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: TruthSeeker2003 on April 19, 2023, 07:00:07 PM
-
Yes what IF
Should Luke be again proven to be the murderer after the samples are tested? Of course, it would come as a shock to his supporters. But what it wouldn't change is the malpractice of the judiciary system. We aren't just fighting for justice here. We are fighting because what happened to Luke could happen to any one of us or our families. The police, courts, appeal courts, the system, they are all so intricately linked. They are not here for justice for the victims or the perpetrators. They are the biggest organised crime gang in Scotland. The whole system needs an overhaul. It's outdated. They don't serve us the public. They serve themselves.
-
Yes what IF
Should Luke be again proven to be the murderer after the samples are tested? Of course, it would come as a shock to his supporters. But what it wouldn't change is the malpractice of the judiciary system. We aren't just fighting for justice here. We are fighting because what happened to Luke could happen to any one of us or our families. The police, courts, appeal courts, the system, they are all so intricately linked. They are not here for justice for the victims or the perpetrators. They are the biggest organised crime gang in Scotland. The whole system needs an overhaul. It's outdated. They don't serve us the public. They serve themselves.
Having seen the sham Scottish justice system at first hand right up to Supreme Court level I have to agree. One of my lawyers once told me it isn't about justice, it is what looks good in the public eye.
The Scottish courts are riddled with sectarianism and their decisions are influenced by whatever side of the religious divide you happen to appear to them to fall under.
Add to this 15 juror juries and the infamously disastrous majority verdict decisions and you have recipe for miscarriages, wrongful convictions and the guilty being let off.
-
But surely if the DNA proves he did it then that will be confirmation that the system worked first time round wouldn’t it?
-
Having seen the sham Scottish justice system at first hand right up to Supreme Court level I have to agree. One of my lawyers once told me it isn't about justice, it is what looks good in the public eye.
The Scottish courts are riddled with sectarianism and their decisions are influenced by whatever side of the religious divide you happen to appear to them to fall under.
Add to this 15 juror juries and the infamously disastrous majority verdict decisions and you have recipe for miscarriages, wrongful convictions and the guilty being let off.
Yes you are right! The system is completely broken. It has been for centuries
-
But surely if the DNA proves he did it then that will be confirmation that the system worked first time round wouldn’t it?
Please read my post. The emphasis is on the corruption within the system. Should the results not clear Luke it doesn't excuse the failings of police Scotland.
Also it doesn't fix our justice system whichever the results prove. The police, courts, appeal courts aren't interested in justice. They are supposed to work for us. They don't. They work for themselves. The system is completely broken. How do we fix it?
-
Please read my post. The emphasis is on the corruption within the system. Should the results not clear Luke it doesn't excuse the failings of police Scotland.
Also it doesn't fix our justice system whichever the results prove. The police, courts, appeal courts aren't interested in justice. They are supposed to work for us. They don't. They work for themselves. The system is completely broken. How do we fix it?
I did read your post, perhaps you didn’t read mine. If the DNA proves Luke did it then justice in this case will have been done. No question.
-
I did read your post, perhaps you didn’t read mine. If the DNA proves Luke did it then justice in this case will have been done. No question.
When I first heard about this case I refused to believe that a 14-year-old boy could do such a thing to his girlfriend and I think this sentiment has long endured. The evidence however paints a very different picture so that is why I eventually changed my mind as to Luke Mitchell's culpability.
-
The way the justice system treated Shane Mitchell and Corinne Mitchell should be cause for serious soul searching and perhaps reform. In addition a 14 or 15 year old youth (Luke Mitchell) should not be subjected to the Reid technique. One might compare this to the Brendan Dassey case in Wisconsin (USA).
-
When I first heard about this case I refused to believe that a 14-year-old boy could do such a thing to his girlfriend and I think this sentiment has long endured. The evidence however paints a very different picture so that is why I eventually changed my mind as to Luke Mitchell's culpability.
I have read many of your posts on the blue forum from around 2010 expressing support for Luke and his fight for justice. I believe you went as far as to approach his legal team and set up a helpline to offer further help. In 2010 we knew all the ‘evidence’ that had formed the case against Luke via the trial and subsequent appeal. What piece of information that has come to light since that time has changed your mind?
-
I did read your post, perhaps you didn’t read mine. If the DNA proves Luke did it then justice in this case will have been done. No question.
You read part of it. What about the part I mentioned about the justice system itself?
-
You read part of it. What about the part I mentioned about the justice system itself?
What about it? This forum is about the Luke Mitchell case. If the DNA results prove he did it the. how has Scottish Justice failed the parents of Jodi Jones?
-
What about it? This forum is about the Luke Mitchell case. If the DNA results prove he did it the. how has Scottish Justice failed the parents of Jodi Jones?
I didn't mention Jodi’s parents. I am talking about our justice system and the corruption within it.
I am sorry you didn't understand my post.
-
I didn't mention Jodi’s parents. I am talking about our justice system and the corruption within it.
I am sorry you didn't understand my post.
You’re not making much sense tbh. You may well have a point that the justice system in Scotland is not perfect but if it’s proven beyond doubt that Mitchell killed Jodi then clearly this case is not a good example of corruption and failure is it?
-
I'm still wondering why these untested samples will prove who the killer is? If they are tested and found to be LM, will it make any difference, and if it is AN Other, how will it prove they were the killer and eliminate all the evidence and witness statements provided at the trial?
Genuinely curious.
-
You’re not making much sense tbh. You may well have a point that the justice system in Scotland is not perfect but if it’s proven beyond doubt that Mitchell killed Jodi then clearly this case is not a good example of corruption and failure is it?
Sorry you can’t see the bigger picture. This isn’t the thread for you. I am also sorry for your inability to understand.
-
Sorry you can’t see the bigger picture. This isn’t the thread for you. I am also sorry for your inability to understand.
How patronizing. Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed? No you can’t. All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point.
-
I'm still wondering why these untested samples will prove who the killer is? If they are tested and found to be LM, will it make any difference, and if it is AN Other, how will it prove they were the killer and eliminate all the evidence and witness statements provided at the trial?
Genuinely curious.
Me too, but don’t expect any sensible answers on here.
-
Me too, but don’t expect any sensible answers on here.
People quoting Forbes as a credible source without a hint of irony would suggest a certain level of insensibilty. Mind you, some people have to believe in something.
-
Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed? No you can’t. All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point.
Let me address this one example at a time. Even the authorities indicated that aspects of how Luke Mitchell was questioned were "outrageous." For argument's sake, let's assume that he is guilty. The next 15-year old may not be, and unless reforms are put into place, he or she might falsely confess, leading to a wrongful conviction. Examples available upon request.
-
People quoting Forbes as a credible source without a hint of irony would suggest a certain level of insensibilty. Mind you, some people have to believe in something.
Not matter what you think of Forbes it’s a fact that he has a greater knowledge and understanding of the case than you or I by dint of having studied the defence papers. Of course it’s always good practice, where possible, to obtain a corroborating source for any claims no matter where they come from.
Of course there are always some who are still hoodwinked by a tabloid headline or a poster on a forum with an agenda. They say that a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still getting it’s boots on….that’s never been more true than in this case.
-
I'm still wondering why these untested samples will prove who the killer is? If they are tested and found to be LM, will it make any difference, and if it is AN Other, how will it prove they were the killer and eliminate all the evidence and witness statements provided at the trial?
Genuinely curious.
David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..." The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems. In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.
-
How patronizing. Perhaps you can explain how if Luke Mitchell is proven guilty that justice in Scotland will have failed? No you can’t. All you can do is accuse me of not understanding, what you can’t do is address my point.
All the deliberate action that was taken to secure a conviction at all costs. None of it ethical or legal for that matter even if he was guilty.
I again apologise for your inability to comprehend the point of this thread. I am not patronising you. I am simply stating saying it as I find it.
-
Let me address this one example at a time. Even the authorities indicated that aspects of how Luke Mitchell was questioned were "outrageous." For argument's sake, let's assume that he is guilty. The next 15-year old may not be, and unless reforms are put into place, he or she might falsely confess, leading to a wrongful conviction. Examples available upon request.
@venturi swirl 🌀 this enable you to understand?
Thank you Chris. You get exactly my point!
-
David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..." The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems. In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.
Exactly! Get it now Venturi Swirl 🌀?
-
David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong..." The podcast "Through the Wall" did a good job of talking the listener through these problems. In a better world, new forensic evidence would prompt some pointed questions around the question of how this case unfolded.
Isn’t this one man’s point of view, someone who by his own admission does not have the full facts of the case and who makes a living out of sensationalist tv programmes? Other professional and more knowledgeable view points may vary.
-
Isn’t this one man’s point of view, someone who by his own admission does not have the full facts of the case and who makes a living out of sensationalist tv programmes? Other professional and more knowledgeable view points may vary.
Regardless of your opinion of Professor Wilson, the problems with the witness testimony remain. As an aside, one of the places in which these problems were highlighted was at the International Skeptics Forum, where there is also a thread on this case. Rolfe's comments on Ms. Bryson's testimony were particularly helpful IMO. But my main focus is not on the problems as much as it is on how there came to be so much testimony that changed over time. An investigation can really go off the rails when the police cajole witnesses to alter what they initially said.
-
Regardless of your opinion of Professor Wilson, the problems with the witness testimony remain. As an aside, one of the places in which these problems were highlighted was at the International Skeptics Forum, where there is also a thread on this case. Rolfe's comments on Ms. Bryson's testimony were particularly helpful IMO. But my main focus is not on the problems as much as it is on how there came to be so much testimony that changed over time. An investigation can really go off the rails when the police cajole witnesses to alter what they initially said.
Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.
-
Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.
”there is talk”. You’ll have to do better than that. Why hasn’t this man come forward to say he was coerced by the police to lie?
-
Leonard Kelly’s testimony is a case in point. Jodi’s time of death relied heavily on the ‘strangling’ sound in the woods heard by Kelly around 5.15 yet, as teased out by Findlay at trial, Kelly hadn’t mentioned a strangling sound in his first statement. His first statement mentioned a rustling sound like the movement of tree branches, not a human voice. Why his evidence changed can only be guessed at but there is talk that he was threatened with being made a suspect if he didn’t cooperate.
Leonard Kelly was home by around 5,15pm
Killer Luke Mitchell committed his murder earlier than 5:15pm!
TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/
-
Leonard Kelly was home by around 5,15pm
Killer Luke Mitchell committed his murder earlier than 5:15pm!
TIMELINE
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/04/09/30th-june-2003-timeline-of-14-year-old-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-part-174/
Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?
-
Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?
Didn’t a police officer write Leonard Kelly’s first statement
-
Didn’t a police officer write Leonard Kelly’s first statement
Again….. Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?
-
And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time. The search party changed what was said about Mia. Ms. Bryson's statement also changed. This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.
-
And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time. The search party changed what was said about Mia. Ms. Bryson's statement also changed. This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.
Absolutely and it’s also interesting that while Fleming and Walsh gave a statement early in the investigation when they recognised Luke in the newspaper in August neither reported it to the police. Odd behaviour if they thought that Luke may be involved in the murder.
-
Again….. Did Leonard Kelly testify that he had described the sound differently in his first statement to the testimony he gave in court?
Makes no difference if he did or didn’t John
-
And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time. The search party changed what was said about Mia. Ms. Bryson's statement also changed. This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.
Leonard Kelly’s statements/evidence didn’t change over time John
He remained consistent from day one ie; 1st July 2003
He always claimed to have heard someone being strangled/a human sound at around 5:00pm when he was cycling along the path heading home from work
-
And it is not as if Leonard Kelly were the only person whose statement changed over time. The search party changed what was said about Mia. Ms. Bryson's statement also changed. This suggests that the police had their thumb on the scale.
Many other witnesses supported Leonard Kelly’s evidence ie; of what he said he had heard that evening
-
Makes no difference if he did or didn’t John
It makes all the difference. What we have is yet another benign statement fundamentally changed to support the police narrative.
-
Leonard Kelly’s statements/evidence didn’t change over time John
He remained consistent from day one ie; 1st July 2003
He always claimed to have heard someone being strangled/a human sound at around 5:00pm when he was cycling along the path heading home from work
Leonard Kelly’s statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didn’t deny having changed it.
-
Many other witnesses supported Leonard Kelly’s evidence ie; of what he said he had heard that evening
Who?
-
Who?
Many other witnesses
Might be an idea to speak to someone who attended the 42 day trial
-
Leonard Kelly’s statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didn’t deny having changed it.
Leonard Kelly’s evidence of what he heard that evening remained the same
-
Might be an idea to speak to someone who attended the 42 day trial
Sorry but that seems to be your answer to everything when asked for a source. You can say any old rubbish, try to taint the evidence and then make out it’s true by saying - speak to someone at the 42 day trial or you were not at the 42 day trial. You are tying to make it seem the lies you are spreading is actual evidence from the trial, it is not, it is you guessing, surmising and fantasising imo. You were not at the trial either so how can you know. You have never given any source for a lot of the misinformation you put out there other than a blog written by yourself I’m sure. Hardly a credible source. Do you have any other sources? Maybe you are in contact with someone that attended all or most of 42 days of the trial? We know Sandra and Scott are and they also have the defence papers.
How about sticking to facts instead of trying to put out false information to try to confuse matters. Is it any wonder people look to Sandra and Scott and the FB groups when you are spouting rubbish like that. You have a great knowledge of the case and can certainly put up a good argument. We are all free to put out theories and put forward what we think might have happened but please stop trying to make out your theory as fact, it’s getting boring now. When you do stick to the facts you make some great arguments and some very good points but I just feel some of the stuff you come out with then discredits, in some ways, the good points you make.
-
it is not
It is John
-
It is John
Again no sources just ‘it is’ that says it all really!
Is it me or faithlilly that’s John? Or just everyone that disagrees with you?
-
Leonard Kelly’s statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didn’t deny having changed it.
Richard Gray reported, "Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.
He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'"
-
I would like to point out that some of the actions that the police or prosecution took against Shane Mitchell are dubious at best. One is that the policewoman who took Shane's statements kept trying to put words into his mouth, according to Sandra Lean's book. "In court, Shane tried very hard to explain that it was she [FLO Michelle Lindsay] who was the single most influential factor in interfering with his recall-she would not accept any of his answers to her initial questioning." Two is that the roadblock incident, in which Shane was handcuffed IIRC. Three is the very idea of charging a witness with perverting the course of justice (unless one has incontrovertible evidence of this). It smacks of witness intimidation by the state. Four is showing Shane Mitchell the photographs without warning when he was called to give evidence. There was no legitimate reason to do so, but there surely was an illegitimate reason. These issues exist apart from Luke's guilt or innocence.
-
Richard Gray reported, "Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.
He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'"
Have you noticed that every time there was a change to a statement the changes favoured the prosecution never the defence? Odd that.
-
Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system. Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement. I think both came into play in this case.
-
Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system. Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement. I think both came into play in this case.
What single piece of evidence convinces you that Luke is innocent?
-
Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system. Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement. I think both came into play in this case.
The charges against Shane and Corrine for perverting the course of justice were lifted before they gave evidence yet I believe the jury wasn’t informed. The fact that the jury thought the Mitchells were still facing charges can only have a pejorative effect. That and Turnbull warning Corrine to tell the truth was blatant jury manipulation.
-
What single piece of evidence convinces you that Luke is innocent?
If I had to indicate only one thing, it is the shortness of the timeline, but there are many others.
-
The charges against Shane and Corrine for perverting the course of justice were lifted before they gave evidence yet I believe the jury wasn’t informed. The fact that the jury thought the Mitchells were still facing charges can only have a pejorative effect. That and Turnbull warning Corrine to tell the truth was blatant jury manipulation.
Why would the jury need to be told about charges being dropped?
The jury were never told Corinne and Shane Mitchell were facing charges for perverting the course of justice!
Alan Turnbull telling Corinne Mitchell to tell the truth was to attempt to persuade her to be honest
And of course it was also said to manipulate the jury
-
If I had to indicate only one thing, it is the shortness of the timeline, but there are many others.
List them John
-
Why would the jury need to be told about charges being dropped?
The jury were never told Corinne and Shane Mitchell were facing charges for perverting the course of justice!
Alan Turnbull telling Corinne Mitchell to tell the truth was to attempt to persuade her to be honest
And of course it was also said to manipulate the jury
Everybody and their uncle was aware that Corrine and Shane had been charged with perverting the course of justice. I lived in the deep south of England at the time and I knew about it. Why would the jury have been informed? To dispel the notion that Corrine and Shane had been dishonest perhaps?
Turnbull telling Corrine to be honest was simply playing to the gallery. At that point there was no reason to believe that any witness would be dishonest in their testimony. It was said to undermine Corrine’s credibility.
-
List them John
I don't know who John is. This thread is about the flaws of the investigation. Discussion of the facts which favor Luke Mitchell's innocence belong in another thread.
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382)
"Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'"
QC Turnbull poisoned the well.
-
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382)
"Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'
Shane replies: 'Yes.'"
QC Turnbull poisoned the well.
Of course he did. The police had no evidence that Shane had been anything but honest, if albeit a little absentminded, in his statements but the mere suggestion that they ‘suspected’ that he had been not been would have surely planted doubts in the jury’s minds.
-
Of course he did. The police had no evidence that Shane had been anything but honest, if albeit a little absentminded, in his statements but the mere suggestion that they ‘suspected’ that he had been not been would have surely planted doubts in the jury’s minds.
Undermining the case for the defence is commonplace in all adverserial court proceedings. You act as if this was underhand, almost criminal behaviour on the part of the QC.
-
Both Ms. Walsh and Ms. Fleming gave at least one false statement before or during the trial. I never heard that QC Turnbull reminded them of the importance of telling the truth.
-
Both Ms. Walsh and Ms. Fleming gave at least one false statement before or during the trial. I never heard that QC Turnbull reminded them of the importance of telling the truth.
Or indeed John [Name removed] or Gordon [Name removed].
-
Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system. Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement. I think both came into play in this case.
Definitely . This has happened in more cases than people realise.
-
Definitely . This has happened in more cases than people realise.
Are you going to upload evidence of your law degree?
-
Both Ms. Walsh and Ms. Fleming gave at least one false statement before or during the trial. I never heard that QC Turnbull reminded them of the importance of telling the truth.
What would that be?
Was you at the trial, if not how do you know what QC Turnbull remind or did not remind them off?
-
What would that be?
Was you at the trial, if not how do you know what QC Turnbull remind or did not remind them off?
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty I do sometimes wish you’d confine yourself to commenting on YouTube videos and leave the proper debate to the adults.
-
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty I do sometimes wish you’d confine yourself to commenting on YouTube videos and leave the proper debate to the adults.
Have you cried me my loch yet?
-
Have you cried me my loch yet?
At least your sentence is grammatically correct this time….it’s a start.
-
At least your sentence is grammatically correct this time….it’s a start.
From someone who supports a drug addled fool that can barely string a sentence together, verbally or in writing, I don't think correcting anyone's grammar for point scoring is necessary. What about debating LM's movements and alibis - the things that got him convicted?
-
From someone who supports a drug addled fool that can barely string a sentence together, verbally or in writing, I don't think correcting anyone's grammar for point scoring is necessary. What about debating LM's movements and alibis - the things that got him convicted?
Well that’s me told! Now off you go…I’m sure there’s plenty more moral panic to be squeezed from Dr Lean driving a bus.
-
Well that’s me told! Now off you go…I’m sure there’s plenty more moral panic to be squeezed from Dr Lean driving a bus.
Moral panic? Panic on the streets of Dalkeith, Danderhall and Eskbank. The tide is turning, people are running scared. What number is Sandra's bus? Is she giving you a lift to the protest?
-
Moral panic? Panic on the streets of Dalkeith, Danderhall and Eskbank. The tide is turning, people are running scared. What number is Sandra's bus? Is she giving you a lift to the protest?
Why….do you want me to ask her to pick you up on the way?
-
At least your sentence is grammatically correct this time….it’s a start.
I seen an advert the other day. Devil design duvet covers, half price on Amazon. If i was you, I'd get them snapped up for when you move Luke in. Getting released soon, tic tok and all that nonsense.
-
I seen an advert the other day. Devil design duvet covers, half price on Amazon. If i was you, I'd get them snapped up for when you move Luke in. Getting released soon, tic tok and all that nonsense.
Shush Rusty….the adults are talking.
-
What would that be?
Was you at the trial, if not how do you know what QC Turnbull remind or did not remind them off?
"[100] The identification evidence of Miss Fleming and Miss Walsh was also criticised. They had spoken to seeing the appellant. Fleming claimed to have seen a picture of the appellant in the Daily Record newspaper on 15 August 2003, following the murder. Her evidence in this respect was confused. In particular, she initially claimed that the newspaper was brought home to her by her partner, the witness Patrick Walsh. However, in cross-examination she confirmed that her partner was in Ireland when the newspaper in question was published. Her position then changed as to the date on which she had seen this photograph, claiming that it had been in the week of 4 - 8 August. She later accepted that she was mistaken in this regard also, as no such picture had been printed at that time. Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant."
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
IIRC Ms Walsh claimed not to have been the one who showed Ms. Fleming the photograph when in fact she did. If you have evidence that QC Turnbull reminded Ms. Fleming or Ms. Walsh about the importance of telling the truth, please cite it. I did not claim that he didn't, only that I have no evidence that he did.
-
"[100] The identification evidence of Miss Fleming and Miss Walsh was also criticised. They had spoken to seeing the appellant. Fleming claimed to have seen a picture of the appellant in the Daily Record newspaper on 15 August 2003, following the murder. Her evidence in this respect was confused. In particular, she initially claimed that the newspaper was brought home to her by her partner, the witness Patrick Walsh. However, in cross-examination she confirmed that her partner was in Ireland when the newspaper in question was published. Her position then changed as to the date on which she had seen this photograph, claiming that it had been in the week of 4 - 8 August. She later accepted that she was mistaken in this regard also, as no such picture had been printed at that time. Leaving aside the issue of the timing of the photograph, the witness was confused about the image she had seen. In her statement she suggested that this was of a young man walking towards a house, but the newspaper contained no such picture of the appellant."
https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mitchell-luke.htm
IIRC Ms Walsh claimed not to have been the one who showed Ms. Fleming the photograph when in fact she did. If you have evidence that QC Turnbull reminded Ms. Fleming or Ms. Walsh about the importance of telling the truth, please cite it. I did not claim that he didn't, only that I have no evidence that he did.
The point being missed however - Such as, these excerpts mean nothing, that is zero, without the everything of the witnesses testimony in full. What DF may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses, so your point here is what exactly?
Those precognitions, where one would look to build something of what they may 'attempt' with each witness, in brief, to attempt to lesson the strength of their testimony already led by the Crown. Where the Crown, not at all daft to what would take place, covers most of those bases pre the cross examining by the defence - In brief, which and again, cannot be highlighted enough, it means nothing, that is nothing, without the "everything" the full context.
Very much why, there is nothing, again, nothing, happening with this case bar being able to gain some further public support - Based upon something that could not be more lopsided.
Talking of nothing, would we agree, that if there was nothing in any first statements, then it would mean nothing could be added to = Nothing. For that is the basis of the good Prof, is it not? There was nothing to merit an arrest far less taken to trial. Not much "Cajoling" going on there then, was there now, for it the end result was nothing, then nothing happened, nothing was added to equal nothing, was it now? I'll leave that with you.
"Cajoling", altering, changing? - Like 50yards, to 30, to 25 to just a "couple of feet" Or, Not quite 60ft to 43ft to just a "couple of feet" Or, less than 1 mile to 3 miles, or 6 ltrs to 5, or 4inches to 1 1/2 inches, a large oak tree to a tree trunk, 10 steps to 30steps, and on this "cajoling" goes, does it not? We know who is "cajoling" don't we now? And we certainly know who is being "cajoled" - Just a thought.
To rapidly arresting SM, to lesson without a doubt any chance of warning those still indoors, were two people were in a bedroom and NOT on couches in the lounge. To, every test carried out upon the suspect was executed perfectly, but everything else was botched, that type of "Cajoling" - And it really does keep going on and on, with more being added, more "cajoling" taken place of the actual truth in this case, transforming it into utter fantasy for the most part.
-
Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses
Perhaps Donald Findlay was trying to confuse Ms. Bryson with the facts. Ms. Bryson's original account was that she saw the couple around 5:40-5:45 after having seen the house for sale. Then her story changed to having seen them much earlier, which means that she would have been traveling in the opposite direction. What I would like to know is why her story changed.
-
The point being missed however - Such as, these excerpts mean nothing, that is zero, without the everything of the witnesses testimony in full. What DF may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? Much like the road sign fiasco around AB, attempts to confuse witnesses, so your point here is what exactly?
Those precognitions, where one would look to build something of what they may 'attempt' with each witness, in brief, to attempt to lesson the strength of their testimony already led by the Crown. Where the Crown, not at all daft to what would take place, covers most of those bases pre the cross examining by the defence - In brief, which and again, cannot be highlighted enough, it means nothing, that is nothing, without the "everything" the full context.
Very much why, there is nothing, again, nothing, happening with this case bar being able to gain some further public support - Based upon something that could not be more lopsided.
Talking of nothing, would we agree, that if there was nothing in any first statements, then it would mean nothing could be added to = Nothing. For that is the basis of the good Prof, is it not? There was nothing to merit an arrest far less taken to trial. Not much "Cajoling" going on there then, was there now, for it the end result was nothing, then nothing happened, nothing was added to equal nothing, was it now? I'll leave that with you.
"Cajoling", altering, changing? - Like 50yards, to 30, to 25 to just a "couple of feet" Or, Not quite 60ft to 43ft to just a "couple of feet" Or, less than 1 mile to 3 miles, or 6 ltrs to 5, or 4inches to 1 1/2 inches, a large oak tree to a tree trunk, 10 steps to 30steps, and on this "cajoling" goes, does it not? We know who is "cajoling" don't we now? And we certainly know who is being "cajoled" - Just a thought.
To rapidly arresting SM, to lesson without a doubt any chance of warning those still indoors, were two people were in a bedroom and NOT on couches in the lounge. To, every test carried out upon the suspect was executed perfectly, but everything else was botched, that type of "Cajoling" - And it really does keep going on and on, with more being added, more "cajoling" taken place of the actual truth in this case, transforming it into utter fantasy for the most part.
Please remind me…when did you familiarise yourself with the hours of Luke’s interrogations in order to come to your conclusions as to his guilt or innocence? Or indeed Corrine’s or Shane’s? Would that be never? How can you claim as a fact that Luke didn’t make dinner when, by your own logic, if you have only heard excerpts of the witnesses’s testimony who were there it means zero…nothing?
To paraphrase “ What AT may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? “ Touché.
-
Please remind me…when did you familiarise yourself with the hours of Luke’s interrogations in order to come to your conclusions as to his guilt or innocence? Or indeed Corrine’s or Shane’s? Would that be never? How can you claim as a fact that Luke didn’t make dinner when, by your own logic, if you have only heard excerpts of the witnesses’s testimony who were there it means zero…nothing?
To paraphrase “ What AT may have attempted is just that, attempts. Does not mean his attempts were accepted as fact, does it now? “ Touché.
Another outstanding comment, that clear lack of intellect shining through - Guilty verdict, the AD and his "attempts" at putting forth that evidence, perfectly executed, = Accepted.
This nothing from nothing that the defence failed to produce enough doubt around nothing - Marvellous stuff, is it not?
SM, what do we do with the male that everyone has to speak for, not from him but for him - You have no idea what SM has felt throughout those years, has he given you a statement to put out on his behalf? - No.
However, when we can only go with what we know, and not just the cherry picked attempts at anything here - 20yrs old when the murder took place, the claim of having early onset dementia due to severe drug abuse "years ago" Yes we know it is claims, but let us focus on those claims here. What was this "years ago?" How many to be precise, that had his younger brother, that "child" at 14yrs old heavily abusing cannabis, dishing it out like sweeties, drinking, smoking with no parental control. Sought no help, zero deterrent in place, offered and refused help. After seeing the elder at an equally young age becoming damaged by drug abuse?
Spare us the bog standard infantile tit for tat nonsense. The discussion is around reform, steps taking to help, for prevention. Had parental steps been taken, one, there would have been no early onset dementia to use, and secondly, a young girl may have survived, that is reality here, around reform starting at home with children. Those under a certain age and not adults.
SM was treated surprisingly gentle, he was given false alibi in a murder investigation. At best a killer may have escaped justice, at worse, further lives may have been lost - SM may very well be counting his blessings and many more besides, that by taken the correct course of action, he may feel he has equalled out his wrong, thankful even, that whilst impeding that investigation, no further loss of life had happened in that time period - But guess what? Should LM have killed again prior to any arrest, would the police be blamed here for the brother and mother impeding and holding any arrest up? Just a thought.
Reality is, that not you nor any other, knows that LM did not murder that young girl, we can all discuss until the cows come home, put forth what we feel may or not have been wrong - You and every other, has failed to even scratch the surface of proving that he could not have killed that young girl - Fact.
Spare us the interviews nonsense - Not you nor the egos have listened to those audio/video recorded interviews, nor held the full court transcripts, and for what one may have there is certainly no honesty around them, is there now?
-
Another outstanding comment, that clear lack of intellect shining through - Guilty verdict, the AD and his "attempts" at putting forth that evidence, perfectly executed, = Accepted.
This nothing from nothing that the defence failed to produce enough doubt around nothing - Marvellous stuff, is it not?
SM, what do we do with the male that everyone has to speak for, not from him but for him - You have no idea what SM has felt throughout those years, has he given you a statement to put out on his behalf? - No.
However, when we can only go with what we know, and not just the cherry picked attempts at anything here - 20yrs old when the murder took place, the claim of having early onset dementia due to severe drug abuse "years ago" Yes we know it is claims, but let us focus on those claims here. What was this "years ago?" How many to be precise, that had his younger brother, that "child" at 14yrs old heavily abusing cannabis, dishing it out like sweeties, drinking, smoking with no parental control. Sought no help, zero deterrent in place, offered and refused help. After seeing the elder at an equally young age becoming damaged by drug abuse?
Spare us the bog standard infantile tit for tat nonsense. The discussion is around reform, steps taking to help, for prevention. Had parental steps been taken, one, there would have been no early onset dementia to use, and secondly, a young girl may have survived, that is reality here, around reform starting at home with children. Those under a certain age and not adults.
SM was treated surprisingly gentle, he was given false alibi in a murder investigation. At best a killer may have escaped justice, at worse, further lives may have been lost - SM may very well be counting his blessings and many more besides, that by taken the correct course of action, he may feel he has equalled out his wrong, thankful even, that whilst impeding that investigation, no further loss of life had happened in that time period - But guess what? Should LM have killed again prior to any arrest, would the police be blamed here for the brother and mother impeding and holding any arrest up? Just a thought.
Reality is, that not you nor any other, knows that LM did not murder that young girl, we can all discuss until the cows come home, put forth what we feel may or not have been wrong - You and every other, has failed to even scratch the surface of proving that he could not have killed that young girl - Fact.
Spare us the interviews nonsense - Not you nor the egos have listened to those audio/video recorded interviews, nor held the full court transcripts, and for what one may have there is certainly no honesty around them, is there now?
It was a majority verdict, lest we forget….perhaps 8-7 to convict….and please don’t repeat the lie about the judge’s direction. It’s codswallop and you know it. A minority of that jury didn’t believe that the porous excuse for a case played out in front of them amounted to guilt. The longest trial of a single defendant in Scottish history…all of those witnesses….all of those hours of testimony and the Crown couldn’t even manage a unanimous verdict.
Of course we can look at the alleged parental deficiencies of Mitchell parents, they are fair game you may believe but it is only right then that we don’t let victimhood absolve Jodi’s mother of nurturing a corrosive environment in which her children grew up too fast and saw too much. The very environment from which Jodi, according to her diary, wanted to escape. An environment where alcohol at midday was the norm and employment was a lifestyle choice. Where a mother enabled her son through her lies to indulge in the very behaviour that destroyed not only his own mental stability but any chance of a safe, stable home which should be the right of every child. No protection from the violence for Jodi, just the vain hope that eventually, through the force of her personality, she would one day find a way out of the madness. Sadly she was robbed of even that.
You appear to believe that a conviction in this case bestows absolute surety of guilt but every miscarriage of justice begins with a conviction. Every prisoner whose conviction is quashed will also have experienced years of people just like you campaigning for their guilt. It will not work. You will deflect and defame just to obscure the rottenness at the core of L&B’s investigation against Luke but ultimately the truth will out in this case as it has in many others and it won’t matter what web of dishonesty you, or others, strive to manufacture justice will have its day.
-
It was a majority verdict, lest we forget….perhaps 8-7 to convict….and please don’t repeat the lie about the judge’s direction. It’s codswallop and you know it. A minority of that jury didn’t believe that the porous excuse for a case played out in front of them amounted to guilt. The longest trial of a single defendant in Scottish history…all of those witnesses….all of those hours of testimony and the Crown couldn’t even manage a unanimous verdict.
Of course we can look at the alleged parental deficiencies of Mitchell parents, they are fair game you may believe but it is only right then that we don’t let victimhood absolve Jodi’s mother of nurturing a corrosive environment in which her children grew up too fast and saw too much. The very environment from which Jodi, according to her diary, wanted to escape. An environment where alcohol at midday was the norm and employment was a lifestyle choice. Where a mother enabled her son through her lies to indulge in the very behaviour that destroyed not only his own mental stability but any chance of a safe, stable home which should be the right of every child. No protection from the violence for Jodi, just the vain hope that eventually, through the force of her personality, she would one day find a way out of the madness. Sadly she was robbed of even that.
You appear to believe that a conviction in this case bestows absolute surety of guilt but every miscarriage of justice begins with a conviction. Every prisoner whose conviction is quashed will also have experienced years of people just like you campaigning for their guilt. It will not work. You will deflect and defame just to obscure the rottenness at the core of L&B’s investigation against Luke but ultimately the truth will out in this case as it has in many others and it won’t matter what web of dishonesty you, or others, strive to manufacture justice will have its day.
It could also have been a majority of 14-1, could it not? Then what?
-
What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?
Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark? In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.
For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.
-
What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?
Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark? In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.
For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.
8@??)(. There are some sick people on the internet who latch onto cases purely to indulge in their favourite hobby of victim blaming. If the victim’s family is anything other than 100% perfect then they are ripe for blaming and accusing in the eyes of these sick people and they rewlly don’t care who they hurt in the process. It’s very sad, especially when it comes from individuals imploring their followers to “be kind”. What a joke.
-
What kind of crazed logic can be applied to allow blame to be attached to the J family for allowing their daughter to be murdered? What elements of their parenting caused her killing by a feral 14 year old allowed to behave as he wished, carrying knives and taking huge amounts of drugs?
Are we back to the 70s blame the victim, don't wear short skirts or stay out after dark? In even mentioning the J family in the same breath as justice it is disrepecting Jodi's memory which has been desecrated beyond belief - first murdering her then pleading not guilty then pursuing the family via a wicked campaign from behind bars. To add insult, the fake justice campaign is being instigated by a cowardly armed robber and a former partner of Billy M, with various sex offenders, murderers and criminals standing by in support of LM. Takes one to know one I suppose.
For the love of god, if you are fighting for supposed justice, leave the victim's family out of it.
Oh do behave and stop clutching those pearls for a moment. I was merely pointing out that if ‘parental steps’ could have saved Jodi then the finger of guilt may point closer to home. A mother who enabled, under her roof, her already psychotic son to indulge in the very behaviour known to escalate the violent episodes they as a family had already suffered at his hands. What was it Judith said soon after the murder “thank goodness they ( the police) don’t know about Joseph”. Joseph who had no alibi, beyond family, for most of the afternoon of his sister’s murder. Joseph who was identified following his sister only minutes before her alleged death. Joseph who claimed that he had dinner with his sister while his mother testified that he ate alone in his bedroom. Joseph who regularly carried a knife.
Perhaps if he’d shown the slightest interest in his sister’s whereabouts he’d be in prison now? There was certainly as much circumstantial evidence pointing to him as there ever was to Luke….if the police cared to look. The only difference..Luke was worried enough to look.
-
Oh do behave and stop clutching those pearls for a moment. I was merely pointing out that if ‘parental steps’ could have saved Jodi then the finger of guilt may point closer to home. A mother who enabled, under her roof, her already psychotic son to indulge in the very behaviour known to escalate the violent episodes they as a family had already suffered at his hands. What was it Judith said soon after the murder “thank goodness they ( the police) don’t know about Joseph”. Joseph who had no alibi, beyond family, for most of the afternoon of his sister’s murder. Joseph who was identified following his sister only minutes before her alleged death. Joseph who claimed that he had dinner with his sister while his mother testified that he ate alone in his bedroom. Joseph who regularly carried a knife.
Perhaps if he’d shown the slightest interest in his sister’s whereabouts he’d be in prison now? There was certainly as much circumstantial evidence pointing to him as there ever was to Luke….if the police cared to look. The only difference..Luke was worried enough to look.
More delightful victim blaming. How are you being allowed to get away with it?
-
More delightful victim blaming. How are you being allowed to get away with it?
I don't understand the hatred towards the J family from people who never knew them and under the pretence they actually care that Jodi was murdered. It's even worse on other social media accusing Joe of his father's suicide. The sex offenders and murder apologists will be out in Edinburgh on the 13th for their protest, yet the J family have had their justice can't get their peace due to these lunatics demanding more justice for the person who killed their daughter.
-
I don't understand the hatred towards the J family from people who never knew them and under the pretence they actually care that Jodi was murdered. It's even worse on other social media accusing Joe of his father's suicide. The sex offenders and murder apologists will be out in Edinburgh on the 13th for their protest, yet the J family have had their justice can't get their peace due to these lunatics demanding more justice for the person who killed their daughter.
You really don’t see the irony of your words, do you? You who poured scorn on the professionalism of Prof. David Wilson simply because he didn’t hold the same opinion as you.
BTW as an aside do you believe that miscarriages of justice do happen and if so in what circumstances do you think that they happen?
-
You really don’t see the irony of your words, do you? You who poured scorn on the professionalism of Prof. David Wilson simply because he didn’t hold the same opinion as you.
BTW as an aside do you believe that miscarriages of justice do happen and if so in what circumstances do you think that they happen?
You really can’t see the difference between pouring scorn on a tv criminologist and accusing a murder victim’s family of being shit parents and of covering up for one of their own? No of course you can’t, because you have no empathy and terrible judgment.
IMO.
-
It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.
They used the best state-of-the-art DNA technology in the most advanced labs during the original investigation and found nothing incriminating from either LM or a stranger (SL mentions 5 unidentified profiles, but there are only 2; 2 that are almost certainly the result of innocent transfer). It was interesting that when the SCCRC retested the DNA in this case back in 2013/14 they found two previously untested miniscule samples which they concluded 'probably originated from semen that probably wasn't LM's'. So, it seems the sccrc's retesting wasn't 100% conclusive, and therein lies the problem: the DNA per se in this case will never ever be able to solve this case; it provides no silver bullet solution. Even if it was LM's semen, it still doesn't prove anything, since he was in an intimate relationship with her; fresh semen, of course, would incriminate him, but the body being left exposed to the elements for 8 hours would've degraded and contaminated fresh semen deposits. The dna evidence which would've categorically proven LM to be guilty would've been Jodi's blood on that long parka, which, as I said, is why he got rid of it and bought a new one. Anyway, it's clear the sccrc thought that those 2 deposits got there innocently (from another couple's sexual activity in that woodland strip, for example; also, the fact that her clothes were strewn around that woodland strip, it would have been inevitable that her clothes picked up innocent traces of other people's dna). And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.
-
And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.
The circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell includes more than one person whose testimony changed between their initial statements and the trial and two witnesses (Ms. Fleming and Ms. Walsh) whose memories were contaminated. There are a number of adjectives that come to mind, but "overwhelming" is not one of them.
-
It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.
They used the best state-of-the-art DNA technology in the most advanced labs during the original investigation and found nothing incriminating from either LM or a stranger (SL mentions 5 unidentified profiles, but there are only 2; 2 that are almost certainly the result of innocent transfer). It was interesting that when the SCCRC retested the DNA in this case back in 2013/14 they found two previously untested miniscule samples which they concluded 'probably originated from semen that probably wasn't LM's'. So, it seems the sccrc's retesting wasn't 100% conclusive, and therein lies the problem: the DNA per se in this case will never ever be able to solve this case; it provides no silver bullet solution. Even if it was LM's semen, it still doesn't prove anything, since he was in an intimate relationship with her; fresh semen, of course, would incriminate him, but the body being left exposed to the elements for 8 hours would've degraded and contaminated fresh semen deposits. The dna evidence which would've categorically proven LM to be guilty would've been Jodi's blood on that long parka, which, as I said, is why he got rid of it and bought a new one. Anyway, it's clear the sccrc thought that those 2 deposits got there innocently (from another couple's sexual activity in that woodland strip, for example; also, the fact that her clothes were strewn around that woodland strip, it would have been inevitable that her clothes picked up innocent traces of other people's dna). And besides, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM got him convicted at the original trial, not dna. It was futile for the prosecution to try and use DNA in this case, and will always be.
I’ll unpick this more thoroughly later but just to point out that Dobbie said that there was no ‘unidentified’ DNA on Jodi. Of course any DNA from her family would be simply put down to transference but was Dobbie right to disregard that DNA?
-
I’ll unpick this more thoroughly later but just to point out that Dobbie said that there was no ‘unidentified’ DNA on Jodi. Of course any DNA from her family would be simply put down to transference but was Dobbie right to disregard that DNA?
In your own time, faith. Maybe, from now on, we should measure your posts in Radiocarbon Dating?
-
8@??)(. There are some sick people on the internet who latch onto cases purely to indulge in their favourite hobby of victim blaming. If the victim’s family is anything other than 100% perfect then they are ripe for blaming and accusing in the eyes of these sick people and they rewlly don’t care who they hurt in the process. It’s very sad, especially when it comes from individuals imploring their followers to “be kind”. What a joke.
Says the person who is unable to understand the thread I created. *%87
-
More delightful victim blaming. How are you being allowed to get away with it?
Victim blaming? *%87 You love to throw around labels. It shows your lack of understanding this thread and your close-mindedness. This thread is not about innocence or guilt. It's about what the justice system did to gain the result they wanted. Was it ethical? Was it just?
-
You really can’t see the difference between pouring scorn on a tv criminologist and accusing a murder victim’s family of being shit parents and of covering up for one of their own? No of course you can’t, because you have no empathy and terrible judgment.
IMO.
*%87 *%87 *%87
I could say the same of you? Your closed mind. Your unwillingness to comprehend the purpose of this thread. This is for robust debate. Not an opportunity for you to show off the labels you so love to use. Perhaps read it again. I can't explain the purpose of this thread in any more ways. Another member tried also. Perhaps find a thread you understand.
-
*%87 *%87 *%87
I could say the same of you? Your closed mind. Your unwillingness to comprehend the purpose of this thread. This is for robust debate. Not an opportunity for you to show off the labels you so love to use. Perhaps read it again. I can't explain the purpose of this thread in any more ways. Another member tried also. Perhaps find a thread you understand.
What’s to debate? You are insisting that even if the verdict is 100% correct the process in arriving at it is 100% wrong. Unless I 100% agree with you I am apparently a moron. The end.
-
In your own time, faith. Maybe, from now on, we should measure your posts in Radiocarbon Dating?
You are absolutely right Mr Apples. Your post slipped had my mind…apologies.
Agreed DNA will not prove Luke’s guilt but it could prove that someone else was at the locus who testified that they were elsewhere. I’ve already covered transference in my first answer to your post. A family member could indeed be guilty but their DNA at the locus would take us no further forward, as with Luke.
As to this part of your post:
“ It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.”
Luke called David High at 6.30, around the time he was seen for a second time by Andrew Holborn, and asked him to come round to his house.
“ School pal David High, 16, says that Mitchell called him at about 6.30pm on June 30 last year and invited him round. ”
You therefore must be suggesting that Luke, desperate to go home and ‘wash briefly’ then invites his friends around to the very place he’d be going to ‘wash’. Luke then calls David back and changes their meeting place to the Abbey. Ah you are going to say he realised he didn’t have enough time to clean himself up so changed the location to the Abbey. Hold on though what if High had only been a few minutes away and had got there before Luke had ‘washed briefly’? Too many unknowns for a master criminal like Luke. So why invite his friends round in the first place? He knew that he had been seen by boys he knew, that carefully crafted alibi of his presence on the Newbattle Road was in place so why take the risk?
Further Luke and his friends were at the Abbey from 7pm not 7.30pm. David Tulloch testified to the time in court.
‘ He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about. ’
So even less time for Luke to have a ‘brief wash’….but hold on a minute, if Luke had needed a ‘brief wash’ at 6.30 why was no incriminating DNA found on the clothes he was wearing that night? Not a speck.
As to Luke looking cleaner that night I have never seen one scintilla of evidence that any of Luke’s friends ever said that but perhaps you have a cite that you’d be willing to share?
And now we come to the parka. None of the witnesses who claimed to see Luke that night ever suggested that there were German flags on the sleeves of the jacket he was wearing. In fact Bryson made it clear that the youth was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that at the time. There was also talk of an army shirt with badges on but the police had that. You appear to have, mistakenly, conflated the two clothing items.
Further Luke’s house was thoroughly searched on the 4th of July and no parka was found. Can you explain please why Corrine would then go out and buy Luke a parka on the 7th thus drawing attention to a parka in the first place? It makes no sense if a carefully constructed alibi was being manufactured.
-
Truthseeker will likely be furious that you guys have taken his very important thread off topic. *%87 *%87 *%87
-
What’s to debate? You are insisting that even if the verdict is 100% correct the process in arriving at it is 100% wrong. Unless I 100% agree with you I am apparently a moron. The end.
I never said that. Do you know what debate means? I never called you a moron neither but if the cap fits.... (&^& (&^&
-
I never said that. Do you know what debate means? I never called you a moron neither but if the cap fits.... (&^& (&^&
So you are calling me a moron then? Just to be clear you’ve repeatedly told me I don’t understand what you’ve written and it’s true I don’t understand your logic and have explained why I don’t. Your idea of debate is to pat me on the head and tell me you feel sorry for my lack of comprehension and suggest I go elsewhere. Very constructive I’m sure!
-
So you are calling me a moron then? Just to be clear you’ve repeatedly told me I don’t understand what you’ve written and it’s true I don’t understand your logic and have explained why I don’t. Your idea of debate is to pat me on the head and tell me you feel sorry for my lack of comprehension and suggest I go elsewhere. Very constructive I’m sure!
You brought the word up. Not me. If that is what you think about yourself it's not my fault it's yours. I did try to get you to comprehend the purpose of this thread several times. So did another member. You cannot blame me for your lack of understanding and your inability to grasp the different ways we tried rewording it for you. It's not up to me to teach you. I did try but you were rude.
-
You brought the word up. Not me. If that is what you think about yourself it's not my fault it's yours. I did try to get you to comprehend the purpose of this thread several times. So did another member. You cannot blame me for your lack of understanding and your inability to grasp the different ways we tried rewording it for you. It's not up to me to teach you. I did try but you were rude.
Stop wasting your time trying to educate morons, “debate” this issue with someone who agrees with you instead, there’s a love.
-
Stop wasting your time trying to educate morons, “debate” this issue with someone who agrees with you instead, there’s a love.
Aw bless your little heart. You finally understand something. Well done🏅
Don't be so hard on yourself. You can't help that you see yourself as a moron. I hope you get the help you need.
-
Aw bless your little heart. You finally understand something. Well done🏅
Don't be so hard on yourself. You can't help that you see yourself as a moron. I hope you get the help you need.
Thanks, I really appreciate your kind words. Now go and “debate” this issue with people who agree with everything you say and be happy safe in the knowledge that you are far and away the cleverest person on the internet. &^&*%
-
Thanks, I really appreciate your kind words. Now go and “debate” this issue with people who agree with everything you say and be happy safe in the knowledge that you are far and away the cleverest person on the internet. &^&*%
Oh you poor wee lamb. I hope you get the help or education you need. Come back when you know the meaning of debate. Because it's clear that you don't. Unfortunately people who know the meaning still have to suffer the lack of comprehension from those who don't. It's a heavy cross to bare.
Good luck *%87 *%87 *%87 *%87 *%87
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 😂 *%87
-
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 😂 *%87
You are an embarrassment to your cause.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 *%87
-
You should buy yourself a wee label maker. You love a label *%87
Did you not find the ignore function? I’m beginning to think you’ve got a bit of a thing for me now… 😍
-
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,
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?)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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”