Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Mar 3, 2005 22:25:03 GMT 1
Excellent find. I wonder whether such tests were considered? I wonder whether the defence team are aware of these tests? Mr. Futrell is a supervisory fingerprint specialist in the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI Laboratory in Washington, DC This article has been extracted from the April 1996 Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI home page which can be accessed via the Internet at www.fbi.gov. (Recent research proves that identifiable prints can be obtained from the skin of homicide victims under real field conditions, not just in the laboratory). TEXT
|
|
|
Post by bobbiedog on Mar 3, 2005 22:31:38 GMT 1
I'm putting together a board called "Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth" on lukemitchell.proboards41.com/index.cgi : I've nicked this and put it under "Evidence". Right now I'm too tired and flu filled to follow it through, but I'll do so later. A1.
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Mar 4, 2005 0:17:39 GMT 1
I'm just sitting here thinking of all the films I've watched and detective series 'Taggart' etc and thinking how often we see the detective being woken up in the wee small hours, leaping out of bed, dashing to his car to arrive at the scene of the crime, where already the forensic team are at work. To think I thought that that was what happens in real life. Time was most definately the essence, lessons should be learned and Scottish people should demand better.
As Luke Mitchell's lawyer pointed out, back in the seventies murders were a rarity in Scotland, now they're ten a penny. We need a police force that can deal with this in a professional manner. Otherwise how are people supposed to feel safe. We need to be able to rely on them to make Scotland a safer place.
Personally I find some of Luke Mitchell's past behaviour a bit worrying. The fact that he has frightened at least 2 girls with knives. These incidents could just have been silly pranks on his behalf and I have seen other kids do things like this and not go on to become murderers. When I suggested that perhaps he liked acting the 'hard man' I was referring to comments that he has made to friends such as ' that he knows how to cut someone throat'. He was either bragging and acting hard in front of friends (who obviously didn't take him seriously at the time or he would have lost them all immediately), or he really meant it.
If the crime wasn't pre-meditated then why did the murderer have something to tie her arms with? Perhaps it was an item of clothing which could rule that out. I don't know. If it was anything else then it would surely point to the crime being pre-meditated. If someone has an idea in their head of a picture as described by the judge then that is pre-meditated. It make you wonder if they just think that we are all idiots that won't notice.
|
|
|
Post by bobbiedog on Mar 4, 2005 1:18:18 GMT 1
Right. The police investigation had to be of a quality to satisfy everyone: likewise the prosecution; that we are not reassured is exactly the issue. All matters concerning Luke Mitchell's behaviour has to put in a model of such a young person, that we find plausible: that did not happen; the behaviour items may be concerning, but they were never placed in any reliable context of explanation. There is inconsisteny in the prosecution suggestions about Luke Mitchell at the crim scene. Firstly he murders Jodi in a drug induced psychosis: then and immediately, he calmly analyses his circumstance of possible investigation and prosecution; tidying up all possible forensic connection of himself to the crime and its scene. So the murder is explained by psychotic frenzy: and the forensic clean up by the studied intelligence. I just don't see the two fitting so neatly together in one moment: and I see no signs of either in the Luke Mitchell that has presented since. Does it not all begin to reek of the super-capability of the proto-typical fear figure. The Jew who controls the world and is to be feared: the inscrutable yellow peril, with all its exotic skill and disciplined capability; the tireless communist who might hide under your bed. We have this reflex, so very often, to attach enhanced capability to that which we fear.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Mar 4, 2005 10:18:34 GMT 1
Congratulations on your new Luke Mitchell Board, Bobbiedog.
Excellent layout, and I bet it becomes of huge interest to law students etc. UK-wide.
Well done.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Mar 4, 2005 12:59:35 GMT 1
Having this board to bounce off, even with short exposure, was important part of me being able to move to do this board. Prior to that I had been locked into boards that were opinion-fests, to which I had something of an ambivalence: the taking to people was great; the degeneration into opinion anger I could not really cope with. This board shows a middle way: between a very personal, subjective testimony; and some hearkening to the eternal values of science. Citizens can make important contribution, and from the ground of their own experience. The Luke MItchell board is just growing organically, as indicated by perusal of what data comes to hand. I'd be happy with whatever adjustment to its architecture, that others willed. Wiki like as it were: or social-constructive as I saw another board characterise itself.
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Mar 4, 2005 15:06:55 GMT 1
I've just had a look at the Luke Mitchell board. I didn't have time last night and don't have much right now, but I will pass the link on to as many people as possible. Hopefully others will do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Mar 12, 2005 0:00:40 GMT 1
A question for Gerard Keegan:
As a psychologist yourself, what is your personal opinion of the evidence given by the American psychologist in relation to Luke Mitchell?
|
|
|
Post by Graeme Houston on Mar 16, 2005 1:24:05 GMT 1
Hi Bobbydog. Well done on your new Luke Mitchell Board.
Looks well presented and balanced. Well done. Glad you were able to develop from here into something bigger.
Would be good if this place could act as a spingboard for more peoples ideas!
Well done.
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on Mar 21, 2005 0:14:49 GMT 1
this is entirely off topic, but relates to something you said in your last post graeme, i've teamed up with a friend, and isnpired by this kind of board, started our own foray into catalouging every sci-fi/fantasy character known to man (or indeed woman or alien - sometimes the same thing but hey . . . ) I wouldn't have done it, if here hadn't opened my eyes to the possibilities, so many thanks to you all, and be warned, I'll be hounding y'all for advice (big thanks to Tuesg already)
|
|
|
Post by Graeme Houston on Mar 21, 2005 0:43:52 GMT 1
Well done tinchick. I am sure we will all look forward to receiving any requests for info or advice. You have picked a noble cause. Sci-Fi and fantasy books and films are an appealing pass time, simply because they allow for the sort of escapeism you can't get reading the likes of Sunset Song or other novels that are true to life. And a catalogue of them all would be very useful indeed. A new way to decide what book / film you want to watch based on browsing through all the characters and deciding you like the look of one. Novel, unique and has tons of potential!
|
|
|
Post by Graeme Houston on Mar 21, 2005 0:45:44 GMT 1
Please post a link so we can see once it's ready!
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on Mar 21, 2005 17:33:32 GMT 1
It's always gonna be a work in progress, and I'd love anyone and everyone to come along and add to it - once we've exhausted our own competitive spirit I will link soon though, and thanks for the offer of help - believe me, I will take you up on it
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on Mar 21, 2005 17:34:49 GMT 1
and OMG Sunset Song....that takes me back . . .
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 21, 2005 22:29:32 GMT 1
A cuestion for Graeme Houston: what is your personal opinion of the evidence given by the American psychologist in relation to Luke Mitchell?
|
|