The case of James Bulger came to mind while I was writing, too. Very unusual , and hard to say if his killers planned to actually commit a murder, or had been influenced by a film/ video game wherein the injured person got up again-----who knows whether they truly understood what they were doing. But "deviant", certainly. And, there were two of them, to egg each other on.
Luke Mitchell, IF he is guilty, would, of course, have understood the consequences of his actions, and IF he is guilty, IMO, would probably have been under the influence of something that helped cause him lose control. I can't imagine he would have planned to murder his girlfriend in advance. He had shown some disturbing behaviour at school, but some might call this "rebelliousness" rather than "deviancy". As far as I'm aware, he hadn't been excluded from school before the murder. Nor is there any evidence that he was not fond of Jodi---just the opposite, in fact. Why would he have wanted to kill her?
I am content that the Crown got it right as far as Mitchell was concerned. I think those who are aware of all that passed before the court recognise that he is a very dangerous individual despite his tender years.
For example; I think the sentence imposed on him was pretty draconian if not unprecedented; the judge had to have a valid reason for that and I believe that despite an appeal lodged against the undoubted severity of it there had likewise to be a sound reason behind its failure too.
I think there is a lot which goes on in a courtroom which might be a bit of a mystery to those who haven't sat through days of evidence.
I was cited for jury service (called twice) and I was very alert to the proceedings.
I took in the demeanour of the two defendants particularly their reaction to the evidence being given. I knew nothing about the two guys nor did I know anything about any of the witnesses, but just observation and listening to the evidence as it was presented gave me the firm impression the two defendants were as guilty as sin.
As it turned out they changed their plea to guilty thus depriving me of my twelve angry men moment. But the point I am making is that in a jury trial the jury members are forming opinion based on everything going on around them.
Just as I formed a negative reaction to my two miscreants (who certainly were not being accused of murder), I wonder what sort of impression Mitchell might have made on the jury at his trial as he sat in the dock.
I think he would have been scrutinised intensely given the nature of the accusation against him.
For example when certain images were projected during the trial his reaction or lack of might have informed the opinion of the jury members despite the fact he did not take the stand.
The nature of the crime and the judge's harsh sentencing certainly in my opinion illustrate how dangerous an individual Mitchell was considered to be.
