Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[John]

I dont think the answers lie with John. He has his opinions as do we all.

The thread is about Luke.. To ask what i think seems to be a reasonable question considering that is what we are meant to be discussing

My opinion is based on a very long investigation of the known facts in the case with first hand information being provided by people closest to both families. It also takes into account the conduct of certain individuals post incident which in itself was very telling. The evidence, albeit circumstantial, stacks up against Luke Mitchell so my opinion is unaltered.

I must also point out that I have met Luke Mitchell and was originally a supporter.  However, with the passage of time certain key facts fell into place which left me with no option but to change my stance.

[jixy]

I didnt mean your answers didnt count or worth consideration. What I meant was your views have already been known. Justsaying was asking about other peoples views but as usual gets derailed

It seems very difficult to have a clear discussion about Luke or his case as all the comments seem to go back to one person, hidden agendas or such like

Guess this thread wont move any further on and maybe Stephanie needs a thread all of her own

[John]

I didnt mean your answers didnt count or worth consideration. What I meant was your views have already been known. Justsaying was asking about other peoples views but as usual gets derailed

It seems very difficult to have a clear discussion about Luke or his case as all the comments seem to go back to one person, hidden agendas or such like

Guess this thread wont move any further on and maybe Stephanie needs a thread all of her own

To be fair to Stephanie, she was privy to a lot of what went on with the Wrongly Accused Person organisation which is now defunct having never returned a single statement of account to the Scottish Charity Regulator. She can see parallels between what occurred in her late husbands case and that of Luke Mitchell so feels able to post as an informed individual.

[jixy]

I think that ship has definitely sailed...

The work for Luke will carry on regardless of the irrelevant posts

[justsaying]

The work for Luke will carry on regardless of the irrelevant posts

I really cannot be bothered to keep explaining myself. One thing I cannot stand is hypocrisy, perhaps it shows, and was the reason for some of my posts. Anyway, moving on...

[John]

The topic is about Luke Mitchell, guilty or innocent.

[John]

I must remind all posters that making inappropriate personal comments is against the forum rules.  All such comments will be removed immediately we are aware of them. Continued posting of such comments will result in sanctions being applied. TY

[jixy]

lets hope it doesnt continue then no one needs to have to defend or explain themselves only to have their posts removed while doing so.

[John]

Thank you Jixy, as I say there is a lot I do not know other than the conviction is questionable to say the least.

Questionable why? 

This forum is based on facts and evidence so please elaborate as to why you think Luke Mitchell's conviction is unsafe?

If you can!

[justsaying]

Questionable why? 

This forum is based on facts and evidence so please elaborate as to why you think Luke Mitchell's conviction is unsafe?

If you can!

Oh dear, I seemed to have ruffled someone else's feathers. So opinion is not welcome? Do I really have to put on the end of every single post that this is my opinion and not fact? You have expressed your opinion which I will point out if you like!

[John]

Oh dear, I seemed to have ruffled someone else's feathers. So opinion is not welcome? Do I really have to put on the end of every single post that this is my opinion and not fact? You have expressed your opinion which I will point out if you like!

Opinion has to be based on facts.  This is a persons life we are discussing.  If there is evidence which you believe is capable of overturning his conviction I think we need to hear it.  Over to you?

ETA.  If there is compelling evidence which supports Luke's claim I would be the first to support it.

[justsaying]

Opinion has to be based on facts.  This is a persons life we are discussing.  If there is evidence which you believe is capable of overturning his conviction I think we need to hear it.  Over to you?

Ok, just so we are clear, although some of my other posts probably explain this. In my opinion the conviction is questionable based on the fact other people's DNA was found at the scene. Will that do?

[John]

Ok, just so we are clear, although some of my other posts probably explain this. In my opinion the conviction is questionable based on the fact other people's DNA was found at the scene. Will that do?

That is correct but is not new information.  Identifiable DNA from her older sister's boyfriend was found on Jodi's clothing.  As already pointed out, the T-shirt had been borrowed from her older sister. Luke's DNA was never recovered from Jodi or her clothing even though it should have been present given that the couple had met at school earlier that day.

A failure to preserve the crimescene properly led to a failure to properly collect and identify all DNA present.

[justsaying]

That is correct but is not new information.  Identifiable DNA from her older sister's boyfriend was found on Jodi's clothing.  As already pointed out, the T-shirt had been borrowed from her older sister. Luke's DNA was never recovered from Jodi or her clothing even though it should have been present given that the couple had met earlier that day.

So I have to accept that? It is just your opinion that his DNA should have been present because the couple had been together earlier that day. You do not know for certain whether Jody bathed or changed prior to intending to meet Luke later . We also do not know for certain whether the DNA was on the t-shirt prior to Jody being loaned it, the prosecution speculated that it was and the jury must have accepted that. But, there are plenty of examples in which juries have gotten it wrong, the examples being in the many overturned cases which are available online, in books, articles etc.

<EDIT> The examples of overturned cases prove that the prosecution, and even forensic scientists, get it wrong also.

[John]

So I have to accept that? It is just your opinion that his DNA should have been present because the couple had been together earlier that day. You do not know for certain whether Jody bathed or changed prior to intending to meet Luke later . We also do not know for certain whether the DNA was on the t-shirt prior to Jody being loaned it, the prosecution speculated that it was and the jury must have accepted that. But, there are plenty of examples in which juries have gotten it wrong, the examples being in the many overturned cases which are available online, in books, articles etc.

<EDIT> The examples of overturned cases prove that the prosecution, and even forensic scientists, get it wrong also.

I accept that certainly. The point being that an absence of DNA link between Luke and Jodi is not a ground for an appeal as this absence could result from many circumstances.