Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[Nicholas]

The two failed cops who were once investigated for fraud looked more like Laurel and Hardie than professional investigators imo.

There’s no need to be rude about them.  To the casual watcher they put forward a compelling case for a miscarriage of justice.

Do you think the ‘two cops’ carried out their due diligence ?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean has put forward nothing new, it's all the same old someone else did it so Luke is innocent.

I agree - there was nothing new

And extremely deceptive of channel 5 and all involved in the documentary to state, ‘17 years later... Luke Mitchell’s conviction is now being questioned’

Would upload a screenshot but the attachments don’t appear to work for me

[Nicholas]

I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.

Someone else has pointed out,

‘The viewing experience was like being asked to be a juror, but only being told the case for the defence - therefore under these conditions you would have to say threshold for beyond reasonable doubt not met’

This for me is akin to innocence fraud

[John]

Someone else has pointed out,

‘The viewing experience was like being asked to be a juror, but only being told the case for the defence - therefore under these conditions you would have to say threshold for beyond reasonable doubt not met’

This for me is akin to innocence fraud

It was unbelievably biased but then they were spoon fed it by Sandra Lean.  And she calls herself a criminologist 

I still remember the night she had to go out in Edinburgh chasing Billy Middleton.  Bizarre!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you think the ‘two cops’ carried out their due diligence ?

I've no idea - what I'm saying is that to the casual observer ie: the many people who watched last night and who don't know this case like the back of their hand they did not necessarily come across as Laurel & Hardy, as claimed by Angelo. 

[Nicholas]

It was unbelievably biased but then they were spoon fed it by Sandra Lean.  And she calls herself a criminologist 

I still remember the night she had to go out in Edinburgh chasing Billy Middleton.  Bizarre!

It appears this way to me

[Nicholas]

I've no idea - what I'm saying is that to the casual observer ie: the many people who watched last night and who don't know this case like the back of their hand they did not necessarily come across as Laurel & Hardy, as claimed by Angelo.

Do you think they’ve been duped Vertigo Swirl?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.

Again, you are completely missing the point I am making - I'm looking at the programme from the point of view not as someone who knows Luke Mitchell and all the details of his case.  The key phrase was "to the casual observer", you may not agree with the programme makers but they did a good and convincing job of persuading the casual observer that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you think they’ve been duped Vertigo Swirl?

I honestly don't know enough to say one way or the other, but they certainly made a persuasive case as far as the casual observer is concerned, IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I totally disagree VS. I have met Luke Mitchell and spoken to him while in the High Court. If this is the best they can come up with after 17 years I fear this case might never get any further.

What do you believe is the clinching piece of evidence that proves without a shadow of doubt that he is guilty?

[Vertigo Swirl]

FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful.  Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.

[Nicholas]

Again, you are completely missing the point I am making - I'm looking at the programme from the point of view not as someone who knows Luke Mitchell and all the details of his case.  The key phrase was "to the casual observer", you may not agree with the programme makers but they did a good and convincing job of persuading the casual observer that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated.

That’s what innocence fraud does to the unsuspecting ‘casual observer’

I wasn’t convinced in the slightest

[Nicholas]

FWIW I felt that Corinne came across in the programme as utterly sincere and truthful.  Of course she could be completely self-deluded and in denial but that's not how she came across to me.

Was it staged though Vertigo Swirl?

It appeared to me Sandra Lean visited Corrine Mitchell in part 2 on the same day as she was ‘interviewed’ in part 1

[barrier]

That’s what innocence fraud does to the unsuspecting ‘casual observer’

I wasn’t convinced in the slightest

One asks was the two parter  put out solely with the view of trying to convince of his innocence rather  than a impartial view? if its the former then casual observers might be convinced.

[Nicholas]

One asks was the two parter  put out solely with the view of trying to convince of his innocence rather  than a impartial view? if its the former then casual observers might be convinced.

Of course it was

I think it’s totally and utterly appalling - especially after Sandra Leans involvement in the Simon Hall case

A lot of people are now accusing Jodi’s brother of murder 

And Sandra lean knows this is what people do when they don’t hear all the facts - and no one can say the documentary presented all of the facts