Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Parky41]

He was a child. A child who had never had any involvement with the police, had no criminal record and certainly no experience of being questioned by the authorities. They were experienced policeman who had questioned suspects hundreds of times. Are you trying to convince us that those policemen were so incompetent that a CHILD with no previous experience of being questioned was able to run rings around them?

He was an intelligent child but still out of his depth. He was a cheeky, bolshy teenager but obviously unaware what he was up against. If he actually had understood the perilous nature of his predicament perhaps he’d have shown the maturity you seem to think that he possessed and remained silent.

Wrong on every point you have attempted to make here - Dressing him up as something he never was. Inventing a nature for him.

[Parky41]

This is a typical example of deflection.  The person relishing cruelty is the one convicted of brutally slaying his girlfriend, not the person agreeing that he was correctly charged and convicted of said crime.  Why do you always have to get atop your moral high horse, it’s very tiresome, indeed quite pathetic really.

It is creepily odd. And extremely transparent to boot.

[faithlilly]

Wrong on every point you have attempted to make here - Dressing him up as something he never was. Inventing a nature for him.

What did I get wrong?

Legally wasn’t he a child?
Had he ever been involved with the police or questioned by them?
Had he a criminal record?

Wasn’t he intelligent?
Wasn’t he cheeky and bolshy?
What experience did he have of such a situation?

So what did I get wrong….just facts please?

[faithlilly]

It is creepily odd. And extremely transparent to boot.

Ouch! I’m wounded to the core!

[Venturi Swirl]

Just a wee reminder
But at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, advocate depute John Beckett QC said: "It is highly relevant he coped perfectly well, gave as good as he got and was not pressured or deceived into making an admission.

"There doesn't appear to be trickery, bullying or any unfair form of questioning."

[KenMair]

What did I get wrong?

Legally wasn’t he a child?
Had he ever been involved with the police or questioned by them?
Had he a criminal record?

Wasn’t he intelligent?
Wasn’t he cheeky and bolshy?
What experience did he have of such a situation?

So what did I get wrong….just facts please?

Legally he was a child.
He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.
I suppose whether he is intelligent or cheeky is subjective. His behaviour post-murder does not suggest an empathic person who wanted to help the police, merely deflect it away from himself.
Legally he is a convicted killer.

[faithlilly]

Legally he was a child.
He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.
I suppose whether he is intelligent or cheeky is subjective. His behaviour post-murder does not suggest an empathic person who wanted to help the police, merely deflect it away from himself.
Legally he is a convicted killer.

What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?

[KenMair]

What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?

Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.

[Venturi Swirl]

What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?

Once again I’m astonished by your bare faced hypocrisy. 
You have literally spent years of your life online expressing not one scintilla of empathy or understanding for the innocent parents of a missing child and yet here you are berating forum members for not shedding tears and wringing their hands over some adolescent convicted murderer.  Why the double standards Faith?  Why not try to look at the facts objectively, without the righteous indignation?  It would serve your cause better imo.

[faithlilly]

Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.

This is what you claimed.

‘He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.’

Is this true and if so do you have a cite for it?

You advocate for zero tolerance on child murderers. Something we agree on then.

[Chris_Halkides]

Reform around such has already been put in place. It is the very essence of why it is applied that LM missed that reform by mere days. The law is constantly adapting, making changes.

The context of the whole time frame merited in a mere fraction with the over zealous behaviour of the police.

The transcripts, the application by AT, showed clearly that LM understood perfectly well his rights. He exercised those rights many times throughout the interview. He was not coerced and bullied into anything. He appealed and lost because of this.

Yet, until the release of the transcripts, the inference swayed heavily upon a boy being bullied for hours by the police - Nothing like it.

I had forgotten that the reform was put into place; thanks for reminding me.  That reform was implemented indicates that the situation before was unfair to LM and anyone else in the same position.

The Appeals Court wrote, "Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."  The notion of Luke taunting his interrogator is among the more...baffling...elements of a case that does not lack for them.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PSYCHOPATH%3B+Defiant+taunts+of+the+cocky+suspect+that+led+police+to...-a0127488565

[Venturi Swirl]

I had forgotten that the reform was put into place; thanks for reminding me.  That reform was implemented indicates that the situation before was unfair to LM and anyone else in the same position.

The Appeals Court wrote, "Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."  The notion of Luke taunting his interrogator is among the more...baffling...elements of a case that does not lack for them.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PSYCHOPATH%3B+Defiant+taunts+of+the+cocky+suspect+that+led+police+to...-a0127488565

Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".

[Parky41]

Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".

Chris forgets a crucial element of it. The interviews were video recorded. Any appeal, independent review by the SCCRC had it all first hand. The idea to Chris that LM was not capable of taunting the police is ludicrous.

[faithlilly]

Chris forgets a crucial element of it. The interviews were video recorded. Any appeal, independent review by the SCCRC had it all first hand. The idea to Chris that LM was not capable of taunting the police is ludicrous.

Taunting? We are talking about policemen with many years of service behind them. The idea that a 14 year old boy with no experience of being questioned by the police was equal in maturity and guile to police officers who had seen the worst in human nature is simply for the birds.

[Venturi Swirl]

Taunting? We are talking about policemen with many years of service behind them. The idea that a 14 year old boy with no experience of being questioned by the police was equal in maturity and guile to police officers who had seen the worst in human nature is simply for the birds.

you don’t need maturity and guile to be a mouthy little gobshite.