Channel Five documentary - "Murder in a Small Town"

[Vertigo Swirl]

i agree which is why it shouldve been reported to the police, would you report it if it was your child?

By the way, if you have a daughter would you be happy to let her go out with Luke Mitchell once he's released from prison? 

[jixy]

I am new to this case, having only vague knowledge of it from the time it was in the papers to watching the documentary which convinced me that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.  I since discovered from reading threads on here how very one sided the documentary was, leaving out or glossing over relevant dertails, and that instantly put my back up.  I also think SL's judgment is demonstrably questionable as evidenced by the other cases of so-called miscarriages of justice that she has doggedly supported which turned out to be the opposite.  Nevertheless the lack of tangible forensic evidence is troubling IMO.

.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Going to have to disagree with you on the documentary, clearly states that it was the story from his side, so why anyone would then suggest it's one sided is beyond me.
It's up to a rational person to investigate and make their own mind up

In regards to whats on here, can you point me to the posts that produced the evidence that changed your view?

As I said, reading through it was claimed by one of the older posters that they visited AR and AR gave info on the crime not in public domain, a marker the police use to take the confession seriously, so why has the position on here changed?

If the documentary claimed from the outset that it was completely one-sided then why would you be surprised by anyone suggesting it was one sided?  It was useless as a source of information if it set out to prove a pre-determined outcome and the ex-detectives who took part should be ashamed of going along with it and not exercising objectivity, if all along it was to prove that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. 

I can't point to one specific post on here no, but I did repeatedly ask what evidence had convinced others of his guilt and it would seem that there is no one clinching piece of evidence but an overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence.  As for your other question, I don't know the answer to that sorry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Dont you think the people involved in these cases should be held accountable? We were even given names of the 'real murderers' in one of the cases Sandra is blamed for being totally responsible for

Sandra DID NOT make anyone a murderer. Others have also been responsible for misleading people loud and clear. That is overlooked now while the blame is dumped firmly at Sandras door!

I don't know what you're on about, sorry.  I have not accused her of making anyone a murderer.

[jixy]

Did you actually watch the documentary? The narrator clearly states that for the first time that this is Lukes story, and goes into reasons why he's never spoken out before, I'm sure that in phone conversation with Luke, Luke explains why he hasn't spoken out before!.
Documentaries are by nature design to pique publics interest and curiosity, not to provide information.

So you have no evidence to support your "hunch"!   Having served jury duty several times, I hope to god you never do, as you cannot point to a single piece of evidence convincing you of someones guilt.

you make some very good points. I am looking forward to seeing more of your posts

[Eleanor]

There is absolutely no point in replying to Abusive Comments as the whole lot will be removed.

Thank You.

[Angelo222]

This topic by its very nature tends to raise emotions so please keep calm and don't be drawn into silly arguments.

Abusive and/or condescending comments will always be removed.

[John]

Where did the ‘Luke returns to the house’ come from John do you recall? (source: Shirley McKie)

From Corinne herself.

[John]

What made you change your position this time?

The entirety of the evidence would appear to support the verdict.

[John]

By the way, if you have a daughter would you be happy to let her go out with Luke Mitchell once he's released from prison?

Good question VS.  Maybe ask Sandra Lean the same question about her two daughters?

[mrswah]

the parka as ive said no pics? why would you want a relationship with someone who carries knives? she didn't think anything sinister about that before the murder? why? she could just be scorned that she was 2 timed, its still not evidence really is it, its hearsay.

I taught teenagers for many years, and, unfortunately, there is nothing that unusual about 14 year olds carrying knives/getting drunk/using drugs/two, three and four timing!   And, yes, there are always other teenagers ready to be in relationships with such people!!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did you actually watch the documentary? The narrator clearly states that for the first time that this is Lukes story, and goes into reasons why he's never spoken out before, I'm sure that in phone conversation with Luke, Luke explains why he hasn't spoken out before!.
Documentaries are by nature design to pique publics interest and curiosity, not to provide information.

So you have no evidence to support your "hunch"!   Having served jury duty several times, I hope to god you never do, as you cannot point to a single piece of evidence convincing you of someones guilt.

Now that most of the abuse has been removed from your post I can answer.
I did watch the documentary yes.  It certainly piqued my interest and did an excellent propaganda job - both I and my partner were convinced a miscarriage of justice had been perpetrated by the time we finished watching.  Most people watching won't (I would wager) bother to go that much more deeply into it and will assume Mitchell is innocent on the basis of watching this.  That in itself is an injustice as far as I'm concerned.   IMO, if the documentary makers were so certain that Mitchell was innocent they would have looked much more closely at the evidence against him and offered a plausible innocent explanation for it.  As far as I recall Luke's brother was hardly mentioned at all for example, yet his evidence was apparently key.
I don't recall having a "hunch" about anything, nor did I realise I was sitting in a court of law when I wrote my last post, so why you feel the need to belittle my ability to serve on a jury heaven only knows.

[faithlilly]

The entirety of the evidence would appear to support the verdict.

So much like Sandra you supported Hall before evidence came to light that suggested he was guilty. Yet she is castigated for it and you are not. Why?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Good question VS.  Maybe ask Sandra Lean the same question about her two daughters?

One can only assume that she would have absolutely no problem with it, as according to her he is an innocent man wrongly accused of a hideous murder that he did not commit. 

[mrswah]

One can only assume that she would have absolutely no problem with it, as according to her he is an innocent man wrongly accused of a hideous murder that he did not commit.

She might believe Luke is innocent of the murder of Jodi, but that doesn't necessarily  mean that she approves of him , or that  she would want her daughters to be involved with him!