|
Post by tinchick on Mar 29, 2005 19:58:11 GMT 1
just to fan the flames a little - i see from an article in yesterday's Evening News that Luke is currently being lambasted for not attending the YOI barber - keeping his individuality by not cutting his hair - and the warders are concerned it will be a hazard if other's try to fight with him. yeah right
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Aug 7, 2005 11:19:22 GMT 1
See this has now reached the Appeal stage.
Any comments after months of reflection, folks?
|
|
|
Post by YOUNGOE on Sept 5, 2005 13:56:27 GMT 1
Yeah he should burn in hel* with all the other sick beats that rome the streets!!!
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Sept 5, 2005 19:57:18 GMT 1
And maybe he will.
But he or she who is without sin, cast the first stone.
|
|
|
Post by Lazarus on May 10, 2007 9:53:19 GMT 1
A couple of years ago this was the most popular thread on the Board. There was a definite feeling, especially among young people in Scotland, that Luke Mitchell was innocent.
Last night's documentary on BBC1 Scotland support the concerns at the time. There is no DNA evidence whatsoever linking Mitchell to Jodie's untimely death. There is also another suspect who was never interviewed by the police at the time.
This, and other things, seem to me to be to be good reason to reopen the case?
Or do we care about justice in Scotland?
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on May 10, 2007 13:05:32 GMT 1
Did you see in the papers today, the lambasting the beeb got for showing that Frontline Scotland episode last night? Jodi's family are not happy, and in some respects I can certainly understand that - but what happened in that trial certainly wasn't justice as it's meant, no matter how sure anyone was that Luke Mitchell did or did not kill Jodi means nothing with or without the necessary evidence. I did wonder if this topic would make it to the top of the board again in light of this documentary last night. I missed the programme itself and have only just been watching the backlash
|
|
|
Post by colin bowman on May 15, 2007 0:51:45 GMT 1
The Sandra Lean below has been actively concerned with the Luke Mitchell case since before his conviction. Her book is very concerned about what passes for circumstantial evidence. In it she deals with the Luke Mitchell case. I understand her to also have been working cooperatively with the Frontline production team.
A lot of ongoing analysis of the prosecution has continued. This has indicated general weaknesses in its circumstantial argument. Significant data not led at trial now is known. Chances of successful legal appeal are very much hampered by the grounds of appeal being allowed.
Overturning of the conviction may well have to be pressed by argument and publicity out-with the legal process.
The 'psychology' which became part of the prosecution, at trial and in public domain, remains of concern.
"No Smoke - The Shocking Truth About British Justice (Paperback) by Lady Sandra Lean (Author) Price: £11.99 (Amazon)
Synopsis A life-long fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind," led Sandra Lean, at the age of 32, through the doors of Napier University in Edinburgh. A single parent of two young children, she studied Psychology and Sociology to Honours Degree level. A Masters' Degree in Forensic Psychology seemed like the most obvious next step, until a local, high-profile murder hit the headlines. Behind the scenes, Sandra Lean began sifting through the facts, only to discover that all was not as it seemed. What she found led her to other, similar cases, and more patient, methodical sifting, in an investigation that was to last almost four years. The result was a shocking, but true, discovery. Innocent people are being locked up in our prisons, convicted of the most horrific crimes, on a regular basis. These are not one-off, tragic mistakes, but rather, a routine, everyday occurrence. For every high-profile miscarriage of justice that we hear about, there are dozens more that never make the news. No Smoke examines just some of these cases, highlighting the very human tragedy of wrongful conviction, and pointing out the unthinkable: this could happen to any one of us."
|
|
|
Post by colin bowman on May 15, 2007 1:12:10 GMT 1
See this has now reached the Appeal stage. Any comments after months of reflection, folks? Almost certainly innocent. Immediately after his conviction that might have been 'unsafely convicted'. Since then it has been possible to probe the prosecution argument for weaknesses; and very significant weaknesses are to be found. The 'psychology' informing and sometimes argued in the prosecution was weak.
|
|
|
Post by colin bowman on May 15, 2007 1:59:10 GMT 1
www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6640000/newsid_6640100?redirect=6640115.stm&news=1&nbwm=1 &nbram=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1 To watch the documentary, (The Devil's Own?) load the whole URL in your browser. Did you see in the papers today, the lambasting the beeb got for showing that Frontline Scotland episode last night? Jodi's family are not happy, and in some respects I can certainly understand that - but what happened in that trial certainly wasn't justice as it's meant, no matter how sure anyone was that Luke Mitchell did or did not kill Jodi means nothing with or without the necessary evidence. I did wonder if this topic would make it to the top of the board again in light of this documentary last night. I missed the programme itself and have only just been watching the backlash
|
|
martinmorrowdefenceLAWYER
Guest
|
Post by martinmorrowdefenceLAWYER on May 15, 2007 9:14:03 GMT 1
MR LUKE MITCHELL IS SPENDING A SENTENCE IN POLMONT YOI FOR WHAT EXACTLY. FOR BEING ACCUSED OF SOME MURDER TO HIS GIRLFRIEND JODI JONES. WICH THEY ARE NOT EVEN ONE LITTLE SLIGHT EVIDENCE THAT THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL HAS MURDERED THIS GIRL NAMED AS JODI JONES. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY. LETS BE SERIOUS. IT DO NOT TAKE A SCIENTIST TO WORK OUT THAT LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY FOR THIS MURDER ON JODI JONES. BUT YET IT TAKES A SCIENTIST TO FIND OUT IF THIS YOUNG MAN IS GUILTY. BUT YET THERE WAS NO DNA OF SUCH OF THE KIND OF LUKE MITCHELLS AT THE SCENE NEVER MIND THIS YOUNG MANS DNA THERE WASNT EVEN ANY OF JODI JONES DNA FOUND. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS BEEN A SET UP WITH POLICE.FOR YET THERE ARE A OTHER MAN WHAT COULD BE JODI JONES MURDERER. AND POLICE HAVENT EVEN BOTHERD TO EVEN INVESTIGATE ON THIS OTHER MAN WICH COULD PERHAPS BE THERE NEXT SUSPECT BUT AT THE POINT IN TIME THEY ONLY HAD ONE SUSPECT AND THAT WAS THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL. BY RIGHTS THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOK AT THIS INVESTIGATION WELL BEFORE THIS MOMENT IN TIME. AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THIS YOUNG MAN BEING A SUSPECT OR BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS GIRLS MURDER. BUTE ONCE AGAIN THERE WHERE NOT SUCH OF THE KIND WHAT HAPPENDED IN THIS CASE.IF I KNOW ALL CONVICTS SAY THEY ARE NOT GUILTY WHEN MOST OF THEM ARE. BUT THIS YOUNG MAN CANT BE FOUND GUILTY FOR A MURDER WHEN THERE ARE NOT A SLIGHT BIT OF EVIDENCE OR DNA TO PROVE THAT THIS YOUING MAN LUKE MITCHELL KILLED JODI JONES. AND AFTER ALL BECAUSE THIS YOUNG MAN WAS IN TO MARLYN MANSON AND ALL THE HOBBIES HE HAD THAT IS STILL NO PROOF THAT HE IS GUILTY OF THIS MURDER ON JODI JONES.THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY OF THIS OFFENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF.SO HE SHOULD BE RELEASED. BUT YET IF THAT DO NOT COME TO ANYONES ATTENTION . THIS YOUNG MAN SHOULD AT LEAST BE RELEASED UNTIL FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS TOOKING PLACE BY POLICE. BECAUSE I ACTUALLY CAN BE 99% THAT MR LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY OF THIS YOUNG GIRLS MURDER.AND I KNOW IT IS MY JOB TO GET PEOPLE OF WITH THINGS WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSED OF BUT THIS CASE I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN AT ANY TIME. BUT YET I HAVE FOLLOWED UP ON THIS CASE AND I I AM ONCE AGAIN 99% THAT THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL IS A INNOCENT PARTY IN ALL OF THIS MURDER. SO THERE FOR I WOULD LIKE HIS DEFENCE PARTY TO WRITE TO THE COURTS OF JUSTICE AND PUT THIS OVER TO THEM AND APPEAL AGAINST THIS SENTENCE THAT LUKE MITCHELL HAS BEEN GIVEN AND HE WAS GIVEN THIS SENTENCE FOR WHAT ONCE AGAIN FOR BEEN ACCUSED OF A MURDER ON HIS GIRLFRIEND JODI JONES YET THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS YOUNG MAN ACTUALLY MURDERED THIS YOUNG GIRL.HE HAS ONLY BEEN ACCUSED AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACCUSED OF THINGS SUCH AS MURDERS E.T.C LIKE THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL HAS BEEN. THE ACCUSED ARE NEVER BELIVIED. AND THAT IS ALSO WRONG. ACCUSED MEANS SOMETHING BUT NOT A LOT IT DO NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSON HAS DONE THE CRIME EVEN THOUGH BEEN ACCUSED FOR I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WILL ALL SO BE CONTACTING THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MYSELF ABOUT THIS YOUNG MAN;S RELEASE. AND THE MORE DEFENCE LAWYERS THAT DO THE SAME FROM THERE OWN BACK THE BETTER CHANCE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE TAKING ALL OF THIS THAT I HAVE STATED IN TO CONSIDERATION. I AM NOT SAYING THIS YOUNG MAN IS GOING TO GET OF SCOTS FREE BUT BE RIGHTS HE SHOULD BE RELEASED TO AT LEAST THERE ARE ACTUALLY EVIDENCE TO JODIS KILLER. BUT YET AGAIN IF MR MITCHELL DID GET RELEASED.AND THEY CANT GET ANY EVIDENCE ONCE AGAIN AGAINST THIS YOUNG MAN THEN THIS YOUNG MAN HAS NOT BEEN LET OF SCOTS FREE. HE HAS DONE A SENTENCE FOR WHAT FOR BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED OF A MURDER WICH TOOK PLACE. AND HE HAS LAY IN A PRISON CELL DAY AND NITE FOR WHAT FOR A MURDER HE DID NOT COMMIT A MURDER THAT SOMEONE ELSE DID COMMIT AND WHILE THIS YOUNG MAN HAS BEN SERVING TIME INSIDE THIS OTHER PERSON WHAT DID COMMIT THIS MURDER OF JODI JONES COULD YET AGAIN BE MURDERING SOMEONE YET ONCE AGAIN. THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL SHOULD BE RELEASED WITHOUT A DOUBT.
|
|
|
Post by colin bowman on May 15, 2007 11:28:59 GMT 1
Martin covers some of the case weaknesses above. The absence of conventional or traditional 'empirical' 'evidence', goes beyond the lack of DNA and other forensics. There are no (reliable and explicit and corroborated) sightings of Luke Mitchell (as there is also not of Jodi Jones). There is no impact of murdering on Luke Mitchell, and no explanation of how he avoided that, or cleaned up after. There is no proven history of psychological instability or violence. The profiling done of Luke Mitchell is to see him be deemed 'beyond the pale', but not as someone likely to murder. The Black Dahlia parallel is unsubstantiated, as is Luke Mitchell's especial interest in Manson. and so on. What we do have is a complex 'psychological' argument, that how Luke Mitchell 'presented': in his person and his life-style and its choices; before the murder and after it, and before and at trial: 'circumstantially' indicated that he was indeed the person who Craig Dobbie, the lead police officer, claimed that he was. That psychological argument involved psychological 'experts' (who most generally lent weight to the claim that Luke Mitchell was lying). It involved the testimonies of other witnesses being collated into a net of suggestion, which 'modelled' Luke Mitchell as 'behaving' as would a/the person who had murdered Jodi Jones. One of these experts, Dr Paul Ekman, may well have given critical guidance in designing and planning the whole prosecution against Luke Mitchell. There are many other items of concern to do with the media. The matter of the Police having lost/destroyed the crime scene forensic data, simply cannot be overstated in terms of its significance.
In terms of 'credibility', the greatest weakness in the prosecution case: is that it critically depended on the testimony of the other three, who with Luke Mitchell, found Jodi's body. The prosecution argue, and as the central proof of Luke Mitchell's guilt (as stated in Alan Turnbull QC's summing up), that Luke Mitchell 'had to have known where the body was', given how he 'behaved'. The problem is that this interpretation is based on 'nuances' in Luke Mitchell's presentation. Where these nuances are not consistent with the real-time real-circumstance context. Are not consistent with statements initially given; where these statements instead support Luke Mitchell's defence version. And so on. But, most critically, these other three are 'members' of an extended family, who in 'fingering' Luke Mitchell, 'exonerate' members of their own family; where the data available much more implicates these members as suspects for the murder, than it does implicate Luke Mitchell.
That 'ulterior' agenda on the part of these witnesses, then has to be correlated with a consideration of Craig Dobbie the lead investigation officer: who has not only overseen the loss of crime scene data, but has almost immediately settled on Luke Mitchell as the murderer of Jodi. The defence would then argue that two things follow: firstly, that the investigation acts to exonerate other suspects, in order to pursue Luke Mitchell as the sole suspect; secondly, that witnesses are subject to, and yield to a powerful 'demand effect' which is introduced by the nature of police investigation. The defence claim then has to become that the police created/fabricated/massaged what emerged as witness-testimony at trial and in public domain: such that that this data from investigation has to be considered an epiphenomenon of its method and implementation.
The above is really the central matter; namely that the police investigation generated fundamentally unreliable 'findings'. But these findings were then fed into a social process. And its there that the Luke Mitchell story really begins. My judgement is, that psychological experts who became drawn into this phase, are on thin ice. That tabloid journalists were, although equally consequential, we can anticipate. Essentially, what circumstantial data the police investigation had generated as 'findings', was then fed into social and public domain processes. The defence argument then is, that everything which then followed (including media reporting and action of educational authorities) was 'prejudicial' to Luke Mitchell, and his prospect of fair trial and defence in it. I would go further and argue that much of the formal and informal prosecution of Luke Mitchell, at trial and in public domain, was nothing other than a prejudice phenomenon: such that Luke Mitchell ended condemned and convicted on a ground of prejudice, and not in any way on a basis of evidence as responsibly understood. What evidence there was, that weighed in the balances of judicial judgement, was not distinguishable from prejudice.
There are then more complex considerations to do with (what was then a novel) operational collusion between: investigating police, prosecution agents, the fiscal, educational authorities, probably religious and political authorities. Again, Alan Turnbull QC had utilised the same methods he used in prosecuting Luke Mitchell, in gaining conviction of Megrahi in the PanAm case (and other cases such as the Nat Fraser case). There is concerning indication that Turnbull (now judicially elevated, and therefore involved in any appeal process) was able and willing to gain 'convenient convictions', where it had appeared that there was no evidential basis for such conviction. The broadest judgement is that these Turnbull convictions are generally unsafe, and merely socially or politically advantageous; their grounding circumstantial 'evidence' being spurious and without safe foundation. It may also be the case, that in these instances, the investigating police are at risk of being drawn into what some could see as 'irregularities': appeals against Turnbull led convictions, certainly involve that suggestion.
There is then a complex but central matter that I would centre on the person of Donald Findlay, and in his role as defence agent. The concern would go like this: defence argument is often necessarily so complex, in order to countervail prosecution argument; that these defence arguments end being inaccessible to juries and public. In the recent Tobin case, the defence by Findlay (et al) was simply brilliant; comprehensively challenging all prosecution items, and in manner in would have been hard to anticipate. Yet the jury took only four hours to convict Tobin; such that it is hard to conclude that they fully considered the arguments led in defence. Defence would appear fundamentally undermined by such a circumstance, of jury and peers not much registering perspectives and arguments necessary for defence. In such instances, where psychology supporting rational cognizance falters, any void is going to be filled by prejudice; a prejudice more open to manipulation by prosecution than defence. The solution might seem to be 'education'. But there we encounter a problem. The education which would allow others to see what Findlay can 'see', is not much supported in what is currently transpiring for our society. While, in both formal education, and in the informal education of culture, what more readily supports prosecution argument and process, is being much sponsored.
While far from impotent, the intellectual and cultural traditions which Findlay represents, and does so as defence lawyer, can be considered as on the back foot. And all that is part of the absence of safety in Luke Mitchell's conviction; which makes it a matter of interest to psychology.
The strictly psychological aspect of this, perhaps concerns the processes which have made all this possible. Indicated research might deal with how prejudice and legal process can intermingle; and what safeguards we might have in that intermingling.
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on May 15, 2007 12:23:11 GMT 1
sadly I have not all the facts of the trial and no input into the future of this young man, I've heard that as defence and incarceration goes; he's our highest drain on public spending that is behind bars. His was most certainly a trial by media, but as the Evening News were cleared of any misconduct by printing his name, I fear that there will be very little judicial sympathy or recourse for him in the future.
I'd also request that posts are made without caps on and in comprehensible paragraphs *mod hat off again*
|
|
|
Post by colin bowman on May 15, 2007 14:13:19 GMT 1
I fear that there will be very little judicial sympathy or recourse for him in the future. I wonder if it is at all conceivable, and presuming sufficiently adept advocacy, that this absence of judicial sympathy and recourse, could become a minor social crisis threatening that judicial itself. Given the sufficient lever, all you need to move the human universe, is the fulcrum; or vice versa. What are the ultimate lever/fulcrum/movement potentials in this Luke Mitchell case?
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on May 15, 2007 17:03:09 GMT 1
I think that, to be quite blunt, the lad is far safer where he is. Very few people in the big picture believe him innocent, most people have hung him by his trial by media, and if he was freed I think he'd be a very obvious target for some mindless vigilante movement determined to make an example of him. I also think that you are quite right in what you said earlier in the thread about the 'no smoke' theory is becoming more and more prevalent - there's missing Maddy in Portugal, and some suspect named already regardless of his innocence or guilt. The media are monsters in that respect. and thank you for the link - though I admit not yet to having peace to watch it what with kids dinner and PTA meetings to get ready for!
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on May 18, 2007 13:39:43 GMT 1
How could you forget within a two week period what you were wearing on the day you discovered your grand daughter's mutilated body? I can still remember what I was wearing when I found someone I didn't know many years ago...perhaps it's a safety mechanism of the psyche? Anyone care to explain the possibility? What I cannot understand is that despite the lack of evidence, the instability of witnesses, the terrible procedural bungling by police and general bias, the jury still decided to convict him, beyond reasonable doubt. I also think that his mother was of no help to his case in this programme, as she was in the media at the time, or court. The new evidence of the other leads seems a bit dodgy/convenient, though shouldn't be discounted because of that. Scott Forbes would hardly have been a reliable witness in court though would he? The conviction may be right, but it is a miscarriage of real justice to have convicted him on such evidence with which we have been presented. Am I correct in assuming if his appeal is successful and his conviction overturned he cannot be tried again? Oh and your point raised that the prosecution case and 'expert testimonies' were at points weak, would that not have given the defence ample chance to prove his case? As I understand it his defence team were more than capable at getting their clients 'off the hook' as it were. (This possibly already added to prejudice against the youth) Sorry for all the questions but my eye is sore and I'm not in the right frame of mind to go trawling for more info thanks
|
|