UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on February 22, 2023, 03:36:20 PM
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
-
The attempts to spring him from prison by his supporters won’t help him
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/supports-killer-luke-mitchell-hatch-25023206
This 👆🏽will have gone on his prison security files
Sandra Lean
Exactly Caroline - it's something so many people just didn't realise - the sentence was "without limit of time." If he can't demonstrate a "reduction in risk," he'll never meet the criteria of "manageable risk in the community," which is what the parole board would need. But how can he demonstrate a reduction in risk, when he was never a risk in the first place? That's the dilemma - to "demonstrate" that reduction, he'd first have to accept their claims of what made him such a risk - i.e. that he murdered Jodi. For almost 20 years, he's been telling the world he is innocent, so it will just go round and round, unless or until he case is independently reviewed, or new evidence overturns the conviction.
And [moderated] and innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean hasn’t helped him at all
Numerous dangerous offenders, killers and other disturbed individuals have made public statements of having been in prison with this murderer - which could also show he’s been networking
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
Is he up for parole now then? That would explain the recent LM activity on here. I do hope he is denied it.
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon. In fact, the wider public would be more of a threat to him rather than the other way round, despite Luke's Army. There is no way he could live normally again.
Will he be joining up with Aaron Campbell when he turns 21 and moves to an adult prison?
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
And?
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon. In fact, the wider public would be more of a threat to him rather than the other way round, despite Luke's Army. There is no way he could live normally again.
Will he be joining up with Aaron Campbell when he turns 21 and moves to an adult prison?
Half his life has been stolen from him. How could he ever begin to live normally after that?
-
And?
why is his legal team lying about it?
-
Half his life has been stolen from him. How could he ever begin to live normally after that?
At least he has a life to live, unlike his victim.
-
At least he has a life to live, unlike his victim.
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
-
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
It’s amazing how many people get their kicks these days by inflicting additional pain on the families of victims of horrendous crimes.
-
And he continues to protest his innocence that has lead to a shameful campaign against the victim's family by twisted Lean & Forbes. Lies, lies and more lies. When JuJ went to see him and asked "Why didn't you phone back that night when she never turned up?" Not an ounce of remorse, only trying to think of himself while encouraging others lives to be destroyed by a hate mob of lunatics that believed a Channel 5 doc.
“ Forbes on the other hand, resorts to abuse calling people, liars, trolls and imbeciles when he is challenged.”
It really is a pity that you don’t practice what you preach.
-
It’s amazing how many people get their kicks these days by inflicting additional pain on the families of victims of horrendous crimes.
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Every word spoken as always has the opposite meaning, where we can without doubt place "actions speak louder" repeatedly. The soul purpose of intent which has without doubt been to cause harm to life by whatever means, his representatives on the outside carrying his wishes out, for and on behalf of him. Being aggrieved by a system whilst pleading innocence is one thing, attacking constantly the victim, her family and others connected is something entirely different. Where we take LM's words of not wanting others to be treated wrongfully as he claimed he was and place them in the trash, empty words, and as above, only the actions that count for anything. It is constantly on repeat, it happened to the Mitchell's so we are doing it to others - Ms Lean saying that it is ok just now, it is for the greater good - Guffaw!
-
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Every word spoken as always has the opposite meaning, where we can without doubt place "actions speak louder" repeatedly. The soul purpose of intent which has without doubt been to cause harm to life by whatever means, his representatives on the outside carrying his wishes out, for and on behalf of him. Being aggrieved by a system whilst pleading innocence is one thing, attacking constantly the victim, her family and others connected is something entirely different. Where we take LM's words of not wanting others to be treated wrongfully as he claimed he was and place them in the trash, empty words, and as above, only the actions that count for anything. It is constantly on repeat, it happened to the Mitchell's so we are doing it to others - Ms Lean saying that it is ok just now, it is for the greater good - Guffaw!
Good point. Surely it would be possible for him and his team to concentrate on the so called evidence that he didn’t commit the crime without also in turn pointing the finger at others? Or is his only evidence based on making spurious claims about others and what they were supposedly up to on the day? Ie: deflection?
-
I'd be very surprised if he was released anytime soon
Freedom of information requests for psycho killer Luke Mitchell’s 22 page witness statement (dated 1st July 2003), and other transcripts, should be made to the Scottish Courts & Tribunal Services (SCTS)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/23/convicted-killer-luke-muir-mitchells-22-page-witness-statement-freedom-of-information-request-part-166/
A ‘new lawful basis’ could see the transcripts requested released
-
In the unlikely event he's paroled, would he be released with his mother? I wonder if he'll be on suicide watch? Protection wing is not real life.
-
In the unlikely event he's paroled, would he be released with his mother? I wonder if he'll be on suicide watch? Protection wing is not real life.
I wonder how many of Mitchell’s champions would be entirely at ease with having him move in with them and their families?
-
I wonder how many of Mitchell’s champions would be entirely at ease with having him move in with them and their families?
Exactly. I have put it to many of them before. Never ever got an answer. Speaks volumes. I certainly wouldn't trust him around my kids.
-
Exactly. I have put it to many of them before. Never ever got an answer. Speaks volumes. I certainly wouldn't trust him around my kids.
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
But a paroled murderer and satanist, sure no problem *%87
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Would I let a racist or bigot spend time around my kids, absolutely not.
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
-
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
to those on the far left (as Faithlilly is) using the term “gypsy” in a derogatory manner is far more troublesome than being a drug using Satan worshipper with a penchant for knives and a conviction for murder. Actually it’s just virtue signalling, and fairly typical of this particular member so par for the course.
-
You don’t appear to have asked me. Would I support Luke after he is released from prison, absolutely in whatever way I could.
Heaven forbid he is ever released. Would you also welcome fellow child killers Aaron Campbell and Ian Huntley back into the community as every MOJ starts off as a conviction? You could get Rose West round for a chat too.
-
You're quite prickly, faithlilly, aren't you? And a seemingly self-appointed doyenne of the 'LM Is Innocent' online movement (I've been wondering for a wee while now if you are actually SL herself). Anyway . . . you'd be willing to help and support a psychopath? Would you continue to do so if he confessed to you he'd done it?
Racist or bigot? I can't help but think that this is aimed at me, since you called me out recently for my gypsy comments and asked if I was a Protestant. For the record, I'm not racist or bigoted, and neither am I Protestant. I'm largely agnostic and quite cynical of all organised religion. I quite like the idea of me being a Nontheist Quaker.
Prickly…no…unwilling to suffer fools gladly…absolutely and to be honest it doesn’t surprise me that you might think that I’m Dr Lean as you really aren’t too good at this research malarkey.
Would I support Luke if he confessed? What a silly question. Are you a small boy?
You’re not racist? Your own words betray you.
-
Heaven forbid he is ever released. Would you also welcome fellow child killers Aaron Campbell and Ian Huntley back into the community as every MOJ starts off as a conviction? You could get Rose West round for a chat too.
There is nothing to suggest that Aaron Campbell, Ian Huntley or Rose West have been the victims of a wrongful conviction so I think they’re best left where they are, don’t you?
I would however welcome around for a chat the Guildford four, Birmingham six and all the wrongly convicted sub-postmasters that I could fit into my front room.
-
Certainly is true that prisoners do not have admit guilt to gain parole. It is the risk factor however along with victim empathy, the latter whether guilty or innocence is a must. I believe they have to take courses around this as opposed to rehabilitation around an offence they plead innocence to.
Every action of LM will be assessed, those carried out for him in the outside world, given access to certain people to use only certain information to abuse the victim in this case, and as above - Lack of victim empathy. I am sure Jodi's family will have plenty to say in their statement of reasons.
Do you recall what Sandra Lean said on 18th April 2021 here https://www.youtube.com/live/2_3qmU33Lfg?si=zXUiCkHoTabaWdEc from around 4:32 about “bombarding the prison governor” etc and 58:58 ref her first discredited book No Smoke
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Didn't know where to post this. It's probably old hat and irrelevant, anyway.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-killer-luke-mitchell-boasts-27144366?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#google_vignette
-
The Daily Mail wrote, "Malkinson was wrongly found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the next year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years, but he served a further 10 because he maintained his innocence." The BBC wrote, "He had always protested his innocence and was denied an earlier release on licence because he refused to accept he was guilty." I acknowledge that each legal situation may be different.
-
The Daily Mail wrote, "Malkinson was wrongly found guilty of raping a woman in Greater Manchester in 2003 and the next year was jailed for life with a minimum term of seven years, but he served a further 10 because he maintained his innocence." The BBC wrote, "He had always protested his innocence and was denied an earlier release on licence because he refused to accept he was guilty."
Classic mainstream media (MSM) propaganda
-
I tried to create a new thread about this, but it is still awaiting moderation. Anyway, after listening to LM speaking on the four-part 'Sound Of Silence' podcasts, it seems he won't be getting out of prison anytime soon, and definitely not immediately after he's served the punishment part of his sentence (i.e., twenty years). Naturally, he's a "Category 3 Level 3" MAPPA offender (the most dangerous offender category in Scotland) and it seems that the Scottish Prison Service, Police & Criminal Justice Services, because of the sheer wickedness of his crime, deem him to be unmanageable in the community and too high risk to be released yet (if ever). All of the aforementioned organisations seem to be, perhaps inevitably, evading the hard questions he puts to them and passing the buck. It's not looking good for him, is it? And rather than him highlighting the flaws, shortcomings and rigid bureaucracy within the aforementioned organisations, why does he not go into great detail of why he's innocent? The best he can offer is that he was 'kidnapped' by the state, shut down and essentially tried by the media. He has a platform and voice now, so why doesn't he tell us why he's innocent? In the clip below (one of the four Sound Of Silence podcasts), he says that he doesn't participate in Offending Behaviour Programs/Workshops (LM mentions this between 2:28 - 2:44; the way he casually says "Because I'm innocent" is not very convincing at all, imo), because he's innocent -- but offers no explanation of why. Very telling indeed.
What are your thoughts?
https://youtu.be/fx-IpEHpyOY?feature=shared
-
I tried to create a new thread about this, but it is still awaiting moderation. Anyway, after listening to LM speaking on the four-part 'Sound Of Silence' podcasts, it seems he won't be getting out of prison anytime soon, and definitely not immediately after he's served the punishment part of his sentence (i.e., twenty years). Naturally, he's a "Category 3 Level 3" MAPPA offender (the most dangerous offender category in Scotland) and it seems that the Scottish Prison Service, Police & Criminal Justice Services, because of the sheer wickedness of his crime, deem him to be unmanageable in the community and too high risk to be released yet (if ever). All of the aforementioned organisations seem to be, perhaps inevitably, evading the hard questions he puts to them and passing the buck. It's not looking good for him, is it? And rather than him highlighting the flaws, shortcomings and rigid bureaucracy within the aforementioned organisations, why does he not go into great detail of why he's innocent? The best he can offer is that he was 'kidnapped' by the state, shut down and essentially tried by the media. He has a platform and voice now, so why doesn't he tell us why he's innocent? In the clip below (one of the four Sound Of Silence podcasts), he says that he doesn't participate in Offending Behaviour Programs/Workshops (LM mentions this between 2:28 - 2:44; the way he casually says "Because I'm innocent" is not very convincing at all, imo), because he's innocent -- but offers no explanation of why. Very telling indeed.
What are your thoughts?
https://youtu.be/fx-IpEHpyOY?feature=shared
Be honest MA there’s nothing that Luke could say or do that would convince those who don’t believe in his innocence that he’s innocent. I admire his decision not to throw red meat to people like you. He’ll tell his story to individuals who can actually further his cause and that’s good enough for me.
-
Be honest MA there’s nothing that Luke could say or do that would convince those who don’t believe in his innocence that he’s innocent. I admire his decision not to throw red meat to people like you. He’ll tell his story to individuals who can actually further his cause and that’s good enough for me.
There's plenty he could say. It's extremely telling that he doesn't utter a word about why he is not guilty. There were 20 points of circumstantial evidence used to convict him, yet he chooses to address not a single one of them. Zilch. Maybe someone should press him on the more salient points of that evidence, starting with the olive green army parka that went missing? Then pick his brain about why his own brother did not corroborate the alibi and why he found the body so quickly? Now, that would be worth listening to! Instead, we are left with a psychopath and narcissist harping on about the incompetence the Criminal Justice System has thus far displayed in dealing with the management of his possible parole progression. Not all in vain, however, as there are the usual mouthbreathers who are convinced he's innocent by virtue of his eloquence and his ability to comport himself well in an interview setting.
-
From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence, "If he had played the game and enrolled on a sex offender treatment course, he could have been released after less than seven years. Instead, he maintained his innocence, which kept him behind bars for another decade." Andrew Malkinson's story is a cautionary tale.
I agree with Faith; there is nothing that LM could say that would convince the pro-guilt posters here or elsewhere of his innocence. The notion that Mia alerted LM strikes me as plausible.
-
From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jan/27/andrew-malkinson-dna-hopes-to-prove-innocence), "If he had played the game and enrolled on a sex offender treatment course, he could have been released after less than seven years. Instead, he maintained his innocence, which kept him behind bars for another decade." Andrew Malkinson's story is a cautionary tale.
I agree with Faith; there is nothing that LM could say that would convince the pro-guilt posters here or elsewhere of his innocence. The notion that Mia alerted LM strikes me as plausible.
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
-
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
Again why did the family searchers go down Roan’s Dyke path when Judith allegedly had been told by Jodi that she was mucking about in Easthouses?
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
Because he knew where she was all the time and didn't want to appear to be the one to have found her body on his own and hence raise suspicions of her family. Teenagers know their local surroundings and regular haunts like the back of their hand... I'm sure Mitchell was no exception. Over the V was a favourite concealed trysting and dope-smoking spot; witness the rubbish left there, trees carved with initials, etc. I can't remember if LM claimed to police in interviews or witness statements that he'd never been over the V when the murder occurred or any time before in his life?
-
Then why didn't Luke Mitchell's "search/tracker dog" alert to human or blood presence at first walking easterly along Roan's when they were on their way to meet the search party? Surely if that was its purpose and Mitchell was very concerned about Jodi's disappearance, why didn't he set it in search mode all the way there?
Agreed. The idea that the family pet became a tracker cadaver dog only while heading west is laughable. He took twice as long going east up that path so he would be in the right place to lead the search, then the feint look over the Gino spot to introduce uncertainty. Did he look over the V break before he "found" the body, bearing in mind the body was over an 8 foot wall covered in undergrowth, 43 feet past and the dog was on a short lead?
Again, he was over the wall with no concerns despite claiming never to have been there. Having been to the scene it would be impossible for him to identify anything at that distance in the dark in that short timeframe - one of the 3 main reasons he was found guilty.
-
There's plenty he could say. It's extremely telling that he doesn't utter a word about why he is not guilty. There were 20 points of circumstantial evidence used to convict him, yet he chooses to address not a single one of them. Zilch. Maybe someone should press him on the more salient points of that evidence, starting with the olive green army parka that went missing? Then pick his brain about why his own brother did not corroborate the alibi and why he found the body so quickly? Now, that would be worth listening to!
It's clear he is unable to engage because he doesn't have any answers but is happy to orchestrate a spiteful snidey campaign against the victim's family through SL.
He could say: It wasn't me because of A, B, C etc
Or, my family are all behind me in getting me out and finding who did it
Or have some empathy for Jodi instead of jumping on one of her friends a few weeks later.
He's a pschyo-narcissist so won't think like that which is why he comes across so self-centered when speaking.
-
Mia's trainer, who trained dogs professionally, said that her tracking abilities were exceptional.
In some known or potential wrongful convictions, the convicted person has multiple alibi witnesses (for example Adam Braseel or Richard Rosario) or electronic evidence or both (for example Russ Faria) putting him or her many miles elsewhere. This case is not like those.
-
Mia's trainer, who trained dogs professionally, said that her tracking abilities were exceptional.
So why didn't he let it loose on the way up the path? 11pm at night and girlfriend missing for 6 hours and he decides to wait for another 30 mins until he's in company and keep it on a short lead, really?
-
So why didn't he let it loose on the way up the path? 11pm at night and girlfriend missing for 6 hours and he decides to wait for another 30 mins until he's in company and keep it on a short lead, really?
Luke was on the way to Judith’s, that was the plan. Mia was there because it was dark and Luke was by himself. There was no plan to go back down the path…not at least until Jodi’s gran suggested it. Taking that into consideration when do you think that Luke planned to find the body?
-
Here is a different sort of question: If Adam Braseel, Russ Faria, and others had alibis, then why did they get convicted?
-
Here is a different sort of question: If Adam Braseel, Russ Faria, and others had alibis, then why did they get convicted?
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
-
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
‘Local to you’….there in lies the rub. I think distance does lend objectivity.
-
I think LM might have been focused on meeting up with the other members of the search party. If he were so interested in being the one the one to find the body, why would LM not just go straight there first?
The actual evidence tells us different - On that path by his own claims at 10:59pm, still on that path alone some 22mins later. Utter nonsense of not having the dog switched on because he rushed up any path just wanting off it as quickly as possible! Walking time less than half of 22mins, at a rushed pace, then c'mon! Idling and waiting on the others, or doing goodness knows what around that V break?! For even when the others did arrive LM was not at the top of that path, only around 2/3 by this point! Meeting physically with them around 3/4.
His mother made no attempt to make contact with the place he was claiming to head to, which tells us she had no idea of those claims of going to the Jones house. Then we add in his claim of being home, coming off that call with Judith Jones after 10:50pm, and again, where was it SM was supposed to have located that torch from downstairs? For LM to debate (claim) with mother, be ready and on that path by the next call at 10:59pm - "I smell s***e"
This dog expert, so tell us Chris? Dates and amount of sessions said dog with any training, level of skills, what it was being trained to track and so forth? What was used for any claimed tracking? - Simply repeating the standard "expert tracking" skills is not good enough. We then tie in that no defence called this claimed expert for any evidence, for two reasons perhaps, all is not as it seems with those claims that no one has seen any proof of, bar the dog fetching some toy from up a tree! To the absolute fact that LM was not anywhere near where he claimed said alert took place by said dog! You know, 'my dog alerted to something over the wall directly "parallel" to where the victims body lay on the other side - Did not happen, was not there, dog did not alert to anything of the victims body!
Under 40mins in total, just wow! - From initiating a search directly to the RDP, holding back on said path for others arriving, heading off together and LM diverts attention from searching that path by going to the wall at the first break, the Gino break, some 6ft from ground level. From initiating a search directly to the path, to diverting from searching the path and going to that wall and woodland beyond. He does the same again at the V break, enters the woodland and bingo! That miraculous find, finds the victims body that had been hidden some 43ft west of that break "Parallel" to where he lied the dog reacted on the path side! But it hadn't, he nor his dog, nor JaJ's with SK had been where LM said they were, straight to that V break, always straight to that V break, from the first to their testimony in court!
Mere minutes together on the path, mere seconds in that woodland alone, complete familiarity, and what does LM relate to the police after such a gruesome claimed find? The type of tree from 43ft away from that break in the dark, names it, that "large oak tree" The bobble and on it went - LM led that poor girls family directly to her body in under 40mins!
We go with what did take place, we do not go on if only's - We know with the times he had waited on their arrival, he knew they were heading to that path. We know this as the first thing he asked was had they brought something along for the prop, the dog, that ruse! We know the three knew he was there, supposed to be searching, we know AW shouted out upon their arrival "Is that you Luke?" We know that all communication to them had been directly to the landline of AW's home until after 11:05pm, - by the time of their departure LM was already alone on that path!
Under 40mins and it cannot be said too many times. From being home (claimed), to initiating that search directly there, to holding back, to setting off together, to finding a body that had been hidden in an area of woodland off the beaten track, in the dark, that no one was searching, no dog, just LM alone who had diverted attention from the path to the woodland, that dark woodland beyond that wall. One can keep on saying he could not possibly have killed that girl, there was no forensic evidence, but just like that alibi, one cannot show LM was home and they cannot show he did not know where the victims body was - The evidence for these two areas alone, overwhelming!
-
Instead, we are left with a psychopath and narcissist harping on about the incompetence the Criminal Justice System has thus far displayed in dealing with the management of his possible parole progression. Not all in vain, however, as there are the usual mouthbreathers who are convinced he's innocent by virtue of his eloquence and his ability to comport himself well in an interview setting.
Here is an alternative to the mouthbreather hypothesis: the pro-guilt posters avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from contemplating that someone might have been wrongfully by loudly proclaiming that LM is a psychopath and/or his supporters are gullible. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments on the Todd Willingham case comes to mind as an example of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
-
Why not try addressing the existing questions about LM? I have no idea who these people are as I am only interested in this case as it is local to me. Nothing anyone has posted on here has given me any cause for concern the initial verdict and subsequent appeals were not correct. In fact, I would say SL's campaign has done more harm than good for Mitchell (which is probably what she wants as it keeps her in the spotlight, albeit a small spotlight).
Than I will answer my own question. Juries convicted Mr. Rosario, Mr. Braseel, and many others because they believed eyewitness testimony (sometimes very flawed eyewitness testimony) over alibi evidence, even when there are multiple alibi witnesses. Juries may believe that the defendant's friends or family would like for him or her. Why they also sometimes ignore hard alibi evidence is not so easy to explain. More generally the reason to look into known wrongful convictions is to compare them with possible wrongful convictions, in order to look for similarities or differences. If the Russ Faria case is too far away, then the Andrew Malkinson case (which is much closer) has many salient features.
One reason I am in no hurry to answer questions today is that they are rhetorical only. "Why won't SM defend his brother" is not a real question; if SM did so, the people asking the question would say that he was lying. This inference is obvious, given that CM maintains LM's alibi. First there was "Why won't Luke say that he is innocent?" Now the goalposts shifted to "Why won't Luke address the circumstantial evidence?" A better question is, "If there really were a parka purchased before the murder, why can't the police produce a receipt?"
-
Well Chris, I salute your indefatigability, however questions regarding parka receipts really have no merit as LM was already found guilty already. Whether there was a receipt for the parka is one of many examples brought out recently to cast doubt on the conviction when there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence - take one away and the other 19 or so points still stand.
If I was an innocent in prison I would be making as much noise as possible about it which is why LM's approach doesn't match up with his claims of innocence or lack of support from anyone who knows him. Or to put it another way - what would you do if you were wrongly imprisoned? And would your family and friends rally round to support your claims of innocence or ignore you?
-
Here is an alternative to the mouthbreather hypothesis: the pro-guilt posters avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes from contemplating that someone might have been wrongfully by loudly proclaiming that LM is a psychopath and/or his supporters are gullible. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry's comments on the Todd Willingham case comes to mind as an example of this kind of cognitive dissonance.
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
-
Btw, can anyone tell me who is behind the "What They Found" podcasts? Who is the narrator? I'm simply curious, that's all.
-
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
‘They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them.’
Says the individual you believes that a YouTube commentator’s sister had a photograph of Luke in a parka jacket and was questioned about it in court despite not one scintilla of evidence that it ever happened. The individual who also refused to post one scintilla of proof that an alleged dialogue between them and the commentator ever took place.
Irony aside it really would be funny if it wasn’t so desperate.
-
Well Chris, I salute your indefatigability, however questions regarding parka receipts really have no merit as LM was already found guilty already. Whether there was a receipt for the parka is one of many examples brought out recently to cast doubt on the conviction when there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence - take one away and the other 19 or so points still stand.
If I was an innocent in prison I would be making as much noise as possible about it which is why LM's approach doesn't match up with his claims of innocence or lack of support from anyone who knows him. Or to put it another way - what would you do if you were wrongly imprisoned? And would your family and friends rally round to support your claims of innocence or ignore you?
If Luke is silent, the pro-guilt posters (PGP), say that that is not what they would do if they were wrongfully convicted. If he says something, he gets criticized for being disrespectful to the Jones family. If his supporters don't address the circumstantial evidence, the PGP claim it is a strong case. If they do, the PGP say that the jury made its call; therefore, it is pointless to have a conversation. One problem with the PGP position is that (as Faith noted) every wrongful conviction begins with the jury's returning a guilty verdict.
-
Nope. I have looked into this case (imo) thoroughly, considered the evidence carefully and objectively, applied some common sense, utilised the principles of Occam's razor, and have arrived at the conclusion that Luke Mitchell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All that said, I still ask questions where I think there is doubt and ambiguity -- from both a defence and prosecution perspective -- and there will always be doubt to some extent given the complexity of the case and the purely circumstantial nature of it. I was being somewhat facetious with my mouthbreather comment, although many of LM's supporters do seem like a homogeneous bunch of anti-authoritarian, in-the-box thinkers incapable of acquanting themselves with all the facts of this case and engaging in any kind of rational, balanced debate. Most of them seem to have entrenched views based on SL's slick, glib MOJ narrative, unaware that the campaign itself is erroneously grounded. They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them. SL is very much the pied piper in all of this. Just like with the machinations of LM himself, folk are duped by his silver tongue; they think because he sounds intelligent, polite and well-mannered that he must be innocent. Or that because he refuses to say he's guilty and instead stays behind bars, he must be innocent. It's as simple as this, he HAS to maintain his innocence for his own survival, otherwise his life would not be worth living; hoi polloi would turn against him, the vigilantes would be baying for his blood, and, if he ever does get released, he'd need a completely new identity and would likely have to emigrate somewhere. The fact his case is wholly circumstantial works in his favour as it gives him scope to manouvre and manipulate, and, thankfully for him, the nest of vipers that is SL's MOJ campaign is not impervious to his silver tongue.
And Chris, as I said previously, there really is no point in referring to other cases, because, strictly speaking, no two cases are ever the same. Not ever. It all sounds and looks good, impressive & professional on paper, as a counter-argument, but it is glib, when all is said and done.
One reason to be thankful for DNA profiling is that it has led to the release of many wrongfully imprisoned people. An important ancillary benefit is that it allowed scholars to ask why these wrongful convictions happened in the first place, which in turn points the way toward reforms. To suggest that one ignore other cases when considering this one is so completely...ill-considered...that the only explanation I can find for it is extreme authoritarianism, which is the antithesis of rational skepticism. That is why I will continue to bring up other cases, and you are free to read those comments or not.
However even taken in isolation, this case presents problems. There is no murder weapon; a motive is pure conjecture; the timeline is so tight as to verge on impossibility; and so forth. Testimony purporting to identify LM is internally inconsistent. To sum up, even if one were to restrict oneself only to the facts of this case, one would still conclude that it was a hot, stinking mess.
-
‘They would be only too happy to voraciously wolf down any old scraps of nonsense she feeds them.’
Says the individual you believes that a YouTube commentator’s sister had a photograph of Luke in a parka jacket and was questioned about it in court despite not one scintilla of evidence that it ever happened. The individual who also refused to post one scintilla of proof that an alleged dialogue between them and the commentator ever took place.
Irony aside it really would be funny if it wasn’t so desperate.
So, you think I made the communication between myself and the lady in question up? As for the photo itself, there's no smoke without fire, and even if the photo wasn't shown in court (I myself believe the photo was shown in court), I believe it does exist. It's been mentioned on this forum before, before I mentioned it (by Parky41), and it would be good to know his source. I noticed, from a screenshot on someone's blog, that SL was asked about this concert and this parka, but she didn't answer (funny that, eh?). And all these other parts of incriminating circumstantial evidence gradually filtering through -- such as the Flip clothing manager's testimony regarding that replacement olive green German army parka bought from his store on 08.07.03 -- in addition to what can be sourced in the public domain, only reinforces my belief that LM is well and truly guilty. All of this only goes to show how important attending, or not attending, that long complex 42-day trial was; neither you or I, or SL herself, sat through the full 42 days of that momentous, notorious trial, and therein lies the problem. However, thankfully, owed in great measure to social media, many pieces of circumstantial evidence have filtered through from people who were at the trial, including jury members (who no doubt divulged information in private to people they know, and those people then tell other people they know, and so on). I can think of 2 other pieces of info that aren't in the public domain and only came to light via social media: the boys in the abbey who testified that LM was a lot cleaner looking that night, and the young guy from Eskbank Trading who knew LM and said under oath that he'd seen LM in that shop wearing the olive green army parka BEFORE the murder, and was very clear that his sighting was before 30.06.03, and that he remembered it because of the German army badges on the sleeves and the fact his mother owned the exact same jacket at the time. And this leads me on to another point: SL alludes to this boy's sighting in IB, but she frames it in such a way that would lead the reader to infer that it was insignificant and that the boy was mistaken; for example, she says LM hadn't seen the boy in 3 years, implied that he was mistaken about the sighting because he said "because of the murder and everything", and, significantly, she omits the crucial parts about the german badges on the sleeves and the fact the young guy's mother owned the exact same jacket. It's very telling. How can we fully trust someone who wasn't at the trial, who doesn't have access to everything that went into the very lengthy investigation, and who redacts certain info she has access to or omits certain info when it suits? I have nothing against SL, but she does have books to sell.
-
The MSM have recently been spinning the lie that Luke Mitchell may have to continue to serve an open-ended sentence unless he admits his guilt.
I can categorically tell you now that this is not the case. The Parole Board are primarily interested in the prisoners behaviour while in prison and whether he poses a threat to the wider public before deciding whether to grant early release.
It is also untrue the first applications for parole are automatically knocked back.
John,
What I have read about the Malkinson case indicates that he spent much longer in prison because he refused to admit guilt. I am not an expert in either British or Scottish law; therefore, I am not in a position to say much more than that. Maybe you can say a bit more.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/22/postman-rape-attempt-conviction-doubt
The Guardian wrote, "He [Nealon] would have been considered for parole seven years ago had he not consistently denied the offence." In the Andrew Malkinson and Victor Nealon cases, the convicted individual spent longer in prison because they maintained their innocence.
-
Having been absent from here for 4 months, I was not surprised to see several regulars have now been "converted" by the "he did it" brigade who seem to spend hours daily posting lengthy narratives trying to prove LM did it. Unfortunately these narratives contain numerous allegations with no sources quoted to back them up. Posting such allegations is just a waste of time when there's no proof.
It is a fact not speculation, that there was no blood beneath J's body. The killer moved the body. If it was LM who did that, it would be 101% impossible for him to have no trace of blood or DNA on him. Nobody ever explains that while shouting "he did it".
-
I haven't seen any conclusive proof that the murder took place anywhere other than the immediate vicinity of where the body was found. Both Scrimger and Busuttil prove this with the arterial spray on the wall, the blood that was in the locus (even thought it had rained) and that the killer would not necessarily be covered in blood. The murder weapon and the jacket LM was witnessed wearing that night have never been found.
See link for cite.
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/08/derek-scrimger-forensics-14122004.html (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/08/derek-scrimger-forensics-14122004.html)
-
Upthread I raised the Nealon and Malkinson cases as to show that some people remained in prison longer because they refused to say that they were guilty. No one has addressed why LM is not in this same situation.
-
Upthread I raised the Nealon and Malkinson cases as to show that some peopleremained in prison longer because they refused to say that they were guilty. No one has addressed why LM is not in this same situation.
” You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence. It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt or innocence, and your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully convicted.”
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/old_files/Documents/Parole%20Information%20Booklet.pdf
-
” You do not have to admit your guilt prior to making an application for parole, nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence. It is not the role of the Parole Board to decide on issues of guilt or innocence, and your case will be considered on the basis that you were rightfully convicted.”
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/old_files/Documents/Parole%20Information%20Booklet.pdf
Most murderers do not admit their guilt. As far as I'm aware, one of the reasons LM was refused parole was because he was deemed to be a danger to women, whether that was observed in his interactions with female visitors or female staff. Much like Peter Sutcliffe, there seems to be numerous women wanting to befriend convicted killers for some reason. I've not tried it, but is Tinder not the place to meet people?
-
A great deal depends on the word "automatic." This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.
Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input." Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.
-
A great deal depends on the word "automatic." This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.
Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input." Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.
Are you happy to dimiss the psychiatric report then?
-
A great deal depends on the word "automatic." This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.
Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input." Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.
Predicting the future? - 5 months past his minimum fixed sentence inside. He took drugs, grief with the staff, governor? whilst on his first training/rehabilitation stint for life on the outside. What else was the parole board to do? As has been pointed out, it is not the role of the board to work with a prisoners pleas. They are there to ascertain risk, not at all an easy thing to do, one would imagine. Whatever pleas a convict may make, the rules have changed. They can, and are, rehabilitated for life out side regardless.
-
Are you happy to dimiss the psychiatric report then?
I would defer to independent, professional judgment on the matter, but I still find it strange that the police have any role.
-
I would defer to independent, professional judgment on the matter, but I still find it strange that the police have any role.
So you accept the psychiatrist’s report that he is a danger to women and girls but you don’t accept that he is a murderer. OK.
-
So you accept the psychiatrist’s report that he is a danger to women and girls but you don’t accept that he is a murderer. OK.
No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent."
-
A great deal depends on the word "automatic." This passage implies that denial of guilt is a factor in the decision, but it is not the sole factor.
Regarding the denial of parole, The Daily Mail wrote, "A psychiatric report branded Mitchell a ‘sexual risk’ to women. Police Scotland is also understood to have had an input." Unless someone is claiming that LM committed a crime while in prison, why the police, who do not have particular expertise in psychiatric risk assessment, would have any input is difficult to understand.
The word ‘understood’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
-
No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent."
In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.
-
No, that is not at all what I meant; a great deal is contingent upon the word "independent."
I thought you might say that @)(++(*
So how would you assess whether a psychiatrist was independent enough to pass the Chris Halkides smell test?
-
In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.
you’ve got to laugh at people who claim to defer to “independent, professional judgement “ but only when it suits them. Judges, jailers, police, parole board, psychiatrists are all independent and professional (unless you subscribe to some bonkers conspiracy theory that they are all colluding to keep LM locked up forever).
-
I thought you might say that @)(++(*
So how would you assess whether a psychiatrist was independent enough to pass the Chris Halkides smell test?
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grigson-james-paul-jr
A psychiatrist who was not associated with the Criminal Justice system would be a good start. On the other hand, consider the career of Dr. James Grigson, an object lesson in what can go wrong in this area. Dr. Grigson testified against Randall Dale Adams ("At sentencing, Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams would be dangerous unless executed..."). The examination itself was a couple of questions long. Adams was later exonerated.
-
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grigson-james-paul-jr
A psychiatrist who was not associated with the Criminal Justice system would be a good start. On the other hand, consider the career of Dr. James Grigson, an object lesson in what can go wrong in this area. Dr. Grigson testified against Randall Dale Adams ("At sentencing, Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams would be dangerous unless executed..."). The examination itself was a couple of questions long. Adams was later exonerated.
So basically you’d be happy to to accept the opinion of any psychiatrist just so long as they had never been associated with the criminal justice system in any way and provided they passed your man as a model citizen and one who was one hundred percent safe and ready to be reintegrated in society. Understood.
-
So basically you’d be happy to to accept the opinion of any psychiatrist just so long as they had never been associated with the criminal justice system in any way and provided they passed your man as a model citizen and one who was one hundred percent safe and ready to be reintegrated in society. Understood.
https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/miscarriages-of-justice-linked-to-dr-death-james-grigson-continue/
It would be refreshing if you refrained from putting words into my mouth. What do you think of Dr. Grigson's career? What lessons would you draw from it?
-
In all Scots Law cases there is always an option for the appellant to access an independent assessment outwith Police Scotland or NHS MH Services, free of charge and with Legal Aid. If an independent assessment is not favourable, the appellant (LM) or his solicitor, can withhold it from his parole review. Either way, nothing's happening in a legal context.
Years of nothing and then exoneration. That’s the way that it seems to go with these things unfortunately.
-
https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/miscarriages-of-justice-linked-to-dr-death-james-grigson-continue/
It would be refreshing if you refrained from putting words into my mouth. What do you think of Dr. Grigson's career? what lessons would you draw from it?
I have no interest in it, same as you would have no interest in the career of the numerous psychiatrists who over the years have approved individuals as fit for release who then go on to commit further heinous crimes. Tell me why a psychiatrist with experience of studying criminals and their behaviour and who feed into the parole process should not be considered independent. Is it your belief that they never pass inmates as fit for release because the criminal justice system wants to keep them locked up forever or what?
-
David Wilson said, "However, slowly and silently, the Scottish judicial system clearly decided that George [Beattie] had served his sentence and so what was the point of re-opening old wounds and owning up to a collective failure of having got Margaret McLaughlin]’s murder investigation and then George’s criminal prosecution so disastrously wrong....What happened to Luke almost echoes all the mistakes that took place within the investigation, trial and conviction of George Beattie and so my fear is that Jodi’s killer has never been caught and punished at all."
David Wilson has come into contact with many guilty men and women during his career; he is not naive. What he described above is not a conspiracy theory, and I am not even sure that it qualifies as a conspiracy.
Regarding independence, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition that people don't draw their paycheck from the criminal justice system. This gives them a conflict of interest.
-
David Wilson said, "However, slowly and silently, the Scottish judicial system clearly decided that George [Beattie] had served his sentence and so what was the point of re-opening old wounds and owning up to a collective failure of having got Margaret McLaughlin]’s murder investigation and then George’s criminal prosecution so disastrously wrong....What happened to Luke almost echoes all the mistakes that took place within the investigation, trial and conviction of George Beattie and so my fear is that Jodi’s killer has never been caught and punished at all."
David Wilson has come into contact with many guilty men and women during his career; he is not naive. What he described above is not a conspiracy theory, and I am not even sure that it qualifies as a conspiracy.
Regarding independence, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition that people don't draw their paycheck from the criminal justice system. This gives them a conflict of interest.
You basically seem to be casting suspicion on the ethics and professionalism of an unnamed psychiatrist just because you don’t like his conclusion.
-
David Wilson said, "However, slowly and silently, the Scottish judicial system clearly decided that George [Beattie] had served his sentence and so what was the point of re-opening old wounds and owning up to a collective failure of having got Margaret McLaughlin]’s murder investigation and then George’s criminal prosecution so disastrously wrong....What happened to Luke almost echoes all the mistakes that took place within the investigation, trial and conviction of George Beattie and so my fear is that Jodi’s killer has never been caught and punished at all."
David Wilson has come into contact with many guilty men and women during his career; he is not naive. What he described above is not a conspiracy theory, and I am not even sure that it qualifies as a conspiracy.
Regarding independence, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition that people don't draw their paycheck from the criminal justice system. This gives them a conflict of interest.
I’m not sure this case is a good example to use to support your claim of dodgy practice by psychiatrists who are used to examine inmates’ fitness for parole. Beattie was eventually released from prison despite protesting his innocence wasn’t he? Was he not assessed by a psychiatrist beforehand? If so surely the (not independent) psychiatrist deemed him not a threat so what is your argument here wrt to Luke Mitchell’s case?
-
I have no interest in it, same as you would have no interest in the career of the numerous psychiatrists who over the years have approved individuals as fit for release who then go on to commit further heinous crimes.
Do you have a citation for how often this happens?
-
I’m not sure this case is a good example to use to support your claim of dodgy practice by psychiatrists who are used to examine inmates’ fitness for parole. Beattie was eventually released from prison despite protesting his innocence wasn’t he? Was he not assessed by a psychiatrist beforehand? If so surely the (not independent) psychiatrist deemed him not a threat so what is your argument here wrt to Luke Mitchell’s case?
In using this example, I was merely pointing out that the criminal justice system is frequently loathe to admit its mistakes. This was a rebuttal to the implication that people who question the present conviction are conspiracy theorists, an argument which went well wide of the mark. George Beattie was released, but to the best of my knowledge was never exonerated. I do not mean to suggest anything regarding psychiatric examinations regarding Mr Beattie.
-
Do you have a citation for how often this happens?
No, do you have a citation for how often Mojs happen?
-
In using this example, I was merely pointing out that the criminal justice system is frequently loathe to admit its mistakes. This was a rebuttal to the implication that people who question the present conviction are conspiracy theorists, an argument which went well wide of the mark. George Beattie was released, but to the best of my knowledge was never exonerated. I do not mean to suggest anything regarding psychiatric examinations regarding Mr Beattie.
You have a habit of introducing completely unrelated cases to the discussion which a) don’t help you argument and b) deflect from the topic in hand which in this case is about Luke Mitchell not requiring to admit guilt in order to get parole. His last attempt failed partly I believe because of a psychiatric assessment that he was a risk to women and girls, an assessment you disagree with because you clearly think the justice system wants to keep LM locked up forever out of spite, not because they actually do consider him an ongoing risk to the public. This is a conspiracy theory based on no actual evidence whatsoever.
-
https://insidetime.org/newsround/prisoners-who-maintain-innocence-may-be-lower-risk-says-parole-board/
A guilty person who maintains innocence may be deemed a lessor risk over one who admits to their guilt. The article explains why. Inline with the title of this thread, a prisoner does not have to admit guilt to be released, the role of the parole board is to ascertain risk. If by maintaining innocence, the prisoner can maintain/build a support network from family and friends, it could lesson their perceived risk on the outside. It could lesson their risk of re-offending. It could actually work in their favour with the parole board? Advice given? 'Get yourself a good "independent psychiatrist?" - As Kenmair states, LM may have already had one carried out, it may not have worked in his favour? If he hasn't, then why not? If LM disagreed with the reported psychiatric report, it is up to him, his claimed multiple legal bodies (cough), to do something about it.
Therefore, people who maintain innocence, may do so for other reasons and not because they didn't do the crime. Clearly LM has not gained support from his father and brother with his pleas, will the parole board therefore look to that? Bar one person (with the exclusion of SL), there has been no friends standing by his side either, supporting his claim.
Would the actions of his enablers, condoned fully by him, play any part in risk assessment? We know what took place in the run up to this first parole hearing, drug abuse, confrontation, alleged risk to woman? But what of an actual support network of family and friends long standing? So many different factors come under careful scrutiny by the parole board when ascertaining risk with the public.
-
You have a habit of introducing completely unrelated cases to the discussion which a) don’t help you argument and b) deflect from the topic in hand which in this case is about Luke Mitchell not requiring to admit guilt in order to get parole. His last attempt failed partly I believe because of a psychiatric assessment that he was a risk to women and girls, an assessment you disagree with because you clearly think the justice system wants to keep LM locked up forever out of spite, not because they actually do consider him an ongoing risk to the public. This is a conspiracy theory based on no actual evidence whatsoever.
On the contrary, the inability/unwillingness of pro-guilt commenters to examine other cases limits their ability to see the shortcomings in this one; it is a kind of myopia. In two cases that I recently mentioned (Malkinson and Nealon) it was reported that they spent more time in prison because they refused to admit guilt (compounding these obvious miscarriages of justice). No one has taken on the question of how the present case is different.
*EDT
Dr. Grigson was rewarded for his flawed testimony by collecting one paycheck after another. No one has addressed how a systemic problem such as this can be prevented.
-
You basically seem to be casting suspicion on the ethics and professionalism of an unnamed psychiatrist just because you don’t like his conclusion.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=2984
"At sentencing, Dr. James Grigson testified that Adams would be dangerous unless executed, and based upon this testimony, Adams was sentenced to death. Dr. Grigson, known as “Dr. Death,” provided nearly identical testimony in over 100 other death penalty cases, leading him to be sanctioned twice by the American Psychiatric Association, which takes an official position that the threat of future violence is impossible to predict and that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give testimony claiming to make such predictions."
If violence is difficult or impossible to predict, then the whole exercise in the present case looks no better than dubious. Other cases in the criminal justice system can indeed inform the present one, providing that one keeps an open mind.
-
On the contrary, the inability/unwillingness of pro-guilt commenters to examine other cases limits their ability to see the shortcomings in this one; it is a kind of myopia. In two cases that I recently mentioned (Malkinson and Nealon) it was reported that they spent more time in prison because they refused to admit guilt (compounding these obvious miscarriages of justice). No one has taken on the question of how the present case is different.
*EDT
Dr. Grigson was rewarded for his flawed testimony by collecting one paycheck after another. No one has addressed how a systemic problem such as this can be prevented.
The present case is different because it’s a completely different case, with a different crime, different set of circumstances, different defendant, judge, jury, psychiatrist, parole board etc. Do not accuse me of myopia. I came to this case relatively recently off the back of Sandra Lean’s documentary and was briefly swayed by her propaganda piece. Then I opened my eyes.
How instructive would it be to you for me to present completely unrelated cases where a prisoner was released despite protestations of innocence who then went on to commit further crimes? Would that prove anything vis a vis LM? Or how about if I linked to a crime in which a 14 year old boy knifed his girlfriend to death just for the hell of it, would that make it more likely that LM did the crime? No it would not. Has Dr Grigson got anything to do with this case? If a doctor misdiagnosed you would you assume that all doctors misdiagnose their patients all the time? How many pay cheques do you think the unnamed psychiatrist received in this case? You haven’t a clue have you? Just flailing around for excuses as to why Mitchell was declared unfit for release, refusing to open your mind to the possibility that he actually is still a danger to women.
-
https://insidetime.org/newsround/prisoners-who-maintain-innocence-may-be-lower-risk-says-parole-board/
A guilty person who maintains innocence may be deemed a lessor risk over one who admits to their guilt. The article explains why. Inline with the title of this thread, a prisoner does not have to admit guilt to be released, the role of the parole board is to ascertain risk. If by maintaining innocence, the prisoner can maintain/build a support network from family and friends, it could lesson their perceived risk on the outside. It could lesson their risk of re-offending. It could actually work in their favour with the parole board? Advice given? 'Get yourself a good "independent psychiatrist?" - As Kenmair states, LM may have already had one carried out, it may not have worked in his favour? If he hasn't, then why not? If LM disagreed with the reported psychiatric report, it is up to him, his claimed multiple legal bodies (cough), to do something about it.
Therefore, people who maintain innocence, may do so for other reasons and not because they didn't do the crime. Clearly LM has not gained support from his father and brother with his pleas, will the parole board therefore look to that? Bar one person (with the exclusion of SL), there has been no friends standing by his side either, supporting his claim.
Would the actions of his enablers, condoned fully by him, play any part in risk assessment? We know what took place in the run up to this first parole hearing, drug abuse, confrontation, alleged risk to woman? But what of an actual support network of family and friends long standing? So many different factors come under careful scrutiny by the parole board when ascertaining risk with the public.
I remember Michael Hickey’s mother Anne Whelan pushing her son’s case in public and Gerard Colon’s sister but other than that I can’t remember one family member or friend who raised their head above the parapet for the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Bridgewater three etc, etc etc and yet all these men were innocent and where proved at the court of appeal to be so. Several of them were given whole life tariffs so parole wasn’t even a consideration.
I do find your thinking on this subject most odd and rather simplistic. Just because Luke’s family and friends chose not to be in the public eye you seem to extrapolate from that that they don’t support him privately. As above it certainly wasn’t the case in many miscarriage of justice cases so prey tell why you think that it’s the case here?
-
I remember Michael Hickey’s mother Anne Whelan pushing her son’s case in public and Gerard Colon’s sister but other than that I can’t remember one family member or friend who raised their head above the parapet for the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Bridgewater three etc, etc etc and yet all these men were innocent and where proved at the court of appeal to be so. Several of them were given whole life tariffs so parole wasn’t even a consideration.
I do find your thinking on this subject most odd and rather simplistic. Just because Luke’s family and friends chose not to be in the public eye you seem to extrapolate from that that they don’t support him privately. As above it certainly wasn’t the case in many miscarriage of justice cases so prey tell why you think that it’s the case here?
All the cases you mention pre-date the age of the internet. These days family and friends’ campaigns are much more widely heard thanks to social media, just look at the Lucy Letby case for example. So yes, it’s reasonable to assume that friends and family of poor wee Mitchell might have been a little more forthcoming given the terrible miscarriage of justice they believe he has been suffering all these years…or perhaps they don’t believe that at all?
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html
-
All the cases you mention pre-date the age of the internet. These days family and friends’ campaigns are much more widely heard thanks to social media, just look at the Lucy Letby case for example. So yes, it’s reasonable to assume that friends and family of poor wee Mitchell might have been a little more forthcoming given the terrible miscarriage of justice they believe he has been suffering all these years…or perhaps they don’t believe that at all?
Indeed. My post was in relation to risk assessment, support networks, management on the outside around parole conditions. The parole board are not to blame for non supporting family/friends.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html
And his relevant because…? Clearly she thought he was guilty and clearly believing someone is guilty doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. However, It would seem Mitchells friends and family (mother excepted) don’t actively support his claims of innocence and his brother would have good grounds for believing in his guilt if he knew his brother had lied about his whereabouts that afternoon.
-
Indeed. My post was in relation to risk assessment, support networks, management on the outside around parole conditions. The parole board are not to blame for non supporting family/friends.
‘ Clearly LM has not gained support from his father and brother with his pleas, will the parole board therefore look to that? Bar one person (with the exclusion of SL), there has been no friends standing by his side either, supporting his claim.’
Do you honestly think that the parole board actually care about that?
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html
"She added that she was 'really, really scared' that people would find out she was related to a man who had been jailed for such a barbaric crime." This passage alone indicates the relevance of the article to the present discussion.
-
Just flailing around for excuses as to why Mitchell was declared unfit for release, refusing to open your mind to the possibility that he actually is still a danger to women.
Again, I will ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. My initial reservations about the report centered on two things. One is why the police were involved, and two was to make the point that forensic psychiatry is subject to cognitive bias, just as other branches of forensics are. I did not express an opinion on the details of the report itself.
The citations that I provided point to a problem that was new to me, namely that the practice of predicting future violent behavior is somewhere in between being a highly imperfect discipline and being a pseudoscience. Here is one more quote: "he most common form of violence risk assessment is still a judgment made by a clinician. However, this form of assessment lacks transparency, is vulnerable to cognitive biases and relies on the experience and expertise of the clinician. Actuarial assessments based on a score from of a list of identified risk factors have made violence risk assessment more objective, reliable and probably more accurate. More than 200 actuarial violence risk instruments have been described4. Despite their advantages over unaided clinical judgment, there are both scientific and ethical problems with the use of these instruments in clinical practice." I am still looking into it, and I could be swayed in one or the other direction with additional information.
This is the converse of the situation regarding CM and LM passing lie detector tests. I would suggest that pro-innocence commenters against not use passing a lie detector test in discussions about the case because interpreting such tests is dubious at best. I would suggest that pro-guilt commenters not put much stock in psychiatric risk assessments; they appear to be similarly shaky.
-
Found some articles (see below) that state the Parole Board For Scotland denied LM his freedom because they 'could not adequately assess risk'. This decision is uncontestable, but that 'a judicial review remains open' (presumably, this means a judicial review of the board's decision itself?). Speaking of the parole board's decision, SL said: The process by which the parole board normally assess risk - supervised and then unsupervised community access - was taken away from Luke Mitchell when he was returned to secure conditions in June 2023 unlawfully - on the pretext of phone misuse. This has been nothing but a tick box exercise, to convince the public that everyone is following the rules when, in reality, no-one in any form of authority is actually doing so.” Also, the police are understood to have contributed to the report that was based upon two dossiers created by jail officials after his move from a maximum-security prison to Greenock jail. So, it seems LM hadn't been behaving himself whilst an inmate at Greenock prison and it's cost him his community access and possible full release from jail on licence. It would be interesting to read the psychiatric report and those two dossiers by jail officials after he was moved from maximum security to Greenock prison. I wonder what he did at Greenock that was frowned upon. In what way did he 'misuse' a phone? How long was he actually in Greenock Prison for? SL says there has never been any complaints against LM since his incarceration. Not one -- and never from a woman. Interesting.
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-murderer-luke-mitchell-first-29009726?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#comments-wrapper
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-set-parole-rejected-32590354?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
-
Again, I will ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. My initial reservations about the report centered on two things. One is why the police were involved, and two was to make the point that forensic psychiatry is subject to cognitive bias, just as other branches of forensics are. I did not express an opinion on the details of the report itself.
The citations that I provided point to a problem that was new to me, namely that the practice of predicting future violent behavior is somewhere in between being a highly imperfect discipline and being a pseudoscience. Here is one more quote: "he most common form of violence risk assessment is still a judgment made by a clinician. However, this form of assessment lacks transparency, is vulnerable to cognitive biases and relies on the experience and expertise of the clinician. Actuarial assessments based on a score from of a list of identified risk factors have made violence risk assessment more objective, reliable and probably more accurate. More than 200 actuarial violence risk instruments have been described4. Despite their advantages over unaided clinical judgment, there are both scientific and ethical problems with the use of these instruments in clinical practice." I am still looking into it, and I could be swayed in one or the other direction with additional information.
This is the converse of the situation regarding CM and LM passing lie detector tests. I would suggest that pro-innocence commenters against not use passing a lie detector test in discussions about the case because interpreting such tests is dubious at best. I would suggest that pro-guilt commenters not put much stock in psychiatric risk assessments; they appear to be similarly shaky.
No one or nothing can predict the future with 100% accuracy, which is what makes the parole board’s job so unenviable. Assessing someone fit for release who then goes on to commit more crimes obviously reflects badly on their decision making. When it’s a case as violent and horrific as this one, even more so. Psychiatric assessment is one element of that assessment process. I don’t see what is sinister about police input either, though the latter was only alleged and from an unnamed source by the look of it. As neither of us knows why the psychiatrist deemed LM to be a continual threat to women, nor how the psychiatric tests were carried out and evaluated I think this discussion is going nowhere but it’s clear to me that you are constantly latching onto and researching reasons why we should not accept LM’s guilt, and this is just another example. That is not putting words into your mouth, but just how it appears to me. If you’re interested in the parole board process there was recently a very good series on the BBC showing individual cases and how they arrive at their decisions, perhaps give it a watch.
-
https://insidetime.org/newsround/prisoners-who-maintain-innocence-may-be-lower-risk-says-parole-board/
I learned a couple of interesting things from this link. One, "The guidance comes after the case of Andrew Malkinson who served 17 years in custody after being wrongly convicted of a rape committed by another man. He was eligible for parole after seven years but was repeatedly refused release by the Parole Board because, according to his barrister, he would “not falsely confess to abhorrent crimes which he did not commit”. This indicates that the present guidance document is quite recent, and it also suggests that the Andrew Malkinson case was some or all of the impetus for change. Good to hear.
Two, "One reason why prisoners who maintain innocence have struggled to be granted parole in the past is that they were ineligible to take part in accredited offending behaviour programmes such as the old Sex Offender Treatment Programme, in which participants were required to discuss the offence they were convicted of an express remorse for it. However, newer programmes such as Kaizen and Horizon are often open to people who deny having committed the crime they are serving time for." This is exactly what I thought was the situation; maintaining one's innocence was an indirect, but nevertheless, real barrier. This prompts one to ask more about Kaizen and Horizon, which apparently started in 2018.
-
I learned a couple of interesting things from this link. One, "The guidance comes after the case of Andrew Malkinson who served 17 years in custody after being wrongly convicted of a rape committed by another man. He was eligible for parole after seven years but was repeatedly refused release by the Parole Board because, according to his barrister, he would “not falsely confess to abhorrent crimes which he did not commit”. This indicates that the present guidance document is quite recent, and it also suggests that the Andrew Malkinson case was some or all of the impetus for change. Good to hear.
Two, "One reason why prisoners who maintain innocence have struggled to be granted parole in the past is that they were ineligible to take part in accredited offending behaviour programmes such as the old Sex Offender Treatment Programme, in which participants were required to discuss the offence they were convicted of an express remorse for it. However, newer programmes such as Kaizen and Horizon are often open to people who deny having committed the crime they are serving time for." This is exactly what I thought was the situation; maintaining one's innocence was an indirect, but nevertheless, real barrier. This prompts one to ask more about Kaizen and Horizon, which apparently started in 2018.
Excellent Chris, you got there eventually. Point made, 1. A prisoner does not have to admit guilt to receive parole 2. Changes had already been made to incorporate training for freedom in line with not having to address guilt. Which has been said several times in this thread title. 3. AM's case is not and never has been anything like that of LM's. Not even the 'being held in prison for many more years because one refused to admit guilt' notion. LM is barely past his 1st hearing.
The guidance is in respect of how ones parole lawyer/prisoner should/could address the parole board, which is not on the basis of their client being innocent, but on the basis of risk, because that is the role of the board, to assess risk based upon the verdict of the court, offending behaviours and so forth. Multiple factors used, no doubt LM's age at the time of offence will also play a part in any considerations made, like any young offender.
Status Quo - He was on a training programme, he was working towards life on the outside. He broke the rules, has offending behaviours, shipped back to closed conditions. Did this happen with AM? Therefore again, and at this very moment in time, not a comparison at all.
-
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Maintaining-Innocence-info-sheet-1.pdf
parky41,
The link itself was helpful, but your comments might mislead the unwary. One, there can now be no doubt that there was a problem prior to 2018. Two, the newest guidance was at least partially in response to the exoneration of Andrew Malkinson (circa 2023); I am the one who brought his case into the present thread, and it was dubbed classic MSM propaganda (the propaganda comment has not aged well). BTW your comments regarding his case miss the point.
The issue I raised (and provided citations for) in the nature of predicting future violent acts remains. The phrase "nor is denial of guilt an automatic bar to release on parole licence..." is soothing to the ear, but the reality of the situation is another matter (see next paragraph). Whether the new programs are genuinely better or merely old wine in new bottles is an open question: I found (https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Maintaining-Innocence-info-sheet-1.pdf) this observation: "Although Ministry of Justice and HMPPS policies have now started using the term ‘maintaining innocence’ more often, some policies still use the term ‘in denial’ instead."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887
"While it is stated in prison rules that maintenance of innocence should not prevent progression and parole,11 accounts from prisoners strongly suggest that the reality is very different...It is also apparent that there exists a substantial gap between official policy and the perceived reality facing prisoners. Official rhetoric is keen to emphasise that denial of guilt alone should not affect prison treatment, progression or parole. While such documents are understood to allay concerns that prisoners maintaining innocence cannot progress, they simultaneously make it very hard to do so – officially, claims of innocence are not a bar to release, the emphasis is instead on risk. However, it is very difficult to demonstrate a reduction in perceived risk without attendance at related offending behaviour courses, which often require an admission of guilt."
-
What’s the solution Chris?
Clearly not everyone who says they are innocent should be believed (perhaps you think they should?)
That means some refusing offending behaviour courses will in fact be guilty, maybe even most of them, who really knows?
How do you assess the risk of repeat offending by someone who says they are innocent of the crime they were convicted of but but who has committed offences whilst in prison and displayed behaviour which suggests a lack of sensitivity to the victim’s family?
Should psych reports not be used? If not, what measure should be used instead to ascertain risk?
-
Out of interest, how many UK (or Scottish) convicted murderers admit guilt at any point? Not many I'd imagine.
-
An interesting piece of research studying the consequences of claiming innocence within the prison system.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887
-
An interesting piece of research studying the consequences of claiming innocence within the prison system.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17488958221098887
As far as I can see she doesn’t suggest any answers for dealing with the conundrum that faces those who have to make exceptionally difficult decisions about whether or not an inmate who was convicted of a cruel and sadistic murder still poses a risk to the public.
-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749113ed915d0e8e3993ae/Parole_Board_-_Information_for_Victims.pdf
The Parole Board has a booklet called "Information for Victims." It states in part, "If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt...However, denial of guilt is not a lawful reason by itself for the Board to refuse to release an offender, or assess them as suitable for open conditions." There is, shall we say, tension between the two ideas in the quoted passage. I will come back to this thread when I have more time.
-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a749113ed915d0e8e3993ae/Parole_Board_-_Information_for_Victims.pdf
The Parole Board has a booklet called "Information for Victims." It states in part, "If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt...However, denial of guilt is not a lawful reason by itself for the Board to refuse to release an offender, or assess them as suitable for open conditions." There is, shall we say, tension between the two ideas in the quoted passage. I will come back to this thread when I have more time.
There is no tension. The offender was found guilty of an offence and incarcerated , there is no question of the parole board considering the possibility thst maybe they were wrongfully convicted, that is not their job.
-
"If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt."
The Parole Board is saying in effect that they cannot by law deny parole to someone who maintains their innocence but they can factor in lack of remorse; therefore, they can get to the same place by a different route. My suggestions are not to use remorse (which can be feigned) as a criterion, and to put little or no weight on predictions about future violence, because it is asking too much of the current state of psychology. I am no expert, but I would instead look at the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programs, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner's attempt to reintegrate into society.
-
"If an offender continues to maintain their innocence, the Parole Board must assess whether their risk is still high enough that the public can only be protected by their continued imprisonment against the fact that they are unlikely to show any remorse, while they continue to deny their guilt."
The Parole Board is saying in effect that they cannot by law deny parole to someone who maintains their innocence but they can factor in lack of remorse; therefore, they can get to the same place by a different route. My suggestions are not to use remorse (which can be feigned) as a criterion, and to put little or no weight on predictions about future violence, because it is asking too much of the current state of psychology. I am no expert, but I would instead look at the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programs, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner's attempt to reintegrate into society.
Obviously when assessing risk the parole board will take into account the frequency of disciplinary infractions and participation in education or training programmes, or perhaps other things that might bear on a prisoner’s attempt to reintegrate into society such as their attitude (especially towards women, if they’ve been convicted of a crime against one) and their predilections (eg an avowed and renewed devotion to Satan is probably not a good look for one who has been convicted of a diabolical crime, certainly not as far as the parole board is concerned).