Luke Mitchell will not have to admit being a killer to get parole.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Chris_Halkides]

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?

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you have a citation for how often this happens?

No, do you have a citation for how often Mojs happen?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[faithlilly]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13485713/Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-convicted-rape-sister-guilt-disowning.html