Luke Mitchell Theories

[Parky41]

I asked a day or so ago about the judge demanding a strong majority and it appears the only source for the claim is yourself. It appears you and Dr Lean, if you are indeed right about her, are both doing a power of manipulation.

Well, that is simply not true, is it? I will let you work that our for yourself.

[Venturi Swirl]

I asked a day or so ago about the judge demanding a strong majority and it appears the only source for the claim is yourself. It appears you and Dr Lean, if you are indeed right about her, are both doing a power of manipulation.

Are there no court transcripts of the judge’s summing up and instructions to jury?

[faithlilly]

Well, that is simply not true, is it? I will let you work that our for yourself.

No need. It’s perfectly true….unless of course you can empirically prove otherwise?

[Mr Apples]

Where did you hear about the judge’s directions? I can’t seem to find a cite anywhere.

I read about it on various public forums that discuss this case and on the comments section from a few Youtube videos. Okay, it's not a cite, or irrefutable proof that the judge demanded a strong majority verdict, but, given the seriousness and notoriety of the case, and indeed the implications for all involved in it, it stands to reason that a strong majority verdict would be needed, does it not?

Incidentally, I sent SL a message earlier asking if she knew anything about it. How would one go about ascertaining if Nimmo Smith demanded such a verdict? Could one send an email to the clerk at Edinburgh high court? Maybe it will be shown in these transcripts that are currently being uploaded to that blog??

[faithlilly]

I read about it on various public forums that discuss this case and on the comments section from a few Youtube videos. Okay, it's not a cite, or irrefutable proof that the judge demanded a strong majority verdict, but, given the seriousness and notoriety of the case, and indeed the implications for all involved in it, it stands to reason that a strong majority verdict would be needed, does it not?

Incidentally, I sent SL a message earlier asking if she knew anything about it. How would one go about ascertaining if Nimmo Smith demanded such a verdict? Could one send an email to the clerk at Edinburgh high court? Maybe it will be shown in these transcripts that are currently being uploaded to that blog??

So you stated something as a fact when you could not prove its veracity. Is that what you’re saying?

[Parky41]

Are there no court transcripts of the judge’s summing up and instructions to jury?

I believe these are being requested also, where we can have the full direction from the 1st day, the further direction the following morning. The latter of accepting a strong majority, that the jurors then returned in around an hour with their verdict.

As Mr Apples verges upon - Not near a verdict the day before, directed the following morning of accepting a strong majority, returning in a relatively quick time with one. Suggests that 1 or 2 Jurors were not for budging whilst having enough votes for a strong majority?

LM of course would know that direction, I have yet to see anything from him or others being able to show it to be false. Hopefully the transcripts from that morning can be obtained to ascertain the exact wording from it.

[Venturi Swirl]

So you stated something as a fact when you could not prove its veracity. Is that what you’re saying?

Gosh, your comprehension skills are coming on a treat!

[faithlilly]

I believe these are being requested also, where we can have the full direction from the 1st day, the further direction the following morning. The latter of accepting a strong majority, that the jurors then returned in around an hour with their verdict.

As Mr Apples verges upon - Not near a verdict the day before, directed the following morning of accepting a strong majority, returning in a relatively quick time with one. Suggests that 1 or 2 Jurors were not for budging whilst having enough votes for a strong majority?

LM of course would know that direction, I have yet to see anything from him or others being able to show it to be false. Hopefully the transcripts from that morning can be obtained to ascertain the exact wording from it.

You believe these are being requested?

A ‘strong’ majority? A ‘simple’ majority of jurors is all that is required for a guilty verdict to be returned in Scotland. There was no need for a strong verdict. As long as there were 8 jurors who voted guilty a guilty verdict would have been the result. Only one juror changing sides could have made all the difference. That’s probably why the verdict came in so quickly. I suppose we’ll have to wait for a reputable source to know, no offence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/not-proven-verdict-related-reforms-consultation/pages/5/

From the link above.

‘ Some believe Scotland’s simple majority is problematic in and of itself, arguing that it is difficult to square with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt when 7 of the 15 jurors could opt for an acquittal verdict yet the accused can still be convicted.’

[Venturi Swirl]

You believe these are being requested?

A ‘strong’ majority? A ‘simple’ majority of jurors is all that is required for a guilty verdict to be returned in Scotland. There was no need for a strong verdict. As long as there were 8 jurors who voted guilty a guilty verdict would have been the result. Only one juror changing sides could have made all the difference. That’s probably why the verdict came in so quickly. I suppose we’ll have to wait for a reputable source to know, no offence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/not-proven-verdict-related-reforms-consultation/pages/5/

Equally the jurors could have been split 14-1 in the first instance, and they spent the hour trying to get a unanimous verdict. 

[faithlilly]

I read about it on various public forums that discuss this case and on the comments section from a few Youtube videos. Okay, it's not a cite, or irrefutable proof that the judge demanded a strong majority verdict, but, given the seriousness and notoriety of the case, and indeed the implications for all involved in it, it stands to reason that a strong majority verdict would be needed, does it not?

Incidentally, I sent SL a message earlier asking if she knew anything about it. How would one go about ascertaining if Nimmo Smith demanded such a verdict? Could one send an email to the clerk at Edinburgh high court? Maybe it will be shown in these transcripts that are currently being uploaded to that blog??

The verdict was a majority verdict. In Scottish law only 8 jurors believing Luke was guilty, or a simple majority, is needed for a guilty verdict. There was no need for a strong majority, a simple one would have sufficed. That threshold obviously had not been reached on the first day of jury deliberations.

[Chris_Halkides]

If there was DNA evidence brought up in court in Mitchell's defence that strongly suggested someone else committed the crime then how did the prosecution explain this and why was their case more compelling than the defence's as far as the judge and jury (and subsequent appeals) were concerned?

In 2009 the Guardian reported that, "The new defence team say the original police forensic service laboratory report and biology report contradict the prosecution case that the murder did not have a sexual motive, as semen was found on Jodi's body.  The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body."

It is quite possible the condom DNA is unrelated to this case (the donor of this DNA barely breaks into my top ten persons of interest).  The other DNA profile is an entirely different matter.  Regarding you question, the jury took only five hours to deliberate (given the length of the trial, this is surprising), and the judge's statements...speak for themselves.

[Chris_Halkides]

It was all treated with disinterest and neutrality during the 2003/04 investigation. They certainly weren't going to ruin a young boy's life purely on gut instinct or because they didn't like him. They had to get it right, hence the 18-month long investigation and a 42-day trial which was, for a time, the longest of a single accused in Scottish criminal history. Suspicion did fall on LM very quickly, but for good reason. That suspicion also remained there for very good reason. All this talk about an inadequate police investigation, other potential suspects not being looked into, a young boy being fitted up, etc, it's for the birds.

The police suspected him within days at the outside, yet there existed no evidence at this point.  With all due respect, you vastly underestimate the powers of the police to massage the evidence to fit a chosen hypothesis.  Eyewitness evidence is quite malleable, a point that I have made at length in another thread.  I find it extremely difficult to see how this investigation could be judged as anything other than inadequate.  The incompetence started with respect to the management of the crime scene, but it did not end there.

[William Wallace]

The moped wasn't melted down. It was taken to Melrose scrapyard as no longer working and lay there for weeks, possibly months, before being collected by the main metal merchants. If they had wanted to "dispose of evidence" they would have doused it in petrol and set in on fire, not leave it in a scrap yard for weeks. The fact that someone could have been spirited away from the locus on a noisy unreliable moped and dropped home unseen is even more unlikely - it didn't happen.

So the Police couldn't find the moped after F and D came forward, even though Melrose Metals is just along the road ? I can tell you as a FACT it did not lie in there for an hour never mind weeks, it was destroyed. That is a FACT. I know Dalkeith Police were not very bright contaminating the crime scene and not checking if he who cannot be named was in the house after the murder, but even they would have checked in there. No they wouldn't have set it on fire and drawn attention to themselves. It was destroyed and turned into a can of Irn Bru.

[William Wallace]

I read about it on various public forums that discuss this case and on the comments section from a few Youtube videos. Okay, it's not a cite, or irrefutable proof that the judge demanded a strong majority verdict, but, given the seriousness and notoriety of the case, and indeed the implications for all involved in it, it stands to reason that a strong majority verdict would be needed, does it not?

Incidentally, I sent SL a message earlier asking if she knew anything about it. How would one go about ascertaining if Nimmo Smith demanded such a verdict? Could one send an email to the clerk at Edinburgh high court? Maybe it will be shown in these transcripts that are currently being uploaded to that blog??

There is no such thing in Scots law. The jury decision is based on a majority which is 8-7 minimum. A Judge cannot tell a jury I want a 12-3 verdict lol. If 8 jurors say guilty, that's it. Talk about growing arms and legs?

[Mr Apples]

The verdict was a majority verdict. In Scottish law only 8 jurors believing Luke was guilty, or a simple majority, is needed for a guilty verdict. There was no need for a strong majority, a simple one would have sufficed. That threshold obviously had not been reached on the first day of jury deliberations.

This is the inference, though nothing in the public domain indicates if a simple majority or a strong majority verdict was returned; all articles merely state "a majority verdict", which, of course is ambiguous -- though I think most people would agree that it probably means a simple majority. I guess we'll just have to hope that these transcripts will shed some light on the matter. As I said previously, I thought that a strong majority would've been sought by the judge, given the nature of the case.