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

[TruthSeeker2003]

Debate means discussing an issue or subject and putting forward opposing arguments which I did.  My points were completely ignored by the OP on the grounds (they claimed) that I didn’t understand their post (which I did).  I even clearly stated that the OP may have a point (ie that the Scottish legal system is far from ideal an may need reforming) but my argument was that attaching this brief to a case which is proven demonstrably correct and in which justice has clearly been done would make little sense.  No doubt I will be further ridiculed and patronised for making this observation again.  The OP will clearly only tolerate those that agree with them and is not interested in debate.

Awww did you google it? Or use a dictionary? Did it take you all night to type it. Bless you.

[Venturi Swirl]

Awww did you google it? Or use a dictionary? Did it take you all night to type it. Bless you.

Have you got anything on topic and not ad hominem that you wish to discuss with me?  Or are you now only interested in thowing insults and ridicule in my direction?

[TruthSeeker2003]

Have you got anything on topic and not ad hominem that you wish to discuss with me?  Or are you now only interested in thowing insults and ridicule in my direction?

Oh pet you are so down on yourself. Glad to see you’ve made an attempt with the dictionary. Did I tell you about that magic book 😂

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh pet you are so down on yourself. Glad to see you’ve made an attempt with the dictionary. Did I tell you about that magic book 😂

You are an embarrassment to your cause.

[Chris_Halkides]

The police failed to cover Jodie's body.  The first forensic person left because she could not make it over the wall.  Why she could not simply enter the area from a different direction is difficult to understand.  As far as I can tell, they failed to take a temperature or to make any other attempt to determine the TOD forensically.  There were other problems regarding Jodi's body and clothing.  Even Derek Scrimger acknowleded that the crime scene had not been ideally managed.  One might argue that the jury's verdict sent a message to police that it is OK to deal with a crime scene in a sloppy manner.

Let me now turn to charging Shane and Corinne Mitchell with perverting the course of justice.  It is up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.  I think that when such a charge is brought prior to the trial, that it potentially usurps the role of the jury.  If possible witnesses are intimidated or if their credibility is impugned by the police on a dubious basis, then this represents undue outside interference.  If this charge should ever be brought, it should wait until after the trial.

There are other examples of how this investigation was done in a sloppy manner.  My interpretation of the opening post is that wrongful convictions will be greater in number unless reforms are implemented.

[Venturi Swirl]

The police failed to cover Jodie's body.  The first forensic person left because she could not make it over the wall.  Why she could not simply enter the area from a different direction is difficult to understand.  As far as I can tell, they failed to take a temperature or to make any other attempt to determine the TOD forensically.  There were other problems  Even Derek Scrimger  ackknowleded that the crime scene had not been ideal managed.  One might argue that the jury's verdict sent a message to police that it is OK to deal with a crime scene in a sloppy manner.

Let me now turn to charging Shane and Corinne Mitchell with perverting the course of justice.  It is up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.  I think that when such a charge is brought prior to the trial, that it potentially usurps the role of the jury.  If possible witnesses are intimidated or if their credibility is impugned by the police on a dubious basis, then this represents undue outside interference.  If this charge should ever be brought, it should wait until after the trial.

There are other examples of how this investigation was done in a sloppy manner.  My interpretation of the opening post is that wrongful convictions will be greater in number unless reforms are implemented.

Those are all potentially valid arguments but using a rightful conviction (the scenario put forward by the op) to make them is illogical imo.  The suggestion here is that even if he is proven guilty beyond doubt of a violent and depraved murder, LM will have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  Is this what we want - for proven criminals to literally be given a “get out of jail free” card?

[TruthSeeker2003]

You are an embarrassment to your cause.

Oh sweetheart. You are an embarrassment to yourself. Wish I could block you. You clearly have a bad case of unintelligence. Sadly there is no cure. No vaccine either.

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh sweetheart. You are an embarrassment to yourself. Wish I could block you. You clearly have a bad case of unintelligence. Sadly there is no cure. No vaccine either.

You can block me.  There is an "ignore" function on the forum.  I suggest you use it before your addiction to abusing me takes over completely. 

[TruthSeeker2003]

You can block me.  There is an "ignore" function on the forum.  I suggest you use it before your addiction to abusing me takes over completely.

You should buy yourself a wee label maker. You love a label 

[Venturi Swirl]

You should buy yourself a wee label maker. You love a label 

Did you not find the ignore function?  I’m beginning to think you’ve got a bit of a thing for me now… 😍

[Chris_Halkides]

Venturi Swirl,

This comment is in reply to #110.  On the one hand I wish that TruthSeeker has instead set up the opening post with words to the effect, "Regardless of whether Luke Mitchell is factually innocent or guilty, the investigation against him was deeply flawed, and..."  On the other hand, I don't understand what limits you would place on your position.  Suppose the police suspect that Mr. X is guilty.  Would it be OK for the police to frame him because not doing so would be giving him a get out of jail free card?  If you believe that framing is wrong, then where do you draw the line?

[Venturi Swirl]

Venturi Swirl,

This comment is in reply to #110.  On the one hand I wish that TruthSeeker has instead set up the opening post with words to the effect, "Regardless of whether Luke Mitchell is factually innocent or guilty, the investigation against him was deeply flawed, and..."  On the other hand, I don't understand what limits you would place on your position.  Suppose the police suspect that Mr. X is guilty.  Would it be OK for the police to frame him because not doing so would be giving him a get out of jail free card?  If you believe that framing is wrong, then where do you draw the line?

Of course it’s not ok for police to frame someone they believe is guilty.  My only position on this is that using as an example a case in which justice has been proven to have been done to push for reform of the justice system is IMO nonsensical.  I accept that the opening post was not well thought out as you suggest in your post above and could have been worded better.  I have been relentlessly ridiculed  for challenging this by the OP but I think you can see where I’m coming from.  By all means push for reforms to the Scottish legal process but don’t use a proven guilty verdict upon which to hang your campaign (unless you believe that a proven guilty criminal should be released simply because of potential failings in the process?)

[KenMair]

Of course it’s not ok for police to frame someone they believe is guilty.  My only position on this is that using as an example a case in which justice has been proven to have been done to push for reform of the justice system is IMO nonsensical.  I accept that the opening post was not well thought out as you suggest in your post above and could have been worded better.  I have been relentlessly ridiculed  for challenging this by the OP but I think you can see where I’m coming from.  By all means push for reforms to the Scottish legal process but don’t use a proven guilty verdict upon which to hang your campaign (unless you believe that a proven guilty criminal should be released simply because of potential failings in the process?)

He was lucky he wasn't waterboarded until he confessed. Calling the police retards etc, poor Luke. Who thinks Jodi should have had a lawyer present before she was brutally murdered?

[Chris_Halkides]

He was lucky he wasn't waterboarded until he confessed. Calling the police retards etc, poor Luke. Who thinks Jodi should have had a lawyer present before she was brutally murdered?

KenMore,

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

[Chris_Halkides]

Of course it’s not ok for police to frame someone they believe is guilty.  My only position on this is that using as an example a case in which justice has been proven to have been done to push for reform of the justice system is IMO nonsensical.  I accept that the opening post was not well thought out as you suggest in your post above and could have been worded better.  I have been relentlessly ridiculed  for challenging this by the OP but I think you can see where I’m coming from.  By all means push for reforms to the Scottish legal process but don’t use a proven guilty verdict upon which to hang your campaign (unless you believe that a proven guilty criminal should be released simply because of potential failings in the process?)

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.