|
Post by abc on Feb 15, 2005 18:19:41 GMT 1
listen to you lot..you are all so obsessed with him being innocent you actually sound sick.None of you have any idea what is or was going on..what you have to remeber is that a 14 year old girl was brutally murdered and now the killer is locked up. why cant people let it go? she has just been given peace to rest and everyone is being complete ar**holes.How unconsiderate is this world nowadays?? Luke Mitchell is as guilty as can be..locking him up isnt enough i wish the death penalty was back in scotland! i hate him,i feel sick when i mention his name.He will rot..his life will be miserable every single day..but hey..at least he has a life eh!!! it turns my stomach to think how people can think he is innocent..thats what he wants..attention..he's loving it..all eyes on luke..he was so determined he was getting away with murder and to see him get locked up put a smile on my face! as for his sick bit** of a mother..she will pay.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 18:22:02 GMT 1
What does it mean to be found as a "beast" by the God project? What does it mean to oppose the God project, to oppose whatever God might be seen to be? What is wrong with that? Why is opposing God seen as bad? Surely, only if you begin with the assumption that the God project is right, and exclusively so: can you see anything negative in being characterised as an ultimate and absolute opposition to it. We have the right in our society not to subcribe to the God project: even to oppose it; in terms of our mores and laws, there is absolutely nothing wrong in taking up a stance that can be symbolised by "666". Do you understand "666" to signify anyhting other than the innocuous opposing of the God project?
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 18:24:29 GMT 1
Hi abc, are you from Dalkeith?
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Feb 15, 2005 18:26:37 GMT 1
There is no evidence to suggest that Luke Mitchell is a schizohrenic. Regards collecting bottles of urine maybe he was just a lazy git! And as unconstitued says earlier in consideration of media stories, such stuff as this has nothing to do with the crime itself. Is it beyond reasonable doubt that Luke Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones is the only question that should be asked. The more I think about this case the more I see the hand of politics involved at all sorts of levels. I am also reminded of the famous phrase 'Let him have it' that led to the execution of Derek Bentley in the 1950's. Want to know more? One November evening in 1952 two teenagers, Derek Bentley and Chris Craig, went out to break into a warehouse. They were seen climbing up onto the roof by a woman putting her daughter to bed. She called the police who arrived very quickly, surrounded the building and climbed up onto the roof to arrest the boys. Bentley surrendered immediately; but Craig, in resisting arrest, shot and killed one of the policemen. Both boys were tried for murder. Craig, who was a minor at the time of the offence, was sentenced to life imprisonment; Bentley, aged 19, was hanged. Chris Craig served 10 years in jail. Bentley was posthumously pardoned in 1998. Only one small snag being he had been executed. Please remind yourself of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in 20th Century Britain by visiting web.bham.ac.uk/forensic/Bentley_temp.html
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 18:36:06 GMT 1
Its not about opposing god you seem to be ignoring the fact that 666 is the number of Satan there is enough circumstancal evidence to suggest he had an unhealthy interest in Satan.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Feb 15, 2005 18:44:00 GMT 1
i live in edinburgh yeah..saying no more sorry. it just cracks me up that so many people can think he's inncocent. he is an evil,twisted hated thing that deserves alot more than he's getting now. his DAY will come.,and his mother can do nothing about it. Donald findlay only want to appeal cause he hates loosing and he's a money grabber!!
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 18:47:06 GMT 1
ABC no one is saying he is truly innocent, just questions how the case was handled I for one do not believe he is.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Feb 15, 2005 18:58:25 GMT 1
ill admit the case could have been handled a little better in some departments but it was a fair trial.its his own fault he got 20yrs,if he admited it he would have got 14..if his mum admitted he wasnt there he would have got 16. his mums another attention seeking c*w. luke mitchell did get a fair trial and failed.he thought he'd get away with it by burning his clothes and having his own mother as his alibi..wasnt good enough.Now he has to pay.
|
|
|
Post by TheWeeMan on Feb 15, 2005 19:03:13 GMT 1
I am intrigued abc as to your insight into the mind of Lord Nimmo Smith regards what sentence Luke Mitchell might or might not have got had other things transpired.
Are you saying there was some behind the scene deal going on? How do you know this?
An Appeal is entirely normal in a case like this. Whether it will be successful is another matter.
It is also entirely consistent that the same defence team presents the Appeal. it would be lunacy to do otherwise.
Donald Findley is the finest defence advocate in Scotland.
If you think a lot of folk think he is innocent you got to ask yourself the question WHY?
I'm not entirely convinced Mitchell is innocent, but nor do I think his guilt has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And in law this is the most mportant thing.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Feb 15, 2005 19:06:58 GMT 1
well i know he is 150% guilty..thats all that matters to me and he has no hope in hell of getting out. ever
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 19:13:02 GMT 1
I also doubt an appeal will work but as Gerry said, its usually normal to try.
|
|
|
Post by unconstitutedonred on Feb 15, 2005 19:19:32 GMT 1
i live in edinburgh yeah..saying no more sorry. it just cracks me up that so many people can think he's inncocent. he is an evil,twisted hated thing that deserves alot more than he's getting now. his DAY will come.,and his mother can do nothing about it. Donald findlay only want to appeal cause he hates loosing and he's a money grabber!! I have to agree, with Tuesg. Innocence is the assumption, until proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trouble with the Mitchell case is that that hasn't been achieved. Forum's like this one are testament to it. We will never know if Luke is innocent or guilty in honesty, but when the legal system cuts corners, or has an 'off day', it is the public sense of injustice surely that brings it back in line. That is the best we can do. None of us can judge Luke, but we are entitled to judge the evidence brought against him, and the motivation of the state in bringing such a crude case. Remembering that there are no leads, Luke himself wasn't one for a time. If the state loses this, they will have failed and angry and retributive public, and cost them millions in legal fees. And on another note; 1 in 6 jurors from Luke's community, against the tide of circumstantial evidence, and media wrath still found Luke not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Fair Trial on Feb 15, 2005 19:26:14 GMT 1
well i know he is 150% guilty..thats all that matters to me and he has no hope in hell of getting out. ever 150% sure that Luke did it would indicate that you were also present .. Dont be so ridiculous with no evidence other than circumstantial there is not one person in this world that can say whether or not he did this . You are a truly angry person and if I may say a tad immature Nothing can bring Jodi back if only , The only way to progress now its to be absolutely certain beyond any doubt within Scottish Law and be clear Donald Findlay is not defending Luke for Money or Fame
|
|
|
Post by unconstitutedonred on Feb 15, 2005 19:36:18 GMT 1
(Just got a BBC alert that Michael Jackson has been taken to hospital. (Could be tactical?))
Certainly, there should be no doubt that our hearts go out to the Jones family. However to give a man the fair trial he's entitled to requires a distancing from the media onslaught and mass sentimentality.
It could be our necks in the noose next time if law submits to one sided public pressure. abc you must see that at least.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 19:59:07 GMT 1
Its not about opposing god you seem to be ignoring the fact that 666 is the number of Satan there is enough circumstancal evidence to suggest he had an unhealthy interest in Satan. Can Satan be specified without reference to God? I accept that is concievable, I'm just not familiar with such an approach to Satan. I thought that the mark of the beast was a Biblical reference. Is their another tradition on Satan, that is independent of the Bible?
|
|