Luke said was only purchased after the murder?
What did the 2 boys that knew Luke and seen him on the wall at 1745 say he was wearing?
Re missing clothes, were shoes missing also, he just seems the type of lad that wears the same footwear most days? Was he? did any go missing also?

What clothes did Corrine and Shane Mitchell say he was wearing that night?

Could the reason why he went up to his bedroom (when he came home at 9pm) be to change his clothes or hide something in his room; before taking Mia for a walk?

Corrine Mitchell claims to have just shut the door on Luke’s bedroom, which sounds like only he ever went in there. Supported by the finding of the 20 or so bottles of urine.

Luke Mitchell was questioned on the night of the murder as part of police procedures. But there were several days between the murder and the searching of his house and bedroom.

Having listened again to Corrine Mitchell’s podcast with James English she seems to attempt to mention Luke having taken Mia out before he goes out again to search for [Name removed] but stops part way through.

She said during the trial he came home at 9pm went up to his bedroom before taking Mia out. 

[Bullseye]

What clothes did Corrine and Shane Mitchell say he was wearing that night?

Could the reason why he went up to his bedroom (when he came home at 9pm) be to change his clothes or hide something in his room; before taking Mia for a walk?

Corrine Mitchell claims to have just shut the door on Luke’s bedroom, which sounds like only he ever went in there. Supported by the finding of the 20 or so bottles of urine.

Luke Mitchell was questioned on the night of the murder as part of police procedures. But there were several days between the murder and the searching of his house and bedroom.

Having listened again to Corrine Mitchell’s podcast with James English she seems to attempt to mention Luke having taken Mia out before he goes out again to search for [Name removed] but stops part way through.

She said during the trial he came home at 9pm went up to his bedroom before taking Mia out.

I don’t know what she said he was wearing, if she did in her statements, same for Shane but I do remember reading she said he was wearing the same clothes he had on at school when he was arrested.  I’m not able to find the post, but be interesting to know how she knows what he wore to school, did she usually see him in the morning before school or was she already away to work when he usually left?

There is a post somewhere saying what clothes he was wearing when the police took him into the station and bagged his clothes that night.

I’m not sure he would hide anything in his room, I think if he had something to hide he could have done it in the hour he said he was waiting for Jodi at the end of his street, or immediately after the murder, stashed it somewhere and went back later to get rid of it properly, like when he took the dog out later that night but I’m not sure how long he was out with the dog. I just think it would be too risky to carry it about all night then hid it in his room, personally I’d want it as far from me as quickly as possible, I would also be worried some of the blood or dna would be traced back to my room.

I’m think he did take the dog out before taking her out again when looking for Jodi. Did a neighbour not report seeing him walking the dog that night?

[Nicholas]

I’m not sure he would hide anything in his room, I think if he had something to hide he could have done it in the hour he said he was waiting for Jodi at the end of his street, or immediately after the murder, stashed it somewhere and went back later to get rid of it properly, like when he took the dog out later that night but I’m not sure how long he was out with the dog. I just think it would be too risky to carry it about all night then hid it in his room, personally I’d want it as far from me as quickly as possible, I would also be worried some of the blood or dna would be traced back to my room.

You cannot and should not rule anything out imo.

Think Corrine Mitchell said in the podcast he was out 2 seconds?

[Bullseye]

You cannot and should not rule anything out imo.

Think Corrine Mitchell said in the podcast he was out 2 seconds?

I’m not ruling anything out, I’m just not sure he would keep it in his room but if he did, IMO it’s a risky move. But then some people do prefer to keep stuff close so they feel more in control of a situation.

[Nicholas]

I’m not ruling anything out, I’m just not sure he would keep it in his room but if he did, IMO it’s a risky move. But then some people do prefer to keep stuff close so they feel more in control of a situation.

Simon Hall claimed he went home, straight up to his bedroom, removed his clothes, climbed in bed and went to sleep.
He claimed to have disposed of them on the Monday night (Driving to Colchester and putting them in an industrial bin at a previous work place).

Where did Luke Mitchell usual carry his knife on his person? Down his sock, in his pocket?

[Nicholas]

I’m not ruling anything out, I’m just not sure he would keep it in his room but if he did, IMO it’s a risky move. But then some people do prefer to keep stuff close so they feel more in control of a situation.

H-e-l-l-o - so is murder!!!!

[Bullseye]

H-e-l-l-o - so is murder!!!!

Clearly, but that’s not what we were discussing, We were talking about keeping stuff in his room, which I said was a risky move in my opinion, which why we use forums, to express our opinion.

Every step was a risky move!

[Parky41]

Clearly, but that’s not what we were discussing, We were talking about keeping stuff in his room, which I said was a risky move in my opinion, which why we use forums, to express our opinion.

Every step was a risky move!
[/quot

EDIT: As stated, mainly working around word-play. First area showed outbuilding, possibly garage, another source stating bedroom.

[Bullseye]

I had heard about the knife pouch, but I didn’t know it was hidden in the garage when it was found, but I believe that knife was too small to have been the murder weapon? Was the missing knife not found and handed in by his mum? Is there maybe 2 knifes, the one from the pouch and a brown handled one, anyone know the size of the brown handled one? Or if there is just the one, the brown handled one being the one from the pouch?

[Parky41]

I had heard about the knife pouch, but I didn’t know it was hidden in the garage when it was found, but I believe that knife was too small to have been the murder weapon? Was the missing knife not found and handed in by his mum? Is there maybe 2 knifes, the one from the pouch and a brown handled one, anyone know the size of the brown handled one? Or if there is just the one, the brown handled one being the one from the pouch?

Edited above:

[Bullseye]

EDIT: As stated, mainly working around word-play. First area showed outbuilding, possibly garage, another source stating bedroom.

Sorry, just to be clear from your edit, you originally said it was hidden in the garage/out building and asked why he would want to hide it. Also there was a missing knife with a brown handle. But from your edit do you mean the pouch might have been found in his room, not an out house? Was it hidden?

If you are working on word play, I’d say there is a big difference between the knife pouch being hidden and found.

It was hidden in his room
Or
It was found in his room
Or
simply the knife pouch was in his room

‘Hidden’ implies he is deliberately trying to conceal something but ‘found’ could just mean thats the location it was in

Was it actually hidden? And is the brown handled knife the one that fits the pouch do you know, or was this a bigger knife?

[Parky41]

Sorry, just to be clear from your edit, you originally said it was hidden in the garage/out building and asked why he would want to hide it. Also there was a missing knife with a brown handle. But from your edit do you mean the pouch might have been found in his room, not an out house? Was it hidden?

If you are working on word play, I’d say there is a big difference between the knife pouch being hidden and found.

It was hidden in his room
Or
It was found in his room
Or
simply the knife pouch was in his room

‘Hidden’ implies he is deliberately trying to conceal something but ‘found’ could just mean thats the location it was in

Was it actually hidden? And is the brown handled knife the one that fits the pouch do you know, or was this a bigger knife?

I'll explain a little clearer. I am present doing a written piece of work, mainly centred around 'selectiveness'. Studying word play is an area within. I made the post whilst studying different responses to it and so forth. One source, revolves around comments on an out building. I subsequently moved onto another source which involves finding the pouch within the bedroom. I therefore removed the post as it answered my own question/invalidated the point i was putting out.


Hopefully this clarifies why I made/removed the post.

[Nicholas]

I'll explain a little clearer. I am present doing a written piece of work, mainly centred around 'selectiveness'. Studying word play is an area within. I made the post whilst studying different responses to it and so forth. One source, revolves around comments on an out building. I subsequently moved onto another source which involves finding the pouch within the bedroom. I therefore removed the post as it answered my own question/invalidated the point i was putting out.



Hopefully this clarifies why I made/removed the post.

Looking forward to reading your work Parky!

Simon Halls guilt and the guilt of some of his family members was hiding in plain sight but many people, including academics, failed to spot this around the time.

Some people weren’t able to see past their own bias, (including academics) and some even went on to have articles published online.

Have you heard of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority?

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who is said to be an "authority" on the subject.

I have seen this being played out in the Luke Mitchell case, and others.

People may see Sandra Lean as the “authority” on this case (And possibly others) and their desire will result in them seeking out confirming information and ignoring conflicting information.

People really need to beware of their confirmation bias!