A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[Nicholas]

You lied. Plain and simply - this predicative, indicative theme running rife through this campaign. Ran on the basis of someone who has never had all of anything, other than the defence files relating to DF's case of LM V HMA. Which in itself pretty much invalidates just about everything that has ever been pushed out. - Stemming all the way back to when this list of questions was  first made up.

Demonstrably false - we know you are. Lying and plying people with all sorts of rubbish?

James Jones died in 1998 - Jodi was 14 when she died in 2003. Were they twins? that both girls were 9yrs old? Of course not. How many years between the two girls? - And yet again more misinformation - JaJ was nearly 16 was she not when she went to stay with granny? She, going by the above was barely 14 when this family moved to Easthouse's?

 

[Nicholas]

If she experienced vitriol, she was entitled to criticize it, but she did not stop there.  She strongly implied that Mr. Mitchell's supporters were stupid.  Her articles do a number of things wrong, including but not limited to reviving the Black Dahlia connection.  If she wanted to help the Jones family, she could limit her criticisms to the supporters who are uncivil or who make false claims.  MOO.

They are

Someone called ‘Tony’ has commented on Sandra Lean’s Facebook post about JH

He states,

’Jane Hamilton is a lemming Sandra or a sheep who can’t think for herself who accepts the moon is made out of cheese...’

He goes on,

‘’And this is the point that everyone who believes he killed Jodi is missing. As in the cases you highlighted in ‘No
Smoke’ there was no evidence to prove guilt in all of the cases but all were convicted...’

 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.0.html?PHPSESSID=sljd04ii39egugt61kku3vhik7

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr Mitchell’s supporters strongly implied that she was stupid.  Why is it wrong to mention the Black Dahlia connection if this had been part of the prosecution’s case?  Should she seek permission from Dr Lean before expressing her opinions?   I don’t see how criticising uncivil supporters really helps the Jones family, I think that would be the very least of their concerns.

It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side.  Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable.  The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family.  The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.

Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread:  Let's start with the appeals process.  Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal.  Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened.  Failure to win on appeal does not mean that one is certainly guilty.  Second, the investigation had several oversights.  Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others.  Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory.  Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds.  Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.

Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.

[Chris_Halkides]

The criminal justice system isn’t always wrong, and having sat through proceedings herself as I understand it, it is quite possible that she arrived at the opinions she holds independently is it not?

It is possible to believe that Luke Mitchell is guilty, yet that the criminal justice system treated him and his family in an unprofessional and unethical manner.  I will offer just one example for now, namely the manner of Shane Mitchell's arrest.  Likewise, one might believe him guilty and still see areas where the investigation wasn't handled well (the management of the crime scene, for example).  Yet there is no hint of these issues in the articles of hers that I have read.

[Chris_Halkides]

Are you suggesting Jane Hamilton doesn’t recognise a genuine miscarriage of justice when she sees one?

That is not what I said or meant.  What I am saying is that she is not able to keep her opinions and her reporting separate.  That's on her and her editor.

[faithlilly]

It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side.  Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable.  The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family.  The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.

Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread:  Let's start with the appeals process.  Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal.  Yet several top arson investigators have said that there was no evidence of arson.  Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened.  Second, the investigation had several oversights.  Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others.  Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory.  Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds.  Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.

Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.

I’m afraid Miss Hamilton is not awfully concerned with either truth or balance. She does, however, know her audience and writes accordingly.

[Chris_Halkides]

Ask Chris, he suggested she should be trying to help the Jones family, I didn’t.

I did not actually say that she should.

[Chris_Halkides]

A pantomime villian you mean


‘This past week has felt a bit like a pantomime where I’ve found myself cast as the villain of the piece.
Cries of “boo!” have been resounding in my ears while I half expect someone to shout, “Oh no he isn’t” at me in the street.
Standing up against the court of public opinion on the back of a very biased television documentary has seen all manners of slurs, vitriol and downright rudeness slung my way across all forms of social media, telephone calls and emails.
Calls for my sacking, resignation and demands for apologies have been winging their way to Record Towers every day.
Why? What heinous crime have you committed this time, Hamilton?

She is claiming the moral high ground and in effect claiming to be a collateral victim.

[Nicholas]

From what I have seen so far Sandra Lean IS the case.

The campaign is all about Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

The campaign is all about Sandra Lean

That’s because you make it all about her.

It is quite possible to debate the facts of the case without even mentioning Dr Lean.

Perhaps you should try it?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It shows bias to present the prosecution's side of the Black Dahlia claim and not present the defense's side.  Likewise, I would point to another of her articles in which she quoted an unnamed member of Jodie Jones' family as characterizing Luke Mitchell's supporters as being delusional if they accepted the documentary but not the trial evidence and that the campaign to free him was despicable.  The problem I have with her reporting is not that she talked to a member of the victim's family.  The problem is that she does not quote from the people who attended the demonstration or who have spoken out against the conviction.

Let me slightly modify a paragraph I wrote about one of Jane Hamilton's articles on another thread:  Let's start with the appeals process.  Kirk Bloodsworth lost at his retrial and his conviction was upheld on appeal.  Lindy Chamberlain lost all of her appeals, and only a chance occurrence revealed what really happened.  Failure to win on appeal does not mean that one is certainly guilty.  Second, the investigation had several oversights.  Not bringing in dogs trained in recognizing scents, among others.  Based on arson investigation, I would take evidence canines as a kind of screening test, presumptive but not confirmatory.  Third, the police and prosecution did things that I would question on ethical grounds.  Fourth, count me as among those not particularly impressed with the quality of Luke Mitchell's defense.

Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.

Likewise Sandra Lean’s documentary presented a very one-sided case for the defence, one which after I had watched it utterly convinced me that Mitchell had been stitched up.  Now that I know a bit more about the case I can see just how biased her documentary was but I don’t see you criticising her for it.

[Chris_Halkides]

I have not seen the documentary yet.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have not seen the documentary yet.

I look forward to your critique as and when you do then.

[faithlilly]

I have not seen the documentary yet.

It could have been better though I’m not sure why everyone is surprised it was pro Mitchell....that was the point.

Of course it only went a small way to redressing the damage that the media’s misinformation has done to Luke and his family for over 18 years. I didn’t hear anyone demand balance then.

If you haven’t seen it already can I also recommend the Frontline Scotland programme on the case. You’ll find it on YouTube.

[Paranoid Android]

Ms. Hamilton's not discussing the flaws of the investigation is a silence that shouts.

That's how I felt when I saw the recent documentary.

When something is that one-sided, I immediately smell a rat.