Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[Baz]

I don't want to go over old territory too much but Luke Mitchell did threaten another girlfriend with a knife and she counts herself lucky to have escaped unscathed.  They say lightning doesn't strike the same spot twice but is this yet another coincidence too far?

Did she give evidence about this in court? I don't remember.

[jixy]

Im sure she didnt...

[justsaying]

Did she give evidence about this in court? I don't remember.

No, it is claimed she bypassed police and court to go straight to the press with this claim. Strange that he supposed to have threatened her 2 years before allegedly killing Jodi but yet did nothing to any other girl in between that time.

[justsaying]

Also strange that people rely heavily upon certain analysis which is not in Luke's favour whilst totally ignoring analysis which is in his favour...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

[Nicholas]

Also strange that people rely heavily upon certain analysis which is not in Luke's favour whilst totally ignoring analysis which is in his favour...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

Which is EXACTLY what you appear to be doing.

A poster on the blue forum stated:
"....what I do with a MOJ case is approach the case with the knowledge that this person has been convicted in a court of law, so there is something there.
Then go back to the start - the evidence used at trial, where it came from. How it was interpreted by the prosecution. Look at the prosecutions case, who was in charge?
Then look at the defence - their statements after the trial, the appeals, what their arguments are as to why LM is innocent and the polcie, the prosecution, the jury got it wrong - where they mis-led by the prosecution of were the defence right and it is the prosecutions who's interpretation of the evidence is wrong.
When you've done that - then what do you believe ... who does your head tell you is right, defence or prosecution.

What methodology do you use?

"When we focus on the human elements of the research process and look at the nine core types of bias – driven from the respondent, the researcher or both – we are able to minimize the potential impact that bias has on qualitative market research.

What "core type" would you say you were? https://www.imoderate.com/blog/9-types-of-research-bias-and-how-to-avoid-them/

"One of the tricks our mind plays is to highlight evidence which confirms what we already believe. If we hear gossip about a rival we tend to think "I knew he was a nasty piece of work"; if we hear the same about our best friend we're more likely to say "that's just a rumour". If you don't trust the government then a change of policy is evidence of their weakness; if you do trust them the same change of policy can be evidence of their inherent reasonableness.
Once you learn about this mental habit – called confirmation bias – you start seeing it everywhere.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason

[jixy]

Also strange that people rely heavily upon certain analysis which is not in Luke's favour whilst totally ignoring analysis which is in his favour...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

Thanks for sharing that link. Makes interesting reading.

[justsaying]

Just for the record I am not relying heavily upon anything - just merely pointing out that there are arguments for as well as against.

[jixy]

That is what anyone would expect if you are truly looking into a miscarriage of justice in the interest of justice rather than something else...

[justsaying]

I also find it strange that one person can use link after link along with other people's opinion to suggest guilt but if another person does that to suggest innocence it has something to do with "confirmation bias" 

[jixy]

I didnt take much notice of that post because its irrelevant to the discussion. Justsaying once again a very valid point about what does and doesnt get posted or deleted! Your link was relevant to Luke not just thrown in to distract people from  case . Thanks again

[Nicholas]

That is what anyone would expect if you are truly looking into a miscarriage of justice in the interest of justice rather than something else...

This makes no sense. What do you mean by "that is what anyone would expect if you truly looking into a miscarriage of justice" and what's the "something else?"

[Nicholas]

Also strange that people rely heavily upon certain analysis which is not in Luke's favour whilst totally ignoring analysis which is in his favour...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

Again you are projecting.

How does the link you've posted go in his favour?

"Scottish criminologist Professor David Wilson said there is no particular reason why the report should be kept out of the public domain.

He said: “An analysis like this is merely an investigative tool that may help the police to narrow the field of suspects. It’s not hard evidence that can be used in court.”

[Nicholas]

I also find it strange that one person can use link after link along with other people's opinion to suggest guilt but if another person does that to suggest innocence it has something to do with "confirmation bias" 

Ill ask again

And what his relationship was like with his mother

"When Mrs Mitchell went into the witness box during the trial, despite repeated suggestions from the prosecution that she had lied, she showed no sign of the short fuse Luke told a psychiatrist he had inherited from his mother.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481697/Lies-to-protect-a-son.html

It would be interesting to learn what Luke Mitchell's supporters understanding and interpretations are of the criminal spin. And the impact of his mothers parenting style and the effect it had on him; which appears to have been both "uninvolved" and "permissive?"

Do Luke Mitchell supporters really believe Craig Dobbie hadn't evaluated Luke Mitchell's psychology?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-mitchell-holiday-plan-led-to-jodi-s-murder-1-1401837

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/year-old-murdered-in-dalkeith-itn-scotland-midlothian-news-footage/682496148

[Nicholas]

People have some strange habits that most people never get to know about. I work with some very vulnerable people who deal with their problems in very unexpected ways. It doesnt highlight their criminality just their struggles.

Are you suggesting that because Luke Mitchell was vulnerable he turned to Satinism? Or that his possible paraphilia for collecting and storing his own urine in numerous bottles and wrapping some of them in his socks and putting them in his bedroom drawers was normal?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg490168#msg490168

[Nicholas]

April 2007
"THE BBC was forced to scrap a documentary about murderer Luke Mitchell at the last minute after bosses ruled it was "biased", it was claimed yesterday.
According to BBC insiders, TV chiefs were angry when they watched the programme, claiming it was "anti-police" and "blatant propaganda" for the teenage killer.
The decision to pull the half-hour show, titled Luke Mitchell; The Devil's Own?, came last Tuesday, the day before it was due to be broadcast
But when TV bosses viewed the documentary, made by the flagship Frontline Scotland team, they were appalled and claimed interviews with his mother made Mitchell out to be "a saint". They said it was unfairly critical of the investigating officers and added that the programme lacked impartiality and was unbroadcastable in its current state.

One source said: "They hit the roof. It was not impartial enough and did not given enough right of reply to those it was criticising. It made the mistake of assuming that because he has lodged an appeal that he must be innocent. The truth is that almost every convicted murderer tries to chance their arm by lodging an appeal."
A BBC spokesman said it was not unusual to reschedule programmes and despite the setback, they expected the documentary to be broadcast soon https://www.scotsman.com/news/bbc-axes-biased-mitchell-documentary-1-1425550


May 2012
If you have indeed read more, then you wouldn't have posted that link to an article which gave a wrong impression about a forensic report. You'd have posted the more complete report which the professor gave on the Frontline documentary I posted. I posted a link to Luke's caseblog early in this thread and explained that there were links to statements and a few documentaries on the subject. One of those documentataries is the Frontline Scotland documentary, which devotes two sizable sections to the theories and opinions of the forensic scientist who examined Jodi. http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/&page=13


October 2017
"The BBC, and the Edinburgh News, has a piece on Luke Mitchell today. The Edinburgh News headline and the disgusting comments below make their position clear. The BBC take a more impartial line.
http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/luke-mitchell-case-review/


The "impartial line" to which MOJO refer


"Campaigners are working on developing new evidence for Luke Mitchell to appeal his murder conviction.

The 29-year-old was sentenced to life, with a minimum jail term of 20 years, after he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Jodi Jones in 2003.

It is hoped the new evidence will support an application for a review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The body of Jodi Jones, 14, was found in woodland near Dalkeith, Midlothian.
Campaigners are helping the Miscarriages of Justice organisation with efforts towards a new Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission review.

The work involves criminologist Dr Sandra Lean, who was also behind a 2014 appeal bid for him.
In 2011 Mitchell's request to refer his case to the UK Supreme Court was refused by judges at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Judges dismissed claims his human rights were breached when he was questioned by police without a lawyer.

Dr Lean said: "Over the years I've seen all of the evidence including evidence that wasn't before the courts that no jury has ever seen and it just doesn't add up.

"It does not support the case that was brought against Luke.

"There is so much that would shock the public that has never been released and has never been before a court."

"There is information there that demonstrates Luke was not responsible for this terrible murder."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41528919?SThisFB