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: John on July 21, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
-
Luke Mitchell family friend and representative (not lawyer) Miss Sandra Lean delivered a 300-page dossier to the SCCRC in Glasgow yesterday. The same dossier that she has been working on for several months.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-m-an-innocent-lad-condemned-by-lies-and-errors-claims-luke-mitchell-1-2424857
-
I find Luke Mitchell's comments remarkable given that nearly 9 years have now gone by since Jodi's murder. To quote from the above article,
Outside the SCCRC building, Ms Mitchell, accompanied by her lawyer, Sandra Lean, who has led the case review application, issued a statement written by Mitchell in his prison cell. He wrote that next week would mark nine years behind bars. “Another one spent without my family and friends. Over the last nine years, I have lost so much – my girlfriend, my beloved grandmother, my dog and, of course, my freedom – the one thing we all take for granted.
“This was down to lies, deceptions and a fully flawed murder investigation. I was let down by the people we are meant to trust – the police and lawyers. This led to an innocent lad locked up in prison, and a guilty one allowed to go free.
It would be laughable it it wasn't so sad. He says he lost his girlfriend but we know he was two-timing Jodi Jones with another girl. He speaks of lies and deceptions yet his own brother whom he says was in the family home with him while Jodi Jones was being butchured faled to corroborate his story. He now blames his lawyers and where have we all seen this before? Mitchell had the benefit of the most influencial lawyer in scotland at the time yet he still failed to get him off.
One last comment and I will agree with you in your analysis of Sandra Lean. She isn't a lawyer, she has qualifications in psychology which is far cry from the legal establishment. I don't belive she has ever worked for any firm of lawyers which is a prerequisite to gaining a law qualification. She may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scotsman journalists but she isn't fooling anyone for a minute.
-
I find his comments remarkable giveb that nearly 9 years have now gone by since Jodi's murder. To quote from the above article,
Outside the SCCRC building, Ms Mitchell, accompanied by her lawyer, Sandra Lean, who has led the case review application, issued a statement written by Mitchell in his prison cell. He wrote that next week would mark nine years behind bars. “Another one spent without my family and friends. Over the last nine years, I have lost so much – my girlfriend, my beloved grandmother, my dog and, of course, my freedom – the one thing we all take for granted.
“This was down to lies, deceptions and a fully flawed murder investigation. I was let down by the people we are meant to trust – the police and lawyers. This led to an innocent lad locked up in prison, and a guilty one allowed to go free.
It would be laughable it it wasn't so sad. He says he lost his girlfriend but we know he was two-timing Jodi Jones with another girl. He speaks of lies and deceptions yet his own brother whom he says was in the family home with him while Jodi Jones was being butchured faled to corroborate his story. He now blames his lawyers and where have we all seen this before? Mitchell had the benefit of the most influencial lawyer in scotland at the time yet he still failed to get him off.
One last comment and I will agree with you in your analysis of Sandra Lean. She isn't a lawyer, she has qualifications in psychology which is far cry from the legal establishment. I don't belive she has ever worked for any firm of lawyers which is a prerequisite to gaining a law qualification. She may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scotsman journalists but she isn't fooling anyone for a minute.
That is an excellent point and it might be worth pointing out that her co director and founder of the website which is referred to in the Scotsman article, namely the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation, is Billy Middleton who was referred to earlier in this thread. Middleton's claim to fame other than his internet scamming and spamming is that he was once a Mussel fisherman. I believe he now resides in his parents home in Lerwick having been repatriated back there by Sandra Lean and her daughter. It is my understanding that Middleton is shunned by the local community in Lerwick and the Shetland Islands at large and this has resulted in him failing to take up gainful employment.
-
I find his comments remarkable giveb that nearly 9 years have now gone by since Jodi's murder. To quote from the above article,
Outside the SCCRC building, Ms Mitchell, accompanied by her lawyer, Sandra Lean, who has led the case review application, issued a statement written by Mitchell in his prison cell. He wrote that next week would mark nine years behind bars. “Another one spent without my family and friends. Over the last nine years, I have lost so much – my girlfriend, my beloved grandmother, my dog and, of course, my freedom – the one thing we all take for granted.
“This was down to lies, deceptions and a fully flawed murder investigation. I was let down by the people we are meant to trust – the police and lawyers. This led to an innocent lad locked up in prison, and a guilty one allowed to go free.
It would be laughable it it wasn't so sad. He says he lost his girlfriend but we know he was two-timing Jodi Jones with another girl. He speaks of lies and deceptions yet his own brother whom he says was in the family home with him while Jodi Jones was being butchured faled to corroborate his story. He now blames his lawyers and where have we all seen this before? Mitchell had the benefit of the most influencial lawyer in scotland at the time yet he still failed to get him off.
One last comment and I will agree with you in your analysis of Sandra Lean. She isn't a lawyer, she has qualifications in psychology which is far cry from the legal establishment. I don't belive she has ever worked for any firm of lawyers which is a prerequisite to gaining a law qualification. She may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scotsman journalists but she isn't fooling anyone for a minute.
That is an excellent point and it might be worth pointing out that her co director and founder of the website which is referred to in the Scotsman article, namely the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation, is Billy Middleton who was referred to earlier in this thread. Middleton's claim to fame other than his internet scamming and spamming is that he was once a Mussel fisherman. I believe he now resides in his parents home in Lerwick having been repatriated back there by Sandra Lean and her daughter. It is my understanding that Middleton is shunned by the local community in Lerwick and the Shetland Islands at large and this has resulted in him failing to take up gainful employment.
Lean loves the publicity doesn't she?? @)(++(*
-
Lean loves the publicity doesn't she?? @)(++(*
Sandra Lean is a self publicist, she is also an internet troll who spent years running around websites promoting the Mitchell case to anyone who would listen. One of her best known fictional characters was jigsawman, a name which she used to attack others with impunity on a forum called Fact & Myth. She then went around telling anyone who would listen that she never uses any other user names. You couldn't make it up! @)(++(*
-
Lean loves the publicity doesn't she?? @)(++(*
Sandra Lean is a self publicist, she is also an internet troll who spent years running around websites promoting the Mitchell case to anyone who would listen. One of her best known fictional characters was jigsawman, a name which she used to attack others with impunity on a forum called Fact & Myth. She then went around telling anyone who would listen that she never uses any other user names. You couldn't make it up! @)(++(*
i think she has been goin around so long telling folk that luke mitchell is innocent that she believes it herself.she will get a shock if mitchell turns out to be another adrian prout?? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Lean loves the publicity doesn't she?? @)(++(*
Sandra Lean is a self publicist, she is also an internet troll who spent years running around websites promoting the Mitchell case to anyone who would listen. One of her best known fictional characters was jigsawman, a name which she used to attack others with impunity on a forum called Fact & Myth. She then went around telling anyone who would listen that she never uses any other user names. You couldn't make it up! @)(++(*
i think she has been goin around so long telling folk that luke mitchell is innocent that she believes it herself.she will get a shock if mitchell turns out to be another adrian prout?? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
It is interesting that the Daily Record gave a few more details than the Scotsman newspaper...
Campaigner Sandra Lean said: “We have found new photographic evidence that shows one local man linked to the case after the trial bore a remarkable resemblance to Luke.
“Pictures of them both from around the time of the murder have been submitted to show the striking
similarity, particularly in their hairstyles.
“This development could cast doubt on the evidence of eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Luke near the scene at the time of the murder.”
She added: “There are other potential suspects and, although we are not saying any of them were responsible for the crime, we are pointing out our belief that it shows the police should have looked further afield than Luke.”
What she fails to state however is that while Mitchell wore a distinctive green Bomber jacket with orange lining and a black t-shirt with white lettering, this other so-called suspect did not. Smoking mirrors yet again!
If Sandra Leans submission to the SCCRC is anything like her interview with the Press then I would say she has wasted hundreds of pages of paper for nothing.
She has failed to provide the tiniest scrap of any evidence which clears Luke Mitchell choosing instead to point the finger at just about every male in the local area.
I can just see the SCCRC Commissioners laughing in their coffee's.
-
But this is what happens when you get a would-be novice like Sandra Lean dabbling in matters for which she is not qualified. She thinks she knows better than the police, the legal system, the judiciary and the Press. She should stick to psychology and get a proper job.
-
I'm confused now.
Was Sandra Lean in a personal or proffesional relationship with Billy Middleton?
Then it goes on-: Outside the SCCRC building, Ms Mitchell, accompanied by her lawyer, Sandra Lean, who has led the case review application, issued a statement written by Mitchell in his prison cell. Then she's with Billy Middletons wife (?), is Sandra Lean a lawyer too? Who's side is she on? Both Mr and Mrs Middletons?
Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton jointly run the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation, charity and forum. He operates the site from his parents home in Lerwick, Shetland. She lives at Mayfield near Edinburgh which is just over a mile away from the Jones family home as the crow flies.
Billy Middleton's ex remains on the Shetland Islands but well away from Lerwick. She has raised a civil action against him in the death of their daughter in a house fire. She has custody of the two remaining children, he is denied any access.
Middleton and Lean were in a relationship for a period of time prior to his forced repatriation to the Shetlands as a consequence of his questionable behaviour while in Edinburgh.
Sandra Lean is qualified as a paralegal (someone who assists a lawyer in their work), she is not a lawyer. She recently obtained a PHD and has studied Psychology and Sociology.
Obviously there is lots more but I don't want to go into it ahead of his wife's civil action. Hope this helps Joanne.
-
I should add that Sandra Lean has had one book published called "No Smoke" which Middleton promotes on the WAP website and posts on another forum that she is currently working on another two books related to the cases she is involved with. It could be claimed that she is making money out of other peoples misery but that is for people to judge for themselves.
I have yet to see a return of any monies being declared by their charity so books sales must be slow?
Maybe she will donate the proceeds from her book to the Jodi Jones memorial fund?
I wonder will the Adrian Prout debacle feature in either one of them or the long awaited apology to Richard Wakefield (Kate Prout's brother) for the upset she caused him and the rest of the family when she claimed that Kate had run off and wasn't dead at all? Shame on Sandra Lean!
-
An amusing end to this story is that Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell stage managed the event at the SCCRC when they turned up with a large box containing the 300-page Application dossier. Apparently the gathered throng of photographers wanted all sort of photos which Lean and Mitchell were only too glad to provide for them. Guess what? Not one of these photos were ever printed. @)(++(*
Here's a better one girls!!
(http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000POcgNMa6aJU/s/750/750/CORINNE-MITCHELL-DPPA02.JPG)
Sandra Lean (left) and Corinne Mitchell arrived at the High Court in Edinburgh.
-
or maybe this one?
(http://paimages.s3.amazonaws.com/categories/news/480x385/10922024.jpg)
-
The phrase clutching at straws comes to mind every time I hear the name Sandra Lean mentioned. She is the worst possible advert for any miscarriage of justice cause. She is associated with a con man and most probably a baby murderer and has been active in pointing the finger at nearly every male in the villages of Easthouses for years as an alternative to luke Mitchell. Where does it all end I ask myself?
-
The phrase clutching at straws comes to mind every time I hear the name Sandra Lean mentioned. She is the worst possible advert for any miscarriage of justice cause. She is associated with a con man and most probably a baby murderer and has been active in pointing the finger at nearly every male in the villages of Easthouses for years as an alternative to luke Mitchell. Where does it all end I ask myself?
Have you seen her latest effort. As I have hinted at for two years she is now saying that Luke has a double who was the person whom witnesses actually saw that afternoon near the murder scene. A doppelgänger by any other name!
That could be true but for one very crucial factor. Was this doppelgänger also dressed just like Luke Mitchell with black baggy...very baggy jeans, a black t-shirt with a logo,"you laugh at me because I am different....I pity you because you are all the same", a green short Bomber Jacket with a bright orange lining and snowboard boots.
Now?? What are the chances of two boys who looked exactly like each other and wearing the exact same clothes being spotted at the exact same time in the same area?? But wait for it!!
Luke didn't see him either!! @)(++(* Sounds like the Shane blarney all over again!! @)(++(*
-
Sandra Lean should not be involved in the Mitchell case to the extent she is. Any professional will tell you that getting involved in cases which relate to friends or family is a recipe for disaster. Lean should be working on her ex boyfriend Billy Middletons defence to his forthcoming civil case because if he falters on that one he will be looking at a retrial for murder, attempted double murder and domestic violence on his ex wife. Wont that be a sweet endeavour for him to chew on while he wiles the miles away on his bedroom treadmill??
-
I think we need a thread of who's who on the blue somewhere.
-
I forgot to add an observation and a piece of advice yesterday when I made the comment about the submission which Sandra Lean made to the SCCRC.
They don't like lots of paper Sandra and you will find that they will reject every one of you points out of hand on the basis of very little substance. You will also find out that they will not undertake any investigation into what you allege as to do so would require them to get off their backsides and actually leave their comfy offices in Glasgow.
The SCCRC are understaffed and underfunded. They are completely incapable of doing the job that they were set up for. End off!
-
Sandra Lean is stepping out more now in the hope that she may be taken seriously coming up to her ex boyfriends next appearance in court. Do you think she will publicly support him this time or will she sit on the proverbial fence in case his demise tarnishes her already pockmarked career.
-
Sandra Lean is stepping out more now in the hope that she may be taken seriously coming up to her ex boyfriends next appearance in court. Do you think she will publicly support him this time or will she sit on the proverbial fence in case his demise tarnishes her already pockmarked career.
She is promoting her next book of fiction which is due out later this year. I hope all theses book sales are being recorded on the charity register? 8(0(*
-
Sandra Lean is stepping out more now in the hope that she may be taken seriously coming up to her ex boyfriends next appearance in court. Do you think she will publicly support him this time or will she sit on the proverbial fence in case his demise tarnishes her already pockmarked career.
She is promoting her next book of fiction which is due out later this year. I hope all theses book sales are being recorded on the charity register? 8(0(*
I read that somewhere Mark and thought maybe I should do a book about her given all the information which has been provided to me recently. Her involvement with the Luke Mitchell case is so unprofessional, she is letting her personal feelings rule her head. No reputable professional person would ever let themselves get into such a situation. Undoubtedly she has much to learn yet.
-
A year has passed since Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell delivered the 300 page Application on behalf of Luke Mitchell to the SCCRC in Glasgow. The Scottish Sunday Mail now reports the unusual move in that Mitchell is to be interviewed in jail by investigators from the Commission and will be permitted to have the self styled 'criminologist' Dr Lean by his side.
Given her previous wrong calls in both the Adrian Prout and the Simon Hall cases (both have now confessed to being murderers) I for one won't be holding my breath for anything of significance.
Miscarriage of justice experts to interview Luke Mitchell in jail
The Scottish Mail on Sunday
By Bob Smyth - 11 Aug 2013
KILLER Luke Mitchell believes he is moving closer to clearing his name after official ‘miscarriage of justice’ investigators asked to come to interview him in jail.
The 25-year-old is serving a life sentence in Shotts Prison for the murder in 2003 of his teenage girlfriend Jodi Jones.
Although he has been in prison since 2005, Mitchell has always protested his innocence and has presented his case to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in an attempt to overturn his murder conviction.
Now investigators from the justice watchdog have taken the unusual step of asking to meet Mitchell to discuss why he thinks the case against him was unfair.
The SCCRC, which has the power to recommend a new appeal, has so far spent more than a year studying a 300-page dossier on his case.
The commission does not automatically speak to applicants, saying it only does so ‘if necessary’, but has written to Mitchell to say he will be interviewed by it in Shotts next month.
Last night Mitchell’s mother Corinne said: ‘Luke is looking forward to speaking to the commission. He told me he is glad they are putting so much effort into reviewing his case and hopes they can get to the truth to prove his innocence.’
The SCCRC has told Mitchell its committee held a review of his application on the anniversary of its submission last month, deciding it should be continued for further investigation.
The body normally aims to complete investigations within nine months but Mitchell’s supporters say they want the organisation to take as long as it needs.
Mitchell has been behind bars since he was 15 and has continually protested his innocence over the murder of 14-year-old Jodi, who was killed near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in 2003.
The killer, who is serving a minimum of 20 years for the teenager’s murder, has been told he will be allowed to have criminologist Dr Sandra Lean by his side during the SCCRC meeting.
She has spearheaded the campaign to free Mitchell along with his mother Corinne and researched and wrote the bulk of the SCCRC application. Dr Lean said the commission’s correspondence did not detail the areas of the case it wishes to discuss with Mitchell.
She added: ‘We are pleased with this latest development. The commission is the first organisation that has kept Luke appraised of progress in his own case. We don’t have details of exactly what has been reviewed to date. However, we’re confident that the result of the review will be honest, fair and just.
‘When the application was first made, discussions were undertaken about the length of time such a complex case might take. Luke asked me to pass on to the commission that he was not at all concerned about them completing their review within the usual nine-month period.
‘We would all rather know that the review was thorough and that there had been time enough for that to be the case, rather than feeling the SCCRC was under time pressure.
‘The commission also has the opportunity to speak to witnesses who have provided us with fresh information about the case. It would also be welcome if it interviewed police officers, serving and retired, who worked on the murder investigation, as they certainly have some questions to answer.’
http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-339334556/miscarriage-of-justice-experts-to-interview-luke-mitchell
-
Saint Rita rides again. @)(++(*
-
Dr Lean seems to do more harm than good, has she done any case justice that she's been involved in at all?
I might have asked this before and been told no.
-
Dr Lean seems to do more harm than good, has she done any case justice that she's been involved in at all?
I might have asked this before and been told no.
It's not for the want of trying though!
I find it difficult to criticise Sandra Lean too harshly. Although I think her judgement is left wanting, I believe that her intentions are pure. She also seems to conduct herself in a polite and restrained manner, in the face of what is often, quite hostile and aggressive questioning.
How do you think she may have actually harmed anyone's case?
-
I fear that her being associated with a case will put other people off from helping them because of her misguided judgement. I don't know how credible she is with regards to her achieving what she sets out to do and when all your cases are 'losses' then I don't know how you could come back from it. But she won't be the first to get it wrong and she won't be the last.
-
Sandra Lean is a self publicist, she is also an internet troll who spent years running around websites promoting the Mitchell case to anyone who would listen. One of her best known fictional characters was jigsawman, a name which she used to attack others with impunity on a forum called Fact & Myth. She then went around telling anyone who would listen that she never uses any other user names. You couldn't make it up! @)(++(*
The following were posted by a Colin Bowman,15th May 2007, here: http://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=11
"The Sandra Lean below has been actively concerned with the Luke Mitchell case since before his conviction.
Her book is very concerned about what passes for circumstantial evidence. In it she deals with the Luke Mitchell case.
I understand her to also have been working cooperatively with the Frontline production team.
A lot of ongoing analysis of the prosecution has continued. This has indicated general weaknesses in its circumstantial argument.
Significant data not led at trial now is known.
Chances of successful legal appeal are very much hampered by the grounds of appeal being allowed.
Overturning of the conviction may well have to be pressed by argument and publicity out-with the legal process.
The 'psychology' which became part of the prosecution, at trial and in public domain, remains of concern.
"No Smoke - The Shocking Truth About British Justice (Paperback)
by Lady Sandra Lean (Author)
Price: £11.99 (Amazon)
Synopsis
A life-long fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind," led Sandra Lean, at the age of 32, through the doors of Napier University in Edinburgh. A single parent of two young children, she studied Psychology and Sociology to Honours Degree level. A Masters' Degree in Forensic Psychology seemed like the most obvious next step, until a local, high-profile murder hit the headlines. Behind the scenes, Sandra Lean began sifting through the facts, only to discover that all was not as it seemed. What she found led her to other, similar cases, and more patient, methodical sifting, in an investigation that was to last almost four years. The result was a shocking, but true, discovery. Innocent people are being locked up in our prisons, convicted of the most horrific crimes, on a regular basis. These are not one-off, tragic mistakes, but rather, a routine, everyday occurrence. For every high-profile miscarriage of justice that we hear about, there are dozens more that never make the news. No Smoke examines just some of these cases, highlighting the very human tragedy of wrongful conviction, and pointing out the unthinkable: this could happen to any one of us."
"Martin covers some of the case weaknesses above. The absence of conventional or traditional 'empirical' 'evidence', goes beyond the lack of DNA and other forensics. There are no (reliable and explicit and corroborated) sightings of Luke Mitchell (as there is also not of Jodi Jones). There is no impact of murdering on Luke Mitchell, and no explanation of how he avoided that, or cleaned up after. There is no proven history of psychological instability or violence. The profiling done of Luke Mitchell is to see him be deemed 'beyond the pale', but not as someone likely to murder. The Black Dahlia parallel is unsubstantiated, as is Luke Mitchell's especial interest in Manson. and so on.
What we do have is a complex 'psychological' argument, that how Luke Mitchell 'presented': in his person and his life-style and its choices; before the murder and after it, and before and at trial: 'circumstantially' indicated that he was indeed the person who Craig Dobbie, the lead police officer, claimed that he was. That psychological argument involved psychological 'experts' (who most generally lent weight to the claim that Luke Mitchell was lying). It involved the testimonies of other witnesses being collated into a net of suggestion, which 'modelled' Luke Mitchell as 'behaving' as would a/the person who had murdered Jodi Jones. One of these experts, Dr Paul Ekman, may well have given critical guidance in designing and planning the whole prosecution against Luke Mitchell.
There are many other items of concern to do with the media. The matter of the Police having lost/destroyed the crime scene forensic data, simply cannot be overstated in terms of its significance.
In terms of 'credibility', the greatest weakness in the prosecution case: is that it critically depended on the testimony of the other three, who with Luke Mitchell, found Jodi's body.
The prosecution argue, and as the central proof of Luke Mitchell's guilt (as stated in Alan Turnbull QC's summing up), that Luke Mitchell 'had to have known where the body was', given how he 'behaved'.
The problem is that this interpretation is based on 'nuances' in Luke Mitchell's presentation. Where these nuances are not consistent with the real-time real-circumstance context. Are not consistent with statements initially given; where these statements instead support Luke Mitchell's defence version. And so on.
But, most critically, these other three are 'members' of an extended family, who in 'fingering' Luke Mitchell, 'exonerate' members of their own family; where the data available much more implicates these members as suspects for the murder, than it does implicate Luke Mitchell.
That 'ulterior' agenda on the part of these witnesses, then has to be correlated with a consideration of Craig Dobbie the lead investigation officer: who has not only overseen the loss of crime scene data, but has almost immediately settled on Luke Mitchell as the murderer of Jodi.
The defence would then argue that two things follow: firstly, that the investigation acts to exonerate other suspects, in order to pursue Luke Mitchell as the sole suspect; secondly, that witnesses are subject to, and yield to a powerful 'demand effect' which is introduced by the nature of police investigation. The defence claim then has to become that the police created/fabricated/massaged what emerged as witness-testimony at trial and in public domain: such that that this data from investigation has to be considered an epiphenomenon of its method and implementation.
The above is really the central matter; namely that the police investigation generated fundamentally unreliable 'findings'. But these findings were then fed into a social process. And its there that the Luke Mitchell story really begins.
My judgement is, that psychological experts who became drawn into this phase, are on thin ice. That tabloid journalists were, although equally consequential, we can anticipate.
Essentially, what circumstantial data the police investigation had generated as 'findings', was then fed into social and public domain processes. The defence argument then is, that everything which then followed (including media reporting and action of educational authorities) was 'prejudicial' to Luke Mitchell, and his prospect of fair trial and defence in it. I would go further and argue that much of the formal and informal prosecution of Luke Mitchell, at trial and in public domain, was nothing other than a prejudice phenomenon: such that Luke Mitchell ended condemned and convicted on a ground of prejudice, and not in any way on a basis of evidence as responsibly understood. What evidence there was, that weighed in the balances of judicial judgement, was not distinguishable from prejudice.
There are then more complex considerations to do with (what was then a novel) operational collusion between: investigating police, prosecution agents, the fiscal, educational authorities, probably religious and political authorities.
Again, Alan Turnbull QC had utilised the same methods he used in prosecuting Luke Mitchell, in gaining conviction of Megrahi in the PanAm case (and other cases such as the Nat Fraser case). There is concerning indication that Turnbull (now judicially elevated, and therefore involved in any appeal process) was able and willing to gain 'convenient convictions', where it had appeared that there was no evidential basis for such conviction.
The broadest judgement is that these Turnbull convictions are generally unsafe, and merely socially or politically advantageous; their grounding circumstantial 'evidence' being spurious and without safe foundation. It may also be the case, that in these instances, the investigating police are at risk of being drawn into what some could see as 'irregularities': appeals against Turnbull led convictions, certainly involve that suggestion.
There is then a complex but central matter that I would centre on the person of Donald Findlay, and in his role as defence agent.
The concern would go like this: defence argument is often necessarily so complex, in order to countervail prosecution argument; that these defence arguments end being inaccessible to juries and public.
In the recent Tobin case, the defence by Findlay (et al) was simply brilliant; comprehensively challenging all prosecution items, and in manner in would have been hard to anticipate. Yet the jury took only four hours to convict Tobin; such that it is hard to conclude that they fully considered the arguments led in defence.
Defence would appear fundamentally undermined by such a circumstance, of jury and peers not much registering perspectives and arguments necessary for defence.
In such instances, where psychology supporting rational cognizance falters, any void is going to be filled by prejudice; a prejudice more open to manipulation by prosecution than defence.
The solution might seem to be 'education'. But there we encounter a problem. The education which would allow others to see what Findlay can 'see', is not much supported in what is currently transpiring for our society. While, in both formal education, and in the informal education of culture, what more readily supports prosecution argument and process, is being much sponsored.
While far from impotent, the intellectual and cultural traditions which Findlay represents, and does so as defence lawyer, can be considered as on the back foot.
And all that is part of the absence of safety in Luke Mitchell's conviction; which makes it a matter of interest to psychology.
The strictly psychological aspect of this, perhaps concerns the processes which have made all this possible.
Indicated research might deal with how prejudice and legal process can intermingle; and what safeguards we might have in that intermingling.
18 May 2007
"What I know of the trial process did not see the defence adequately 'attack' the expert witnesses on the psychological and profiling side.
The defence did technically deal adequately with the 'black dahlia' parallel: but the psychological arguments that were integral to the prosecution argument, I do not think were adequately challenged. There may have been good reason for that: namely that the prosecution vision of Luke Mitchell was dripping with psychological modelling, but that modelling was very diffuse; and that modelling had an unclear division, between what was coming out in the media, and what was led as 'expert' testimony at trial. It may be the case that most of the psychological argument in the prosecution, was embedded and somewhat implicit, and not formally explicated by any expert.
I think that all this then bears on two areas of defence complaint: firstly, that they as defence feel they were not properly made aware of the nature of the case which the prosecution were going to lead; secondly, that the judge should have moved more strongly on matters of admissibility.
With hindsight, I consider that the prosecution arguments concerning psychological suggestions about Luke Mitchell and his family, should be ruled inadmissible: because they were so diffuse, and because they were not formally led by an 'expert' who could have been challenged.
Again with hindsight, it can be seen, that had the prosecution laid out every psychological suggestion about Luke Mitchell, formally and comprehensively as you might in any academic paper: then such psychological reasoning would have been admissible; simple because their would then have been some author responsible for such suggestion, where the defence could have then challenged that reasoning just as it would be challenged within a discipline of origin.
I think that such a demand is reasonable in this case, because it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prosecution circumstantial argument ended so comprehensively dependent on a psychological profiling of Luke Mitchell.
That having been said, and seeking to do a 'reverse engineering' trawl of the prosecution case, to see what psychological suggesting about Luke Mitchell they did rely on; proves fundamentally difficult, if not impossible.
My personal conclusion then is, that this difficulty arises because the prosecution vision of Luke Mitchell is, in fact, prejudice: that is, it is an instance and action of prejudice; although it presents as an intersecting set of psychological suggestions.
Prejudice and psychological profiling differ. Psychological profiling should exhibit all the qualities of academic psychology: it should be clearly definable, its claims and assumptions should be transparent, it should be open to critical scrutiny on a peer-agreed basis. Prejudice is different: intending an existential outcome for another person; and having a massive redundancy to see this outcome existentially guaranteed.
I'm not too knowledgeable, either on appeal process, or on what follows from this or that appeal outcome.
I've never felt that formal legal appeal was going to bring Luke Mitchell much if any relief.
That relief, if it comes, I judge will come from public domain discrediting of the original processes, of trial and police investigation.
I've spent two or three years going through what data there is on this whole affair.
As you indicate, the weaknesses of investigation and trial processes are legion, and ever grow with fresh analysis: but, and a massive but, these proven weaknesses don't see the hydra killed.
There is another level to the human processes and perceived logic in this case, and they somewhat defy objective critique: and that again leaves me judging that we here deal with a 'prejudice' phenomenon, which must be addressed as such; where something stemming from that address must then feed back into the public domain, and as advocacy that this trial and conviction are fundamentally unsafe. Advocates for Luke Mitchell's release from conviction have to persuade the public that the police investigation, and the process of trial, were instances of, and perhaps little more than prejudice directed at Luke Mitchell.
My personal problem is that I'm still struggling to achieve the methodology for this.
19th May 2007
"I reckon its a matter of moving towards a conceptualisation and modelling of prejudice; where a basis for its auditing in the context of legal process, can be considered.
All fundamentally difficult as you sketch out. Perhaps more necessary and required, than it is immediately possible.
What this Luke Mitchell case seems to indicate, is: that as general social developments see method in prosecution altered and developed, such that previous checks and balances have less force; then a controversial level of prejudice can end perceived as effecting conviction outcome. So maybe we have to continue exploring that perception; leaving the push onto challenging what is seen as driving such prejudice, to a later and subsequent moment. So the initial consideration of prejudice remains an in-house affair for the advocacy forum: where it has impact because done in the public domain; but does not begin with the force to much directly affect what is seen as prejudice and prejudiced.
Often what sees such impact increase, is the coherence of a position: people can come over to that position; where it is that, rather than a direct assault on the power of what the position addresses, which eventually sees the balance of things changed.
"Given that Paul Ekman (and he working out of psychological perspective which is at least contiguous with the 'evolutionary' approach) was an exceedingly important player in these Luke Mitchell centred events, and that you here bring forward a 'claim' grounded in a particular and alternate psychological perspective: we would seem to have opportunity to reflect on how perspectives crafted and regulated within academic psychology; can break out and have influence on real world events.
Psychological claim permeated the prosecution circumstantial case against Luke Mitchell.
Yet that same body of psychological claim was not subject to academically rigorous scrutiny.
Far from being so scrutinised, the defence seems not to have properly anticipated it, nor thereby prepared for its rebuttal.
The psychological claims about Luke Mitchell were not formally explicit and necessarily unified. They were not presented under the protocols met in an academic paper. They were diffuse and suggestive: in the wind of things; never really wholly there to be explicitly and comprehensively challenged.
My sense at the time, was that this left a lacuna, where the institution of psychology might have moved to rectify matters.
Justification would be on two counts. Firstly, that 'products' of that institution were in use. Secondly, that this institution was best placed to handle the complex mix of suggestion and claim, as to things psychological.
I was somewhat shocked that nothing happened on this front. The media can bear some responsibility here. They seeming to seek out only human sciences practitioners who were confirming the prosecution and conviction.
But, it was still open to the institution of psychology, to in some manner lodge a concern in public domain. A concern subsisting in a sense that while psychology had been exploited in the prosecution, not all the psychology that should have been brought to bear, then had been.
You note above that 'cognitive' psychology would have it that Granny Jones would remember what she wore when finding Jodi's body.
That then becomes something of a crux of things.
Wheel this psychological perspective into play, and the empirical you suggest, then putatively holds.
Wheel it away, and that empirical recedes.
Psychology itself, and perhaps nothing else, can take us beyond the binary of the empirical observation stemming from the perspective. Hold to that perspective as your epistemological assumption, identify with it as your prejudice: and its empirical holds. Withdraw those conditions, and that empirical tends to failure.
Such consideration holds for all the perspectives in psychology. Assume them, identify with them, and their data are generated, their empirical holds.
Withdraw from such commitment, and that empirical fails.
That would seem to lead to some basis on which psychology should and should-not take part in legal process.
Namely, there should be no such (expert) psychology, or there should be all-psychology. The basis of apparent validity should be laid bare: perceived data following from assumed perspective; such data falling as assumption is withdrawn.
The interaction between 'common sense' (public domain understanding) and formal psychology, certainly in a court of law and within legal process, is a highly sensitive one.
One difficulty stemming from this Luke Mitchell case, and associated with what is now involved in mounting proper legal defence: is that such defence may be forced to discredit psychology itself, rather as the Mckie case forced defence to discredit the finger-printing services
-
Sandra Lean is a self publicist, she is also an internet troll who spent years running around websites promoting the Mitchell case to anyone who would listen. One of her best known fictional characters was jigsawman, a name which she used to attack others with impunity on a forum called Fact & Myth. She then went around telling anyone who would listen that she never uses any other user names. You couldn't make it up! @)(++(*
The following was posted by Considerthis, 3rd May 2013, here: http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/&page=12
Hi Bagger, this is one of the things that I find most upsetting. Lothian Borders police did leave the victims naked body unprotected all night, approx 8 hours. When the body was found the head of the investigation DI Dobbie failed to have a tent erected to preserve evidence and protect the body. This is basic procedure but yet even the basics went out the window in this case. A pathologist had arrived shortly after the body was found but she couldnt get over the v at the wall as she said she had a bad back. How the stupid woman pathologist didn't look for other access to the locus I will never understand. The thought of this poor girl being left all alone and unprotected makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomache.
Someone mentioned on this thread the US investigators had come over to the crime scene, and I see the US is mentioned again. You are right "the case only came together" with help from the US. What happened was SKY had got wind that LM was not to attend the funeral of [Name removed]. They contacted CM and asked if the family would do an interview on the day of the funeral, but said interview would not be aired till later in the year. Well, we all know they didnt stick to that assurance. The SKY interview was done by James Mathews and the police took formal steps to obtain a copy of the tape and flew to California where they showed it to the man known as the "Human Lie Detector" Professor Paul Ekman, who apparantely is the world authority on the analysis of facial expression. After viewing the tape he supported police suspicions about Luke. The findings of Prof. Ekman kept the focus of the inquiry on Mitchell, as there was no evidence. The prosecution also played the tape to the jury as they said that because he didnt cry when being interviewed that this backed the crowns case that he lacked emotion.
Mia the dog was half way through tracking training. Mia's tracker training was also done by members of the Mitchell family, not just Luke. Experts were brought in to test the dog to see how she would respond, and was it posiible that the dog reacted the way Luke (and the others said the dog reacted before the others changed their statements) said she reacted. The expert testimony would have backed Lukes claim but that evidence was not heard in court.
-
Could Mitchell be innocent of Jodi murder?
Published: 12:07
Monday 26 March 2007
Updated: 15:13
Thursday 29 March 2007
"A WIND chime dangles in the front window of murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones' Dalkeith home, a clutch of yellow sunflowers suspended alongside metal tubes which sway and catch the afternoon sunlight.
Several hundred yards away at the Newbattle entrance to Roman's Dyke path - the muddy lane linking Jodi's Easthouses council estate with Newbattle on the other side - is another ornamental sunflower.
It is there as a constant reminder of the bright young life ended on a summer evening in 2003, when 14-year-old Jodi was horrifically slashed and stabbed, her clothes ripped off and her body left in the weeds and undergrowth behind a wall next to the quiet country path.
Almost four years on and today the boyfriend convicted of her killing, Luke Mitchell, passes another day of his 20-year sentence in his high-protection cell at Polmont Young Offenders Institution. Of course, if Jodi so brutally died at his hands, then that is exactly where he should be.
But could the unthinkable be possible? Could there be a real possibility that he shouldn't be there at all?
Soon his defence team, led by one of the country's sharpest legal minds, Donald Findlay QC, will take that notion a stage further - to the Court of Appeal, where they will argue that the High Court trial that led to Mitchell's sensational conviction was shockingly flawed.
Central to their argument is that Mitchell was denied a fair trial because it was held in Edinburgh before a local jury which may have been prejudiced by the surge of publicity. They will argue that key elements of evidence were not shared by the prosecution and that police methods used to identify Mitchell were unfair.
Alongside that, it is looking increasingly likely that they will attempt to secure his freedom by focussing on so far unidentified DNA evidence found on Jodi's body and the introduction of possible new evidence which is claimed to link Jodi's death to a drug addict who it is said fantasised and wrote about killing women.
Soon the case will be featured in a new book analysing alleged miscarriages of justice, and on television later this week - when Mitchell's mother Corinne will defend her son.
Her home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent is just a short stroll from where the sunflower memorial guards the entrance to Roman's Dyke.
At the Mitchells, however, signs are plastered over the front door, warning away unwelcome visitors.
Corinne Mitchell refuses to discuss her son's case until after theprogramme on Wednesday evening. However, a close family friend insists: "She is totally convinced that Luke is coming home and that the appeal will be successful. She has never doubted he is innocent.
"But she is worried about how things will go when he does come out because she knows there are people out there who will want to get him. She just tries to shrug it off and says it will be like a new chapter in a new nightmare.
"Corinne thinks people haven't been able to see the real side of Luke. She tells people that he's a gentle boy who wouldn't have hurt a hair on Jodi's head."
The verdict, the friend adds, stunned her. "She can't believe Luke is still locked up. She thought he'd be out within a few weeks.
"One thing she deeply regrets, though, is that television interview they gave on the day of Jodi's funeral. Corinne says Luke wanted to go to pay his respects but they were conned by the TV people and it ended up looking really bad."
The friend says that claims she fabricated an alibi for her son were down to misunderstandings
"Corinne was being asked to remember what she was doing at a specific time on an otherwise uneventful day. How can anyone remember exactly what time they did something they do every day?
The friend adds: "Among it all, though, she has been really touched by the support she's received from so many people - not everyone out there believes that Luke was treated fairly and deserved to go to jail."
Certainly author Sandra Lean, with a university background in psychology and sociology and who has spent months researching the case, doesn't believe Mitchell, now 18, should be behind bars.
In fact, having pored over evidence and quizzed key people, she is prepared to go much further: "I believe he is innocent," she declares "I started looking into this case with the hope of finding proof to uphold the guilty verdict. But the more I looked at it, the less that looked likely. And I found more evidence pointing to other people than I did to Luke Mitchell."
There are, she says, several areas of doubt - none more so than the nature of the case, which was driven in the early stages by the new collusion between police and prosecutors, where investigators and Crown agents work closely to secure a guilty verdict.
"I think it was a case of 'here's the story we're going to tell'," claims Lean, whose book No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice was inspired by the Mitchell case and forms the basis of Wednesday's television investigation.
"And the case was made to fit around that. "But there is reasonable doubt in this case, there's no DNA or forensic evidence, the suspect was not identified at or near the scene and there was an over-reliance on expert witnesses," she adds.
"There was also crucial evidence given by others with a vested interest in the outcome, there are questions about the timescale and the suspect's physical ability to commit the crime."
Psychology student and education worker Colin Bowman felt so uncomfortable with the case that he launched an internet forum aimed at thrashing out its details within weeks of the verdict. The site has had thousands of hits including many from people clearly directly involved in the case with intimate knowledge of Mitchell, Jodi and the investigation.
"The problem is, Luke may be guilty, but the hard evidence isn't there," warns Bowman. He agrees with Lean that a string of troubling elements could well raise doubts over Mitchell's conviction: from the lack of forensic evidence to the narrow time frame in which a 14-year-old boy would have had to commit a gruesome killing, return home, change his clothes and re-emerge. "One of the big problems is the lack of forensic evidence," he stresses.
"It looks like the police allowed the crime scene forensic evidence to be washed out, that the scene was left unprotected for several hours in the rain overnight. There must have been forensic evidence and to lose that would be catastrophic." The portrayal of Mitchell as an oddball fascinated with the music and artwork of goth rocker Marilyn Manson, who kept bottles of urine in his bedroom, played with knives and penned school essays praising Satan and expressing desires to kill, all helped create a public image of a deeply troubled young man, Bowman points out. "But," he argues, "they do not prove his guilt."
The case may have been circumstantial, but police in charge of the investigation have steadfastly insisted they got their man. The officer in charge of the investigation, now retired Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie, spoke after the trial of how he believed Mitchell turned on Jodi when she became upset after discovering he was two-timing her, mutilating her body to emulate the infamous murder of actress Elizabeth Short, known as the Black Dahlia - captured in paintings by Marilyn Manson. That, against a background of a troubled youth set the scene for the case that followed.
But justice campaigner John McManus, of Mojo Scotland, warns that cases based on circumstantial evidence - such as Mitchell's - represent a worrying trend for Scottish justice. "What worries me in recent years is how circumstantial evidence is now able to sway a jury. "Our judicial system is meant to be based on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. "It's down to the prosecution to show that the burden of proof and weight of evidence shows guilt," he adds.
Should Mitchell leave his cell in Polmont a free man - at least until any retrial - it's unlikely that Dalkeith's tight community will feel any need to celebrate.
"If he did it and he gets out on a technicality, then he'd be in trouble," says one passer-by in the town's main street. "Too many people would want to go for him, he wouldn't be able to stay here." Bus company worker Ian Clarke, 47, agrees: "There are strong feelings about what happened - people are going to react. "Then again, if it comes out that he didn't do it, well, you've got to wonder who did
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/could-mitchell-be-innocent-of-jodi-murder-1-1342688