What makes you certain that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

[mrswah]

I note that most people posting on this thread believe Luke is guilty, so I have a question for you:

What piece (or pieces) of evidence make you so certain that Luke killed Jodi?

I don't find the evidence very convincing, to be honest, and , had I been on that jury, I certainly would not have been able to find Luke guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

So, what am I missing?

[Paranoid Android]

I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.

The majority of the jury found him guilty.

SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.

[Brietta]

I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.

The majority of the jury found him guilty.

SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.

Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.

Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him.  But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.

We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.

I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.

I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.

[Paranoid Android]

Had I been on that jury I would have had no hesitation in finding him guilty and I would have had no doubt of that given the evidence presented in court by the prosecution.

Don't forget Mitchell had one of Scotland's foremost advocates presenting his case and doing his best for him.  But his sharpness was not enough to overcome the elimination process the police had carried out on other named individuals, the weight of the circumstantial evidence presented against him or the obvious fabrication of Mitchell's alibi.
If you have to lie about where you were, in my opinion you have something to hide.

We can get a flavour of the evidence provided at trial when reading about Mitchell's appeals to the Law Lords who explained exactly why they upheld the judgement made at Mitchell's original trial.

I think Mitchell had a fair trial which is a damn sight more than Jodi Jones was allowed or her family in the years since and I am singularly unimpressed by the unashamed innuendo and stretching of 'truths' out of context exhibited by the campaigners on Mitchell's behalf.

I am glad the jury at Mitchell's trial had the courage of their convictions to go for the outcome which kept what they obviously believed to be an exceptionally dangerous man off the streets.

That's absolutely fair.

Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt - the Suzanne Pilley/David Gilroy case is a good example of that, imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

I note that most people posting on this thread believe Luke is guilty, so I have a question for you:

What piece (or pieces) of evidence make you so certain that Luke killed Jodi?

I don't find the evidence very convincing, to be honest, and , had I been on that jury, I certainly would not have been able to find Luke guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

So, what am I missing?

He liked Marilyn Manson.

Why isn't that enough for you?

[Brietta]

He liked Marilyn Manson.

Why isn't that enough for you?

His youthful activities were all analysed by the court including his involvement in drugs, the difficulties he had in school, his privileged and some might think fairly affluent lifestyle, his well documented interest in knives, the rather strange urinating into bottles collected in his bedroom (despite his legal representatives trying to block that one but which the trial judge allowed - a decision supported by the appeal court judges).

So it is hardly surprising that his taste in music came into play.  Although I rather think the prosecution were more interested in Manson's interest in portraying a horrific murder which the defilement of Jodi's body called to mind.

How much interest the jury placed on that is anyone's guess but it certainly does give an indication of just how badly Jodi was mutilated, according to the coroner both before and after death.

The jury had viewed photographs of the murder scene and had viewed photographs of Jodi's body and the injuries inflicted on her.

[faithlilly]

Corrine, in her interview with James English said something which, in general, I think explains rather concisely the difference between the pro and against Luke camps. She said if she went to an area where mostly broadsheets were read she was treated with respect yet if she went to an area where mostly tabloids were read she was a dead woman walking.

To me that speaks volumes.

[Paranoid Android]

Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.

[Venturi Swirl]

Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.

It’s arrogance and a misplaced sense of superiority too, the view that tabloid readers have no respect for others and are uneducated, threatening s..m, while broadsheet readers are polite and respectful.  Absolute arse (I read the Times and am rather uncouth myself).

[faithlilly]

Intellectual snobbery right there, folks.

Intellectual snobbery they cry right before they insist that they read the Guardian.

No Sun readers here...no Siree Bob.

[Venturi Swirl]

Intellectual snobbery they cry right before they insist that they read the Guardian.

No Sun readers here...no Siree Bob.

yes we know you’re a Guardian reader and despise readers of the Sun, why are you going out of your way to prove PA’s point?

[Paranoid Android]

yes we know you’re a Guardian reader and despise readers of the Sun, why are you going out of your way to prove PA’s point?

Word.

The implication is that anyone who disagrees with Dr Lean is a Sun-reading mouth-breather, and those who agree with her are future Nobel Prize winners.

Makes you wonder whether folk are in it because they're interested in discerning the truth or because they want to be proved right.

[faithlilly]

Word.

The implication is that anyone who disagrees with Dr Lean is a Sun-reading mouth-breather, and those who agree with her are future Nobel Prize winners.

Makes you wonder whether folk are in it because they're interested in discerning the truth or because they want to be proved right.

Aren’t they the same thing...in the end?

BTW you can agree with Dr Lean and still be a Sun-reading mouth breather....it’s just less likely.

[Paranoid Android]

I'm not interested in being proved right - I'd just like to know what happened.

For the record, I never take a paper these days - I wouldn't go near The Sun or The Record for moral reasons, and I wouldn't touch The Daily Mail because I'm not a right-winger who is afraid of foreigners.

Not that it actually matters - it's an absolutely meaningless point that was introduced for no reason other than to attempt to boost the egos of Dr Lean's followers - an attempt that has backfired, btw.

I can entertain the possibility that LM could be innocent - Dr Lean and her followers can't accept the possibility that LM could be guilty - that automatically and logically means that Dr Lean and her followers are less open-minded.

Hopefully folk can move on from this pointless pissing contest, and talk about the actual case instead of trying to land sly digs.

[William Wallace]

I've never said LM is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Had I been on the jury, I couldn't have found LM guilty based on the evidence presented in court, and I was surprised by the verdict at the time.

The majority of the jury found him guilty.

SM's refusal to provide an alibi is a massive issue - some will claim that was due to intimidation, etc - I doubt that.

The majority could have been 8-7 but they don't disclose the figures. The case is unfathomable. It should have been a Not Proven verdict.