"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

No investigation is ever perfect, more so where there is no concrete proof of liable.

Rather than trying to concentrate solely on the main points of evidence used at trial, I sought to understand why suspicion fell upon LM.
Why him and not these 'other'  males that Ms Lean pushes out as being similar/lessor or greater candidates to LM?
Why were these males not in the dock - why LM?

The simplest, easiest answer is - the unfolding of the evidence itself.
Common sense would tell us that - other males closely linked were not simply ignored. 

The very evidence LM gave, the narrative - was so full of holes, it ultimately raised red flags time after time.
Time the one area in itself that proved to be fatal against LM.
A narrative told - that really did not stand the test of time.
10 mins: around the dinner time.
10 mins: to find Jodi Jones.
7 mins: to get from his house onto Roansdyke Path.
These are but three areas - It is these very timings that held no water in the narrative told. 

The crown took on the case to prosecute - they did so as they believed there was a case to answer to.

If all had been as flimsy as some believe - the verdict would have been different.

Isn't it just a little ironic that someone, based on their own narrative, who states there was no evidence to convict LM feels that others with less
evidence by far, should have been in his place - Really?
Not only that, this person does not just stop at that but actually attempts to hang them out to dry - repeatedly.
By lying, manipulating, theorizing - Because they can not disprove the evidence held against LM.
The very evidence that ultimately - stemmed from LM himself.

Jodi’s family’s timings were all over the place too. Does that make them guilty?

The flimsiness of the evidence produced an irreconcilably split jury on the first day of deliberations and a majority verdict on the second so possibly 7 of those 15 jurors believed that the crown hadn’t proven their case either.

Where I do agree with you is that it is unfair to name individuals you suspect may be involved who are not Luke.

[faithlilly]

Cant speak for everyone but I cannot stress enough as someone who doubts lukes innocence, how devastating it would be to my position if shane spoke publicly of his support for luke and his attempts at independent review and retrial. It's one of a very few potential pieces of new information that would force me to re-evaluate my whole stance.

he has proven himself as a capable, trustworthy and hardworking individual and worthwhile member of society since the events of the mid 2000s

similarly think a lot of those who currently support retrial / review would reconsider if shane gave an account publicly of his sincere belief in his brothers guilt (and detailed the reasons why)

Perhaps he will when there is an independent review and his recollections are dealt with within a proper legal framework.

[Paranoid Android]

He may well have done but at least 7 of the jury could possibly have disagreed and I can understand why. On the first day of the deliberations I believe that the jury were irreconcilably split. They were not sequestered as they should have been but sent home to talk to there families, read the papers...who knows. That they came back the next day and still some could not agree that the evidence was enough to convict speaks volumes to me.

The judge said they would accept a majority verdict - again, there may have been good reasons for that.

[Angelo222]

The judge said they would accept a majority verdict - again, there may have been good reasons for that.

They always say that in Scotland as it is common practise to convict on a majority verdict whereas the opposite applies in the rest of the UK.  Just goes to show how out of step the Scottish system is. Mitchell would most probably not have been convicted on the evidence had he been tried anywhere else in the UK.

[Parky41]

The flimsiness of the evidence produced an irreconcilably split jury on the first day of deliberations and a majority verdict on the second so possibly 7 of those 15 jurors believed that the crown hadn’t proven their case either.

Where do you get this information from ?

Simply not true - the Jury returned on the same day in under 6 hours hours with a majority vote. Around 4hrs?

Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what is meant by timings Faithlilly.

Everyone close in the immediate aftermath of this murder would have statements taken.

Estimated times around certain areas of information are given.

The police investigate this - they use phone records and so forth to establish more accurate times.

When doing these investigation and timings it becomes clear to them - who's stand up to scrutiny.

Through this process it would become clearer to the police - who they could eliminate and those they could not.

Perhaps the police would have been more suspicious - If some of these 'others' statements were as precised as those of the Mitchels.

Common sense again tells us - people were not simply overlooked.

Clear reasons as to why LM could not be overlooked.

[Parky41]

Given the length of time the Jury were out - a more feasible 13/2 Majority is likely.

[Parky41]

Given the length of time the Jury were out - a more feasible 13/2 Majority is likely.

Within 24hrs for clarification given that the court was closed overnight. Around 5hrs in total for the verdict to be reached.

[Nicholas]

Is an independent review likely

It’s a gimmick

[John]

It really doesn’t. Imagine tomorrow Shane said, say through a solicitor, I support my brother’s campaign to have his conviction overturned. Would it change anything? Would it replace his integrity in the eyes of those who doubt him? Would it make people who doubt Luke believe him?

There is nothing to be gained by Shane coming forward...not for Luke and definitely not for him and those who think there is are, with the greatest respect, being a tad naive.

Thought you would come back with that one.  You and I know very well Shane has never supported Luke's version of events or made any effort whatsoever to publicly support any of the campaigns raised on his behalf. I don't believe he has ever visited him once in prison and for all intents and purposes is estranged from their mother. Little wonder she ended up living in a shed, could Sandra Lean not have put a roof over her head long ago since she promotes such empathy towards her?  And I think we all know the answer to that one.

Let's be honest Faith, had Shane had any empathy towards his brother he would have made that known long ago. Anyone reading the story for the first time can see straight away that there was a problem with the two boys conflicting versions of events and changing statements.  For any innocent person this was an opportunity lost, no wonder the police went to town with Shane Mitchell, they could clearly see that there had been a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice.

[faithlilly]

The judge said they would accept a majority verdict - again, there may have been good reasons for that.

Yes, some of the jurors didn’t think that the Crown had proved their case.

[faithlilly]

They always say that in Scotland as it is common practise to convict on a majority verdict whereas the opposite applies in the rest of the UK.  Just goes to show how out of step the Scottish system is. Mitchell would most probably not have been convicted on the evidence had he been tried anywhere else in the UK.

Indeed.

[Mrs S]

Indeed.

The jury also had choice of not proven verdict. They didn't think that was case.

[faithlilly]

The jury also had choice of not proven verdict. They didn't think that was case.

At least 8 of them didn’t...the rest who knows. I suppose that’s why a not proven verdict wasn’t considered.

[Mrs S]

At least 8 of them didn’t...the rest who knows. I suppose that’s why a not proven verdict wasn’t considered.

Yes probably why it wasn't considered so at least 8 thought he was guilty. It could easily have been as much as 13 or 14 thought he was guilty. Only the jury will ever know that

[faithlilly]

Yes probably why it wasn't considered so at least 8 thought he was guilty. It could easily have been as much as 13 or 14 thought he was guilty. Only the jury will ever know that

The judge allowed the jury to go home as they were irretrievably split. That doesn’t suggest double figures on either side. In fact quite the opposite.