Luke Mitchell supporters plan to protest outside Scottish Parliament.

[John]

I’m sure many wrote similar critiques of the actions of those campaigning for the  Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, the Cardiff 3 etc etc etc. Of course many of those who were convicted of the most heinous crimes also had numerous  appeals dismissed by ‘our country’s most senior and eminent judges’ before their sentences were quashed.

Your post simply exemplifies the mindset that allows these wholly innocent individuals to spend years and years in prison, denying them and their families the life we all wish for ourselves.

BTW Brietta I believe the verdict was a majority verdict rather than a unanimous one. One more vote for innocence could have seen Luke free.

Jury votes are secret.  It could have been a difference of 1 or a difference of 14.

Had he been tried elsewhere in the UK he might not have been convicted.  That's Scotland's Law for you.

[Nicholas]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/publics-true-crime-obsessions-like-23617822.amp?__twitter_impression=true

[John]

I'm not 100% certain, I don't think anyone can be but the evidence certainly points that way.  Had the Mitchell family spoken with one voice I might think differently.

[faithlilly]

What exactly is it that makes you 100% certain that Mitchell is "wholly innocent"?  I'd love to know, but you will of course ignore this question as I presume you don't have a logical answer.

The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.

The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.

Shall I go on?

[faithlilly]

Jury votes are secret.  It could have been a difference of 1 or a difference of 14.

Had he been tried elsewhere in the UK he might not have been convicted.  That's Scotland's Law for you.

It could have been or 7 to 8.

[faithlilly]

I'm not 100% certain, I don't think anyone can be but the evidence certainly points that way.  Had the Mitchell family spoken with one voice I might think differently.

They did at first then they were charged with perverting the course of justice. A charge that was dropped just before they gave evidence. Why would the police do that if not to bring pressure to bear?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.

The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.

Shall I go on?

Go on as long as you like, are you 100% convinced of his innocence?

[Nicholas]

No motive....

See Prof Jane Monckton Smith’s work on ‘intimate partner femicide timeline’

Luke Mitchell ticked all the 8 stage boxes and some

[Vertigo Swirl]

If appeal judges described the way Mitchell was questioned as “deplorable “ why have four appeals failed in overturning his conviction?

[John]

It could have been or 7 to 8.

It could indeed, I was the same. It beggars belief that one person could destroy an innocent person's life. The Scottish system is 300 years out of date.

[John]

If appeal judges described the way Mitchell was questioned as “deplorable “ why have four appeals failed in overturning his conviction?

Because that was irrelevant to the evidence.

[John]

The legal standard in this country is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I don’t believe that Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was a majority decision which means as many as seven jurors may not have thought that that legal standard was achieved either.

The investigation was a shambles. The body was left in situ for hours without protection, even though it was raining.
Luke, a minor at the time, was questioned in a way appeal court judges called ‘deplorable’.
The jury had been subjected to months and months of prejudicial reporting in the media against Luke.
One of the main eye witnesses could not point out Luke in court.
Pressure had been brought to bear on both of the main alibi witnesses.
The statements of witnesses central to Luke’s guilt changed over time.
No blood on Luke.
No motive....it is obvious from Jodi’s demeanour before leaving her house that she was not upset after finding out that Luke had two-timed her, a motive sometimes put forward.

Shall I go on?

I personally accept all that Faith but his brother still failed to corrobate Luke and his mother's version of events and TO THIS DAY continues to do so.

Explain that away?

[Nicholas]

I personally accept all that Faith but his brother still failed to corrobate Luke and his mother's version of events.

Can you explain why you accept there was no motive John?

[John]

Can you explain why you accept there was no motive John?

I am undecided whether it was a spur of the moment thing or premeditated if Luke is indeed guilty.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I am undecided whether it was a spur of the moment thing or premeditated if Luke is indeed guilty.

It sounds like you are wavering on the issue of his guilt John...?