Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Kenmair]

I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.

I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.

[Joe Blogs]

I’m not sure that you read my post from a couple of days ago but this is exactly what the judge said.

‘Your verdict can be given unanimously or by a majority, but if the verdict is to be guilty there must be at least eight of your number in favour of that view, before any guilty verdict can be returned. That of course is an overall majority out of fifteen. You cannot convict unless there are eight of you in favour of a guilty verdict. If you don’t have eight votes for a guilty verdict then you must acquit on that charge.’

The judge asked for no more than a simple majority. Nowhere does he mention a ‘strong majority’ because there is no need. 8 jurors were enough to bring back a guilty verdict…and it goes without saying that the jurors who voted guilty must be convinced that the prosecution proved the case ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’.

From your first question can I assume that you think the jury count being close is a ground for an appeal? It isn’t.

To your second question I have no idea but it will certainly have nothing to do with how the jury voted.

Yes, having just read Nimmos closing speech again, you are correct with what you say Faith!
Nimmo made it perfectly clear that 8-7 was enough to convict before the jury retired, and that the jury would not be asked how many voted guilty, but would be asked if the vote was unanimous or by a majority!

[Joe Blogs]

I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.

Ha ha! You're amusing, Ken!
I'll give you that!

[faithlilly]

I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.

Then that is your prerogative KM but don’t then make yourself look silly by claiming something that has already been found not to be true.

Further I don’t demand answers I merely ask questions. Of course if those questions go unanswered a great deal can be gauged from that.

Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Then that is your prerogative KM but don’t then make yourself look silly by claiming something that has already been found not to be true.

Further I don’t demand answers I merely ask questions. Of course if those questions go unanswered a great deal can be gauged from that.

Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.

The reason given most recently was that he was deemed to pose a sexual danger to women, yet you want him released - why?

[Kenmair]

Of course there are reasons why Luke has been turned down for parole but, yet again, it wasn’t because of the jury count.

What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.

[Parky41]

I tend to ignore your posts much like JB Lean's as I think you are trolling and more interested in winning personal arguments than offering significant debate. You ignore many points put forward by other posters, yet demand answers to your questions. There are obvious reasons why LM remains in prison but all we get here is 'what is pampas grass and what does it smell like' from JB Lean.

Well said. It's not at all difficult KM is it? Nothing of the Judges direction the morning of the verdict has been put out yet, therefore incomplete. The Judge not the only one who's transcripts that are incomplete either It would seem. Those heavily involved personally in this will just have to learn some patience, wait like the rest of us on further transcripts going up. But as you clarify, it really is all about some form of childish entertainment looking to score some imaginary, childish points. smh.

[Parky41]

What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.

His lawyer (cough) which in itself speaks volumes, never qualified, kicked out his traineeship?  There has been no proper legal team involved in his case for some time which tells those with a little sense that the multitude of claims have been just that claims. Endless claims where most have been proven to be false. Is it true that his only support at the review was Lean? The person that it is claimed he sacked (again).

[faithlilly]

What is more important - the jury count, or the reasons why Mitchell remains in prison after his 20 year term has expired? The fact that none of his campaign team or recent legal input have managed to advance his case says enough. Even his lawyer Scott Forbes admitted he hasn't a chance because he hasn't engaged with the required parole rehab courses.

I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.

I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.

[Parky41]

Lord Nimmo asked for a strong majority and beyond reasonable doubt. Probably something like 10-5 at least. Very unlikely it was 8-7 or 14-1. The question should be, why have numerous appeals only been lodged on technical points? And why has LM been refused parole? If there was a slightest doubt he would be released like many similar murderers who completed their prison tariff.

Mitchell had clearly fed his minions BS (nothing new there), that they in turn fed the media pre/post his hearing last year. I do wonder if the parole board takes note of such things when assessing risk? Clearly going by the reasons for his refusal his dishonesty played a part when being assessed and refused. How can someone not be a risk when they compulsively lie? When the little active support he has for him are also compulsive liars? 

[Parky41]

His lawyer (cough) which in itself speaks volumes, never qualified, kicked out his traineeship?  There has been no proper legal team involved in his case for some time which tells those with a little sense that the multitude of claims have been just that claims. Endless claims where most have been proven to be false. Is it true that his only support at the review was Lean? The person that it is claimed he sacked (again).

Then again, it was also claimed that Jodi's deceased aunt also attended his review. According to the lawyer that wasn't who was he claimed fed that information from Lean? Scary stuff, hallucinations, seeing dead people?

[faithlilly]

Well said. It's not at all difficult KM is it? Nothing of the Judges direction the morning of the verdict has been put out yet, therefore incomplete. The Judge not the only one who's transcripts that are incomplete either It would seem. Those heavily involved personally in this will just have to learn some patience, wait like the rest of us on further transcripts going up. But as you clarify, it really is all about some form of childish entertainment looking to score some imaginary, childish points. smh.

Well those points have certainly been scored as you don’t seem to be able to rebut them.

Do you really believe that Lord Nimmo would ask for a simple majority, think about it overnight then insist the next morning that he’d changed his mind and now ‘wanted a strong majority of at least 13’? Surely not because that would just be ridiculous. Would he waste the court’s time like this? Of course not.

Surely just admitting that you were wrong would do your credibility, or what’s left of it, less harm than this silly pantomime? You won’t answer me directly because you have no answers that will satisfy anyone but your flying monkeys. I get it that this issue makes you appear either dishonest or gullible but adding simple-minded to the tally really doesn’t help.

[Kenmair]

I thought Scott Forbes wasn’t a lawyer and definitely shouldn’t be trusted.

I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how his parole hearing before April pans out.

According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.

If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.

[faithlilly]

According to Forbes he's been in the criminal justice/legal business for 40 years and heavily involved in the LM case. According to the current LM campaigners, he's never even met Mitchell, never mind being his lawyer. That is the calibre of people involved with Mitchell.

If you've ever met Forbes or Lean you'd realise what a sham this whole 'campaign' is. The type of people you'd swerve in a pub because they can't wait to inflict their mumbling conspiracy pish on the nearest bystander.

Then perhaps it’s time to stop them living rent free in your mind?

With the transcripts, newspaper reports and reliable media and professional sources research into this case need not now rely on either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes.

Now that’s some good news, isn’t it?

[Kenmair]

Then perhaps it’s time to stop them living rent free in your mind?

With the transcripts, newspaper reports and reliable media and professional sources research into this case need not now rely on either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes.

Now that’s some good news, isn’t it?

Aye, can't wait til LM gets refused parole next month. Even if he were ever released, it would be under licence and strict MAPPA conditions.

Forbes & Lean are con artists who you have endorsed over the years.