Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[faithlilly]

The LM campaign has been based on lies and gossip. English added fuel to the fire by indulging Lean & CM without doing "due diligence". He was in it for the likes for his channel. If rumour and gossip are to be believed there is much more to unfold about his behaviour with women, but he will no doubt play the victim much like LM's defenders.

And Huw Edwards once interviewed the Duke of Edinburgh….and?

[Kenmair]

And Huw Edwards once interviewed the Duke of Edinburgh….and?

Poor response. Huw E was a royal correspondent, it was his BBC job. JE was an independent podcaster who hand picked controversial interviewees to boost his ratings, but here you are as ever trying to win an argument by some mental gymnastics. The facts are; JE indulged the LM campaigners without challenging them, and is now in court for 19 charges of domestic abuse.

[faithlilly]

Poor response. Huw E was a royal correspondent, it was his BBC job. JE was an independent podcaster who hand picked controversial interviewees to boost his ratings, but here you are as ever trying to win an argument by some mental gymnastics. The facts are; JE indulged the LM campaigners without challenging them, and is now in court for 19 charges of domestic abuse.

One has got absolutely nothing to do with the other.

It’s odd that I’ve never seen one interview with someone who believes Luke is guilty. Must be they prefer to do their exposing and challenging anonymously and thus avoiding scrutiny eh?

[Kenmair]

One has got absolutely nothing to do with the other.

It’s odd that I’ve never seen one interview with someone who believes Luke is guilty. Must be they prefer to do their exposing and challenging anonymously and thus avoiding scrutiny eh?

You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.

This is a tried and tested tactic by this forum member in all the cases she follows (but only when it suits her argument of course!)

[faithlilly]

You've previously disputed press interviews as being financially induced. Make your mind up - can't have it both ways. You've relied and quoted SL's book as a source which you're now trying to back down from . You're making it up as you go along with your hypothetical nonsense trying to win an argument.

You’d have a point if I had been talking about press interviews but I’m not. Take John Scott QC for example. He has consistently, on camera, questioned the safety of Luke’s conviction. Professor Allan Jamieson likewise. These people have a professional reputation to protect. Do you think that they’d question a conviction that they believed was safe?

As to Innocents Betrayed are you actually suggesting that new information shouldn’t change previously held views? Now that is ridiculous. Of course when I discovered that elements within Innocents Betrayed are untrue it adjusts the weight I give to the information within the book. Much however of that written by Dr Lean is evidenced within the transcripts published to date. Some is not and that is problematic so, as always, I’ll look elsewhere for verification.

Liken this approach to you and the ‘strong majority’. Apart from a few forum posts claiming that the judge had charged the jury to bring back a strong majority the transcripts tell us that is absolutely not true. The judge merely told the jury that 8 jury members who believed Luke was guilty was enough for a guilty verdict. Nothing more. Of course the verdict looks stronger if a verdict had been brought down with a strong majority but we have absolutely no idea if this was the case. The judge certainly didn’t insist on it. More propaganda but to what end? Yet you believe it and continue to promote the lie even although at this point you must know it to be untrue.

[Chris_Halkides]

You’d have a point if I had been talking about press interviews but I’m not. Take John Scott QC for example. He has consistently, on camera, questioned the safety of Luke’s conviction. Professor Allan Jamieson likewise. These people have a professional reputation to protect. Do you think that they’d question a conviction that they believed was safe?

There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"

Yes he now makes money from producing tv programmes about notorious cases like this one and Jack the Ripper, etc.

[Chris_Halkides]

Yes he now makes money from producing tv programmes about notorious cases like this one and Jack the Ripper, etc.

One, regardless of the merits of the case, this fact gives him a disincentive to criticize the present conviction, in that it might alienate a portion of his audience.  Two, there is a second disincentive.  I will need a US case to illustrate my point.  Suppose a US true crime personality akin to Professor Wilson championed Raymond Clark in the murder of Annie Le.  The evidence against Mr. Clark was overwhelming, and claiming that this was a wrongful conviction would lead to a loss of credibility.  In other words, there are one or two self-interested reasons that Professor Wilson might choose to remain silent; there are no obvious countervailing ones.

[faithlilly]

There is also David Wilson, who according to Wikipedia "is a Scottish emeritus professor of criminology at Birmingham City University.[1] A former prison governor, he is well known as a criminologist specialising in murder and serial killers[2][3] through his work with various British police forces, academic publications, books and media appearances.[2][4]"

I didn’t include David Wilson as I haven’t heard him express his views in a television interview.

[Vertigo Swirl]

One, regardless of the merits of the case, this fact gives him a disincentive to criticize the present conviction, in that it might alienate a portion of his audience.  Two, there is a second disincentive.  I will need a US case to illustrate my point.  Suppose a US true crime personality akin to Professor Wilson championed Raymond Clark in the murder of Annie Le.  The evidence against Mr. Clark was overwhelming, and claiming that this was a wrongful conviction would lead to a loss of credibility.  In other words, there are one or two self-interested reasons that Professor Wilson might choose to remain silent; there are no obvious countervailing ones.

You can’t be serious.  There is a whole industry of people making a decent living out of challenging the prevailing view or verdict in all sorts of cases and conspiracy theories.  There will always be an eager audience for this sort of thing, anything that goes against the orthodoxy and encourages these conspiracy minded people to believe that they are smarter than the gullible sheeple who accept the official view.

[Chris_Halkides]

You can’t be serious.  There is a whole industry of people making a decent living out of challenging the prevailing view or verdict in all sorts of cases and conspiracy theories.  There will always be an eager audience for this sort of thing, anything that goes against the orthodoxy and encourages these conspiracy minded people to believe that they are smarter than the gullible sheeple who accept the official view.

Is it your opinion that people who are challenging the present conviction are conspiracy theorists?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Is it your opinion that people who are challenging the present conviction are conspiracy theorists?

Many of them are, in my opinion.  They will have a predisposition to believe that there are cover ups at a senior level not just in this case but in many others.  How many MoJs has Sandra Lean championed which turned out not to be MoJs for example?

[Chris_Halkides]

I read through Dr. Hiremath's testimony, who indicated that fingernail scrapings were taken from Luke.  Lack of blood or DNA from these samples is mildly exculpatory.  The fact that the samples were taken bolsters the argument that Luke was a suspect as of 6:30 AM on 1 July.

[faithlilly]

I read through Dr. Hiremath's testimony, who indicated that fingernail scrapings were taken from Luke.  Lack of blood or DNA from these samples is mildly exculpatory.  The fact that the samples were taken bolsters the argument that Luke was a suspect as of 6:30 AM on 1 July.

This is interesting from the doctor’s testimony.

“ And do you remember Mr
Mitchell? Would you recognise him? - No, I
don't think so.”

Dr Hiremath’s, I would assume, didn’t see many 14 year olds who needed the kind of samples that she took from Luke taken. She would certainly have been up close and personal with him for a prolonged period of time and yet she admitted that she would not recognise him.

It does make you question the other eyewitness testimony in this case.