Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[John]

I read that on a public forum over 10 years ago. I don’t think it’s been kept from the public, maybe just a bit too graphic to go into to much maybe?

The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see.  Could this have been intentional, an attempt to depict the crime as something a kindly 14-year-old innocent docile schoolboy from Newbattle would not have been capable of?

[Bullseye]

The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see.

There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.

[faithlilly]

I investigated it and yes, found it to be yet another false innocence campaign.

As for Shane Mitchell not speaking out, it is clear. If he really thought his brother was innocent he would have joined his campaign to get justice years ago.

Just on that very point, I can well understand Shane Mitchell's misgivings, my own brother to whom you recently referred also had his court testimony twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media. He at least has set that record straight and has been unequivocal in his support of my own fight for justice.

Yet you posted this:

‘ What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't’

Were you in court or have you seen the full court transcripts? Don’t you think that it’s possible that Shane’s testimony, like your brother’s, could have been twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media?

Has your brother set the record straight publicly in the media or on a forum with regard to your case?

[John]

There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.

It was a pretty unprofessional effort by Channel 5, they knew exactly what they were doing in showing [Name removed] name on a computer screen.

[faithlilly]

There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.

I think the ex detectives were particularly unnecessary. I think though you can understand it being a little one sided as this was Luke’s story, a story we’ve never really heard before.

[John]

Yet you posted this:

‘ What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't’

Were you in court or have you seen the full court transcripts? Don’t you think that it’s possible that Shane’s testimony, like your brother’s, could have been twisted and taken out of context by the Scottish media?

Has your brother set the record straight publicly in the media or on a forum with regard to your case?

We know from those who attended the proceedings what was actually said in court, we don't need to rely entirely on sensational press headlines.

Publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

[Brietta]

This thing about the police shouting at a 14 year old boy, and surrounding SM's car with many cars and officers:

I'm pretty sure it's a regular tactic to shout at suspects to elicit a response - good cop, bad cop - LM seems to have been able to withstand it as well.

LM has been in jail for years, which is far worse and much more serious than being shouted at by a few police officers.

Also, I imagine any police officer viewing the horrendous sights at the crime scene would be upset and outraged - if you were interviewing a suspect having not long seen that, I think it would be difficult to maintain your composure.

Given the horrific nature of the crime, surrounding the car of a key witness is understandable.

I sometimes think people forget that this was much more than a murder - near decapitation and post mortem mutilation - whoever did this is a maniac.

I imagine this would have caused quite a stushie at the time ~ where was it reported?

[Bullseye]

I think the ex detectives were particularly unnecessary. I think though you can understand it being a little one sided as this was Luke’s story, a story we’ve never really heard before.

Yeah totally, it was about Luke and they did a good job but a more in-depth one would be great to see.

[Brietta]

The Channel 5 documentary certainly put it out there for all to see.  Could this have been intentional, an attempt to depict the crime as something a kindly 14-year-old innocent docile schoolboy from Newbattle would not have been capable of?

From what I know of the case the documentary was so one sided and biased it was risible.

[faithlilly]

We know from those who attended the proceedings what was actually said in court, we don't need to rely entirely on sensational press headlines.

Publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Those who attended proceedings? Who? Was their recollection verbatim? Were they partisan?

And the question about your brother?

[Brietta]

There were a few things in the doc I was a bit uncomfortable with, that and people being named being a couple. Just don’t think it was needed. But I did think the doc was good and Sandra has done a great job getting it into the public eye but it was bit one sided. I’d love to see an impartial one that clears up all the stuff that’s been mudded over time and get it all cleared up a bit more since there is so much interest now.

I think that has all been adequately dealt with by the courts.  It will be a sorry day for Scotland if justice is determined by who can shout the loudest and the longest on television programmes.

[John]

Those who attended proceedings? Who? Was their recollection verbatim? Were they partisan?

And the question about your brother?

Attendees including Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean so pretty non partisan.

I asswered you other off topic question in my last post ie publicly in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

[John]

I think that has all been adequately dealt with by the courts.  It will be a sorry day for Scotland if justice is determined by who can shout the loudest and the longest on television programmes.

I totally agree on that one Brietta but it is often the case that shouting the loudest gets one heard and that appears to be the agenda with Sandra given the SCCRC rejection of her Application.

If you look at the Petition you will see that it was boosted by the Ch5 documentary but hasn't moved since. Power of the national media?

[faithlilly]

Yeah totally, it was about Luke and they did a good job but a more in-depth one would be great to see.

Yes the case IMO is far too complex to cover all angles in two hours.

[John]

Yes the case IMO is far too complex to cover all angles in two hours.

Let's be honest, this was an attempt to exonerate Luke Mitchell and to blame AN Others, it had Sandra Lean's paw marks all over it.  It wasn't an impartial production by any stretch of the imagination so attracted rightful criticism from the police and many other quarters.

It was a WHO DUN IT from start to finish.