"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[KenMair]

It is creepy.

But i suppose it is better than getting an updated selfie from his cell, it would be worse if Campbell photobombed him too. Certainly would not be able to pull on the heart strings, of the lonely middle-aged mothers that he seems to attract.

He's already had a birthday card from Tobin and the full backing of killer James Morrison but Lean & Co seem to play that down although there were a few deviants there yesterday - moths to a flame. Forbes was off at the ALBA conference - much more important than campaigning for his book about the poor wee laddie.

[mrswah]

A fair collection of fishwives and men at the protest - not as many people as at the "Save the Abbeyhill Day Centre" demo though. Didn't see Forbes - has he gone off to fight for Putin?

1st prize for best/worst banner: FREE LUKE - TRIAL BY MEDIA - WATCH CH5 MURDER IN A SMALL TOWN (the irony)
Runner Up: FREE LUKE MITCHELL - HE WAS JUST A BOY (So was Aaron Campbell)

Looked like some people took their kids along to Lean's vanity show and the murderer himself spoke via recording!?? Poor souls.

So, what were you doing there, Kenmore???

[Rusty]

He's already had a birthday card from Tobin and the full backing of killer James Morrison but Lean & Co seem to play that down although there were a few deviants there yesterday - moths to a flame. Forbes was off at the ALBA conference - much more important than campaigning for his book about the poor wee laddie.

Jeez, Jack of all trades will be putting himself up as Alba candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith next.

[Chris_Halkides]

Unless the full transcript of the interview becomes available, then you cannot say with absolute certainly, what was "outrageous"

From a 2009 article at The Guardian:
"As well as pursuing a new appeal in Scotland, Mitchell's defence team has lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) about his pre-arrest interview, which, in accordance with Scottish law, was conducted without a solicitor present. Despite denying last year's appeal, the three judges said some of the police questioning of Mitchell was 'outrageous'."

I put the word "outrageous" in quotes because it was, in fact, a quotation.  My own view is that the very notion allowing a 15-year-old to be questioned without a solicitor is shocking failure of the criminal justice system of Scotland, before one even gets to the mind boggling way in which the questioning was done.  From the Daily Record:

"He [Lord Hamilton] added: At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response but rather endeavoring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by hostile interrogation."

[KenMair]

So, what were you doing there, Kenmore???

I was cycling past on my way to Abbeyhill to protest about my old learning centre funding cuts. About 100 turned up - tea and scones provided.

[Rusty]

I put the word "outrageous" in quotes because it was, in fact, a quotation.  My own view is that the very notion allowing a 15-year-old to be questioned without a solicitor is shocking failure of the criminal justice system of Scotland, before one even gets to the mind boggling way in which the questioning was done.  From the Daily Record:

I'd not go quoting the Daily Record here, pal. You will get incarcerated to the depths of hell from Faith for doing so. But since you are a staunch innocent supporter, you will probably get a free pass from the self-proclaimed champion of the wits.

[faithlilly]

I'd not go quoting the Daily Record here, pal. You will get incarcerated to the depths of hell from Faith for doing so. But since you are a staunch innocent supporter, you will probably get a free pass from the self-proclaimed champion of the wits.

There you go Rusty, this quote is from the Herald.

“ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. ”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12463762.luke-mitchell-read-judgment-jodi-jones-case/

[Rusty]

There you go Rusty, this quote is from the Herald.

“ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored. ”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12463762.luke-mitchell-read-judgment-jodi-jones-case/

Acknowledged by the SCCRC. They still chucked it out.

Next!

[KenMair]

Acknowledged by the SCCRC. They still chucked it out.

Next!

And pop up the 200 page SCCRC Statement of Reasons why SL's appeal/review failed. And persisting with the useless Change.org petition that isn't even acknowledged by Scottish Parliament. You'd almost think the campaigners didn't want anything to happen.

[Chris_Halkides]

I'd not go quoting the Daily Record here, pal. You will get incarcerated to the depths of hell from Faith for doing so. But since you are a staunch innocent supporter, you will probably get a free pass from the self-proclaimed champion of the wits.

I also quoted The Guardian, which you ignored.  I suggest looking up the entry on Luke Mitchell at Murderpedia.org, and searching on the term "outrageous."  Among other things you will find the following:  "Before coming to consider, so far as necessary, the details of the interview, it is appropriate to make some general observations. In that part of it which was objected to, commencing at page 12 of Crown production 44, undoubtedly some of the questions put by the police officers can only be described as outrageous. One of the clearest examples of what we mean is to be found at page 55 of the transcript."

And:  "Sitting over the appeal were Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth and Lord Hamilton, who delivered the decision. They ruled that there was sufficient evidence in law that Luke Mitchell could be convicted on and rejected his other grounds of appeal, yet stated that police questioning of Mitchell on 14 August 2003 had been "outrageous" and was "to be deplored.""

[faithlilly]

Acknowledged by the SCCRC. They still chucked it out.

Next!

The Glasgow Two were freed after several appeals.

Let’s remember that.

[Rusty]

I also quoted The Guardian, which you ignored.  I suggest looking up the entry on Luke Mitchell at Murderpedia.org, and searching on the term "outrageous."  Among other things you will find the following:  "Before coming to consider, so far as necessary, the details of the interview, it is appropriate to make some general observations. In that part of it which was objected to, commencing at page 12 of Crown production 44, undoubtedly some of the questions put by the police officers can only be described as outrageous. One of the clearest examples of what we mean is to be found at page 55 of the transcript."

And:  "Sitting over the appeal were Lord Osborne, Lord Kingarth and Lord Hamilton, who delivered the decision. They ruled that there was sufficient evidence in law that Luke Mitchell could be convicted on and rejected his other grounds of appeal, yet stated that police questioning of Mitchell on 14 August 2003 had been "outrageous" and was "to be deplored.""

Already answered in my previous post.

[Rusty]

The Glasgow Two were freed after several appeals.

Let’s remember that.

Next you will be mentioning Hillsborough.

[Rusty]

And pop up the 200 page SCCRC Statement of Reasons why SL's appeal/review failed. And persisting with the useless Change.org petition that isn't even acknowledged by Scottish Parliament. You'd almost think the campaigners didn't want anything to happen.

Online petitions are a joke. One person can sit all day, signing it multiple times. 

[Chris_Halkides]

Acknowledged by the SCCRC. They still chucked it out.

KenMore had written "Plus they were represented by a credible lawyer who managed to expose police failings which has yet to be proven in this case."  Thus the context of the question was whether or not there had been unprofessional behaviors.  My comments rebutted his claim.  Whether or not this should have been sufficient grounds for appeal is a separate question.  On that question I will be brief; anyone who places high confidence in any appeals system is putting hope above experience.