Author Topic: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.  (Read 4709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2021, 05:43:39 PM »
What happens when an expert witness proves not to be an expert at all and opines about key issues in a murder case that are beyond his areas of expertise?

For starters, the hapless wretch against whom the expert is testifying is convicted and sentenced to prison. Ultimately, however, the conviction is — or at least, in the case of People vs. King, was — overturned, and the case sent back for a retrial.

At least that's how a three-judge panel from the state's 2nd District Appellate Court saw it. In a recent decision, it unanimously concluded that former FBI agent and criminal profiler Mark Safarik should have kept many of his thoughts to himself when he testified against a husband, Shadwick King, charged with the 2014 murder of his wife, Kathleen.

More importantly, the appeals court found, Kane County prosecutors shouldn't have solicited Safarik's testimony on certain issues, and trial Judge James Hallock shouldn't have permitted him to answer.

The case is instructive because it outlines how expert testimony can — and cannot — be used in criminal cases that involve issues beyond most jurors' understanding.

Yep ⬇️

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled unanimously Jan. 21, 2020 that King should be granted a new trial because Kane County prosecutors committed several errors, among them allowing a former FBI profiler to testify as a crime scene expert witness when he was not.

“We respect the court’s decision and we are prepared to re-try the case,” then-Kane County State’s Attorney Joe McMahon had said in a statement at the time.

King had appealed his conviction to the Illinois Second District Appellate Court in Elgin. The Appellate court also issued a unanimous ruling Aug. 21, 2018, overturning King’s conviction and ordering a new trial.

McMahon had appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the Appellate ruling.

The 27-page appellate decision cited the testimony of Mark Safarik, a “crime scene and behavioral analyst” as beyond the scope of his expertise.

Likewise, the 22-page state supreme court decision also found that Safarik should not have testified.

“There is absolutely no question that Safarik never should have been allowed to testify as an expert in this case,” the ruling stated. “To begin with, significant portions of Safarik’s testimony went far beyond the field of ‘crime scene analysis,’ which is Safarik’s undeniable field of expertise.”

The Supreme Court decision also stated, “We will not condone the calling of experts solely for the purpose of shoring up one party’s theory of the case, which is precisely the role that Safarik played here.”


https://www.shawlocal.com/kane-county-chronicle/news/crime-and-courts/2021/02/02/new-trial-date-set-for-geneva-man-accused-of-killing-his-wife/

Which is exactly what Sandra Lean is attempting to do with killer Luke Mitchell’s case


« Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 05:51:52 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2021, 07:15:03 PM »
In short, the main giver of such information is somewhat renowned for claiming evidence to be undisclosed, not known to the defence, purely on the basis that it was not inclusive of the hand me downs received from DF's original defence of Mitchell.

‘The analysis of 14-year-old Jodi’s killer was sent to the former force headquarters at Fettes in Edinburgh in January 2004, 11 weeks before Mitchell was charged.

However, despite all the cost and effort that went into acquiring the document, the report was never produced in court or even disclosed to his legal team.’

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict



Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2021, 11:15:45 AM »



Mentions the legal team and one assumes the original defence re applying to the FBI and the Crown, not however the police themselves? Hard to determine any real accuracy via a media report.

The thing here is, it certainly appears that the visit, reason for, was known and not hidden as such. As David Wilson rightly points out, it is a tool to use and not evidence. Which in turn means it is not non-disclosure where importance of evidence is at stake. Neither the police onto the Crown sought to use anything from it. And it does not say if the police were approached by the defence and refused, that it appears to be the FBI and disclosure to their client only. Not a direct fault with the police.

Revolving doors of passing the buck - Any legal team has their own options for seeking out any guidance around profiling, and as per my previous post and from the book - Not used so nothing to counter act? It's made the news, more attention but certainly not where it matters, which is of course evidence to show that LM did not murder Jodi Jones. There is none.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2021, 07:24:53 PM »


The thing here is, it certainly appears that the visit, reason for, was known and not hidden as such.

I’m not sure what report you are reading but the one posted by myself explicitly says the opposite of what you are suggesting.

‘ In fact, Scottish police have never confirmed its existence – and it was only released by the FBI following a Freedom of Information request in the USA.’

The reason for the visit….a profile was sought. The profile was subsequently hidden by the very people who requested that the profile be constructed. It is obvious that none of this was known at the time or subsequently until the FOI request. It is beyond supposition that the profile was not disclosed to Luke’s defence team because the FBI’s opinion, an opinion let us not forget that L&B police had set such stall by only months earlier that they had spent many thousands of pounds acquiring it, explicitly ruled out the very person Dobbie had decided was the vicious murderer of Jodi Jones.

As David Wilson rightly points out, it is a tool to use and not evidence. Which in turn means it is not non-disclosure where importance of evidence is at stake. Neither the police onto the Crown sought to use anything from it. And it does not say if the police were approached by the defence and refused, that it appears to be the FBI and disclosure to their client only. Not a direct fault with the police.

Of course the police and Crown took nothing from the report, it didn’t suit their purposes. In fact it said the very opposite of what they had hoped….that Luke could not have been the killer. This report should, of course been disclosed to the defence  but that’s really secondary to the fact that one of the most highly respected and experienced Behavioural Analysis units in the world had concluded that the very child that Dobbie had staked his reputation on convicting could not have been the killer. I would love to have been a fly on the wall the morning that that report plopped onto the mat at L&Bs police headquarters.

Revolving doors of passing the buck - Any legal team has their own options for seeking out any guidance around profiling, and as per my previous post and from the book - Not used so nothing to counter act? It's made the news, more attention but certainly not where it matters, which is of course evidence to show that LM did not murder Jodi Jones. There is none.

Keep wriggling.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2021, 12:20:57 PM »


Ah, this vain attempt at some brownie points, that type of wriggling? - It mentions in a media article that it was not disclosed to the defence?

Ok baby steps once more for you. You put up an article from the present day, yourself and SL and co, are on it. With all those wows and all else. As if it is some major piece of new information. Talk of being undisclosed and all else. With me so far?

You then pull up an article that is 7 years old with similar type of information in it. In an attempt to win some brownie points around disclosure - still with me?

In said second article - It does not mention which legal team (still with me?) It does not state which year or by whom (name) they applied to the Crown and subsequently the FBI but not the police directly. It says it was undisclosed to the defence and so forth. It does not say who stated this, still with me? Then it goes on to give feedback from the main support of innocence, namely SL and CM. Who mention that they have, without mincing words, submitted this area of information also to the SCCRC. It also has feed back from police Scotland, who did not deny it's existence, stating that they do use such avenues and do not comment on individual cases as such.

I found the article interesting, I mentioned the vagueness around it and of course it being a media article in itself, which in turn appears to have been fed from certain people, namely campaigners for innocence. I made mention that what they class as being undisclosed, whichever slant they may wish to apply to this - does not equate to the police, Crown and so forth withholding evidence as such. Pointing out the words of David Wilson around it being a tool to use and not evidence.

So whilst you are looking for some brownie points to score, go back and do some more homework. Come back with dates, names and years please. Something a little stronger than a media article, to show that DF and co knew not of this visit to the states? Who applied for the freedom of disclosure around this in the States? How did they know of it?

Now for something else I found interesting in this article, comments from the ever so truthful duo? Namely this to start with.
 
Quote
Mrs Mitchell said: “I believe the findings would have pointed to a violent adult, not a schoolboy.

"They would have already come out if they had reflected badly on Luke – in the same way that other things about him that could be spun negatively somehow found their way into the public domain.”

We have the opposite applying here, finding anything at all to spin another light away from LM? But that is not really what interests me. I am going to refer to the podcasts of 2018 and that joint theory between CM and SL. I'm sure you know the one already. Where they have 'a bike, bloodied clothing, knife, the evidence chucked into the back of a van at a scrap merchants, crushed and gone forever'

So, between whichever year? they knew of the profiling to the podcast in 2018. CM puts out, that if the report points to a "violent adult, not a schoolboy" then it points away from her child. To then dismissing the profilers account completely as she heavily leans on two 16/17 yr olds, taken said bike to this scrap merchants and so forth. 

So you see, even his mother and SL do not really believe the profilers account of someone so young NOT carrying this out, do they? When they heavily lean towards two youths barely a year or two older than LM's 15yrs (mere days off his birthday). Or do we add another year or two on to the other two males, also in their teens?

Or we use sense, do we not. This 15yr old who was mature far beyond his years. Allowed to smoke, drink, underage sex at home. Bought and supplied with knives. Driving up and down the estate. Who bowed to no authority figure, constantly disregarded school rules and so forth. Took control of heated interviews with adult males and on it goes.

And we can move onto the original defence. IF they had been aware of the contents of this report and how that would have faired in court? Whilst attempting to apply this, as not being fitting of his client, he would instantly have wiped out his main two areas of casting doubt. That being three other teenage boys. The duo on the bike and Kelly with his DNA?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2021, 01:43:30 PM »
I find the conclusions of the ex FBI Profiler cum TV Personality somewhat baffling - who says 14 year olds can't commit murders with a sexual element?
These two 13 year olds did for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ana_Kri%C3%A9gel
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2021, 07:41:53 PM »
Ah, this vain attempt at some brownie points, that type of wriggling? - It mentions in a media article that it was not disclosed to the defence?

Ok baby steps once more for you. You put up an article from the present day, yourself and SL and co, are on it. With all those wows and all else. As if it is some major piece of new information. Talk of being undisclosed and all else. With me so far?

You then pull up an article that is 7 years old with similar type of information in it. In an attempt to win some brownie points around disclosure - still with me?

In said second article - It does not mention which legal team (still with me?) It does not state which year or by whom (name) they applied to the Crown and subsequently the FBI but not the police directly. It says it was undisclosed to the defence and so forth. It does not say who stated this, still with me? Then it goes on to give feedback from the main support of innocence, namely SL and CM. Who mention that they have, without mincing words, submitted this area of information also to the SCCRC. It also has feed back from police Scotland, who did not deny it's existence, stating that they do use such avenues and do not comment on individual cases as such.

I found the article interesting, I mentioned the vagueness around it and of course it being a media article in itself, which in turn appears to have been fed from certain people, namely campaigners for innocence. I made mention that what they class as being undisclosed, whichever slant they may wish to apply to this - does not equate to the police, Crown and so forth withholding evidence as such. Pointing out the words of David Wilson around it being a tool to use and not evidence.

So whilst you are looking for some brownie points to score, go back and do some more homework. Come back with dates, names and years please. Something a little stronger than a media article, to show that DF and co knew not of this visit to the states? Who applied for the freedom of disclosure around this in the States? How did they know of it?

Now for something else I found interesting in this article, comments from the ever so truthful duo? Namely this to start with.
 
We have the opposite applying here, finding anything at all to spin another light away from LM? But that is not really what interests me. I am going to refer to the podcasts of 2018 and that joint theory between CM and SL. I'm sure you know the one already. Where they have 'a bike, bloodied clothing, knife, the evidence chucked into the back of a van at a scrap merchants, crushed and gone forever'

So, between whichever year? they knew of the profiling to the podcast in 2018. CM puts out, that if the report points to a "violent adult, not a schoolboy" then it points away from her child. To then dismissing the profilers account completely as she heavily leans on two 16/17 yr olds, taken said bike to this scrap merchants and so forth. 

So you see, even his mother and SL do not really believe the profilers account of someone so young NOT carrying this out, do they? When they heavily lean towards two youths barely a year or two older than LM's 15yrs (mere days off his birthday). Or do we add another year or two on to the other two males, also in their teens?

Or we use sense, do we not. This 15yr old who was mature far beyond his years. Allowed to smoke, drink, underage sex at home. Bought and supplied with knives. Driving up and down the estate. Who bowed to no authority figure, constantly disregarded school rules and so forth. Took control of heated interviews with adult males and on it goes.

And we can move onto the original defence. IF they had been aware of the contents of this report and how that would have faired in court? Whilst attempting to apply this, as not being fitting of his client, he would instantly have wiped out his main two areas of casting doubt. That being three other teenage boys. The duo on the bike and Kelly with his DNA?

“AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.

Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.”

Enough said.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Rusty

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2021, 11:46:05 PM »
I have some leftover straws from a kid's party. I think some on here could do with them & give them a right good old clutch.

Offline Guiltyascharged

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2021, 12:50:44 AM »
Faithlilly don't give up your day job!

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2021, 09:25:44 AM »
“AN ex-FBI profiler who worked with cops on the Jodi Jones murder said his team believe convicted killer Luke Mitchell is innocent.

Mark Safarik said they concluded Mitchell, then 14, was too young to have inflicted the sexual injuries Jodi, also 14, suffered.”

Enough said.
Who made him the world's leading authority on the matter I wonder?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2021, 10:15:10 AM »
I have some leftover straws from a kid's party. I think some on here could do with them & give them a right good old clutch.

Of course I could resort to supposition and downright dishonesty as many here do but I prefer to listen to those who actually know something about this sort of thing.

The fact that L&B’s police approached the FBI Behavioural Analysis team and spent thousands sending police officers from their investigation team to the US speaks volumes with regard to how much they actually valued the opinion of Safarik and his team. That the opinion was inconvenient does not negate the obvious esteem that Dobbie held the FBI team in.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2021, 11:58:54 AM »
Faithlilly:
Quote
I would love to have been a fly on the wall the morning that that report plopped onto the mat at L&Bs police headquarters.


Of course I could resort to supposition and downright dishonesty as many here do but I prefer to listen to those who actually know something about this sort of thing.

The fact that L&B’s police approached the FBI Behavioural Analysis team and spent thousands sending police officers from their investigation team to the US speaks volumes with regard to how much they actually valued the opinion of Safarik and his team. That the opinion was inconvenient does not negate the obvious esteem that Dobbie held the FBI team in.


Better to have been a fly that morning in April 2004 when that chap came to the Mitchells door. Where goodness knows how much colluding had taken place between the three craws in those months believing Mitchell was in the clear. Still of course trying to fathom out this claimed seeking for help from a complete stranger? Only a couple of weeks short of those celebrations of that "end of a difficult time" What exactly could that help have been? They were at a point where they really believed there would be no arrest.

But you are correct, whilst they were celebrating in that October the police were busy investigating, flying out to America the same month. Getting a clear picture of the mindset of this serial killer in the making. What I also found interesting in the first article from your tabloid trash as you love to call it, is the profilers use of "convenient" suspect which tells us exactly how little he knew of the evidence itself, solely upon the type of injuries inflicted. Of course it is exactly why these claimed supporters of innocence get away with so much, our very own Scottish Law around disclosure. Now one day when that hopefully changes, people can call out the Charlatans for what they are. When proper, full disclosure is in place.

Where the book of course is overflowing with what you state "supposition" and that clear dishonesty also flowing with all that has been omitted? Where you repeat much of this supposition and of course dishonesty. 

So just a little ironic to say the least, don't you think? One has been able to write on the basis one does? by that very saviour of Scottish Law around disclosure itself. Blind faith I believe it is called. Where the main bleat around this is as the profiler states, that of an easy "convenient" target. Which sits on high amongst the biggest lies of all. This they went for the bairn nonsense, picked on him because they just could. Where as his mother clearly states "The police did not bank on Luke being Luke though - dam right they didn't. Getting that profile through and realising exactly what they were dealing with. Not quite pushed to the side at all. Not to forget of course, they were not the prosecutors, not their role to show the Jury that burden of proof, where no doubt there was much that the Crown sought not to use from the investigation itself. 

So this profiler who can't possibly know everything, gives his insight and opinion. And we know he is wrong, as VS and others have pointed out, here and on social media. Of other cases of young people and "lust killings" Where he mentions sexual areas of disfigurement, yet many areas disfigured that were not sexual in nature, and of course the main sexual area untouched completely. So as stated before, very much up to the Crown what they chose to do with this information. The clear step being, to show the Jury that LM did murder and subsequently mutilate this girl. He is serving his sentence for this, and no doubt there are many out there studying him, the murder and mutilation he did carry out?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2021, 06:48:40 PM »
Faithlilly:

Better to have been a fly that morning in April 2004 when that chap came to the Mitchells door. Where goodness knows how much colluding had taken place between the three craws in those months believing Mitchell was in the clear. Still of course trying to fathom out this claimed seeking for help from a complete stranger? Only a couple of weeks short of those celebrations of that "end of a difficult time" What exactly could that help have been? They were at a point where they really believed there would be no arrest.

But you are correct, whilst they were celebrating in that October the police were busy investigating, flying out to America the same month. Getting a clear picture of the mindset of this serial killer in the making. What I also found interesting in the first article from your tabloid trash as you love to call it, is the profilers use of "convenient" suspect which tells us exactly how little he knew of the evidence itself, solely upon the type of injuries inflicted. Of course it is exactly why these claimed supporters of innocence get away with so much, our very own Scottish Law around disclosure. Now one day when that hopefully changes, people can call out the Charlatans for what they are. When proper, full disclosure is in place.

Where the book of course is overflowing with what you state "supposition" and that clear dishonesty also flowing with all that has been omitted? Where you repeat much of this supposition and of course dishonesty. 

So just a little ironic to say the least, don't you think? One has been able to write on the basis one does? by that very saviour of Scottish Law around disclosure itself. Blind faith I believe it is called. Where the main bleat around this is as the profiler states, that of an easy "convenient" target. Which sits on high amongst the biggest lies of all. This they went for the bairn nonsense, picked on him because they just could. Where as his mother clearly states "The police did not bank on Luke being Luke though - dam right they didn't. Getting that profile through and realising exactly what they were dealing with. Not quite pushed to the side at all. Not to forget of course, they were not the prosecutors, not their role to show the Jury that burden of proof, where no doubt there was much that the Crown sought not to use from the investigation itself. 

So this profiler who can't possibly know everything, gives his insight and opinion. And we know he is wrong, as VS and others have pointed out, here and on social media. Of other cases of young people and "lust killings" Where he mentions sexual areas of disfigurement, yet many areas disfigured that were not sexual in nature, and of course the main sexual area untouched completely. So as stated before, very much up to the Crown what they chose to do with this information. The clear step being, to show the Jury that LM did murder and subsequently mutilate this girl. He is serving his sentence for this, and no doubt there are many out there studying him, the murder and mutilation he did carry out?

Of course there are those who will, uncritically, hang on your every word even though a rudimentary trawl through your posts would reveal someone with a smidgen of real knowledge wrapped in a huge opaque cloud of, at best, supposition and at its worst, disinformation. You confirm their bias, that’s your function. It’s an easy gig, one you obviously enjoy.

“We know the world renowned FBI Behavioural Analysis team are wrong because someone on a forum says so”. Really?
What we do know is that L&B respected the opinion of the BA team to such an extent that the flew some of their best officers thousands of miles, spent tens of thousands of pounds in the middle of a fast moving investigation to deliver the evidence that they had gathered directly to Safarik and his team. To suppose that Safarik and his team weren’t in receipt of all the relevant evidence needed to give an informed opinion is simply for the birds. To believe that is tantamount to questioning Dobbie’s professionalism. Is that what you’re doing?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 10:35:53 PM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2021, 09:08:16 PM »
I wonder why Safarik decided Mitchell was too young to murder with a sexual element to the crime but seemed quite happy to recommend that the killer of Alesha McPhail ( only a year or so older than Mitchell when he raped and inflicted over 100 injuries on her body including her genitalia which sustained “catastrophic injuries”) spendthe rest of his life behind bars?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4035685/alesha-macphail-murderer-aaron-campbell-never-free-experts-warn-fbi-bones-consultant/
« Last Edit: November 06, 2021, 09:14:32 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke Mitchell is Innocent Says Ex FBI Profiler.
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2021, 11:04:55 AM »
I'll do it for you, it was of course the original defence team who applied to both the FBI and the Crown, oddly not the police. But we actually do not know this, do we? One would be fair in their assumption, that if the legal team had applied to the police and were refused, this would be inclusive of these claims of non-disclosure. One thing is sure though, they certainly knew of it pre trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3378781.stm

What would be interesting to know when talking of "lust killing" is of course 'The Black Dahlia' - was this part of the request/report of the profiling. For everything around this type of killing was not simply left aside, was it? The book mentions that it would 'appear' the idea came from a police officer in the days after the murder?!

These "superficial" similarities of sexual areas being disfigured in both crimes, of LM's description, on par with the person who found Elizabeth Short, that of a shop mannequin/dummy. We know that Manson's art work was out prior to the murder, we know also there was a book released the same year around the BD murder. We know of the magazine with DVD bought and viewed within days of the murder by Mitchell. . We do not know that he knew not of the BD, of Manson and so forth. Having no hard evidence of him viewing/seeing this does not prove he did not. We know the murder and mutilation was described as rudimentary, in short a first attempt.  He stated he was introduced to Manson by Jodi, they started going out in the spring time that year, her sister a fan. One is not introduced to something without seeing/hearing them!

So there is a definite connection between profiling around "lust killing" of the BD and Manson. The spanner being that of age where the profiler is concerned. But we know LM was mature beyond his years, we know he was not your average, normal teenager, we only have to look at his interviews, the very reason his defence did not want them played at trial. That complete control, flat effect voice against the barrage of sexual questioning by the police. Where the author attempts to show reactive response with some cherry picked areas, reading in black and white does not show the truth, hearing Mitchell showed exactly how in control, calm and unfazed he was. Taking control the whole time.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2021, 11:07:36 AM by Parky41 »