|
Post by abc on Feb 24, 2005 17:50:46 GMT 1
he never done anything to me and i wouldnt have called him evil when i met him but because i know he did this and to the extent of what he done that is why i call him evil.
|
|
mev89
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by mev89 on Feb 24, 2005 18:09:54 GMT 1
sorrry abc!!! im not getting personal or anything!!!
|
|
|
Post by Graeme Houston on Feb 25, 2005 1:09:33 GMT 1
Mev89 wrote:
Your right Mev89 -
Thats 85 joints a day. or over 5 every waking hour supposing he sleeps for a mere 8 hours a day.
It normally takes about 15 - 20 minutes minimum to roll and smoke one (based on my observations of friends who are expert rollers). So based on my calculations, if someone smoked joints non stop the whole week they could do three an hour. That would get them through a mere 336 which is still a ridiculously absurd number..
We all know it, but if the media are saying it, people will believe it. I think 16 a day maximum is more likely. And that's not accounting for the financial side of it!
What a media circus. eh? I really think that a lot of it was designed to turn Luke into an icon upon which public rage could be fixed. And fixed it was.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme Houston on Feb 25, 2005 1:44:45 GMT 1
And don't take this wrongly abc, but I'm going to preempt you here by saying that I am in no way defending Luke. I am merely saying that the media are wrong to come out with such wild rubbish, thus making him look worse than he is. It's not a midieval witch hunt. It was a 21st centuary trial.
Why? you might ask... Well because we are part of a civilised society. In order to say we are civilised, we must ourselves remain civilised. And remaining civilised means that we must treat people in a civil manner. Even if we are tempted to think that they don't deserve such treatment, we must resist such thoughts and treat them in a civil manned until they themselves forefeit those rights.
This all goes back to the notion of 'Innocent until proven guilty'. Once found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt he has forfeited his right to civil treatment by his actions.
The problem is I do not think that it has yet been proven that he is guillty beyond all reasonable doubt. Surely if he is guilty it can be proven, without the media going on a quest to make him evil? Everything should be based on fact. It should be based on exactly what he has done, with nothing extra thrown in. It should not be 'Guilty until proven Innocent'.
I am not saying any of this because I believe he is innocent. I have no oppinion regards whether it was him or not. I am saying it because we are treading dangerous territory here.
|
|
mev89
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by mev89 on Feb 25, 2005 17:37:36 GMT 1
i know this sounds like im a pure sado or something but its done. whats done is done. the only person who knows who killed jodi jones is infact jodi jones. i dont want to disrepect anyone but we cant do anything about it now.all we can do is send the boy to prison and he is more likely to learn more about other stuff like how to jack into a car in like 2 seconds flat i think he will be much worse when he comes out
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Feb 27, 2005 20:49:46 GMT 1
Isn't it a bit strange that they found the dna of more than 2 people on Jodi's underwear? It seems logical that they would find Luke's because he's her boyfriend, and if the other dna belonged to her mother or sister surely it would be easy to know that. So who does it belong to? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stmThe Police have made a terrible job of this case. If others did their jobs so badly they would be sacked. More money has been spent, due to their incompetence at the beginning of the investigation and it's possible that this may lead to us never really knowing the truth. I just want to see solid evidence. Maybe he committed the crime and maybe he didn't. There is no way of knowing at the moment. People don't all react in the same way. Some people who are in shock simply don't react and it's not because they have no feelings. I've personally experienced this kind of shock. Some people bottle all their emotions inside. Eventually they let them out but not usually in front of people. I'm not surprised that the police found Luke in his mother's bedroom. Under the circumstances he was probably having nightmares and it proves that underneath it all he's not such the hard man he likes to make out. They say the crime wasn't premeditated. It was June so we can reasonly presume that Luke wasn't wearing gloves. If he strangled her why were there absolutely no finger prints around her neck? Even with it raining surely they would find something. Of course it would be normal anyway to find some of his prints on her neck, but if you strangle someone, unless you're wearing gloves, you would have to leave a lot more surely? ?
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 27, 2005 22:03:57 GMT 1
With that name, you had to be posting in this thread. Have to agree wholeheartedly with each and every point you make: apart from the matter of possible finger prints on Jodi's kneck, not sure how figerprints would register there, if at all. The matter of the T-shirt being claimed as belonging to Jodi's sister, is interesting: if that claim was rejected, that would open up a whole new line of possible enquiry. I do think that it is important to map all the contours of doubt in this case. The police and prosecution seem to have been willing to accept whatever Jodi's family suggested. Turnbull QC claimed in his closing speech that the whole case rested on the testimony of three of Jodi's family members (maybe two members and a fiance or inlaw), as to how Luke acted and reacted in the event of finding the body. If the credibility of evidence from Jodi's family were to evaporate, then the whole prosecution case would collapse.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 27, 2005 22:29:52 GMT 1
Just saw what you had said about "hard man". I'm not sure that Luke Mitchell set out to portray himself as that. Yes he looked built to handle himself somewhat. But his whole stance had more to do with meaning and autonomy, than making any statement about being able to stand against the world physically. I'm dyslexic, and that means that I'm not governed by collective restraints: my senses just give me data, which my mind frames, and my mouth finds the syntax to utter; where that sees me routinely do a roadrunner over the abyss, in terms of what a collective will throw its hands up in horror about. I can identify with Luke Mitchell's autonomy: and I also know the fear that comes with being genuinely autonomous; Luke Mitchell too, in being autonomous, would also know this boldness to be different, and its fears. There may be other data which indicates a hard man strategy: but I haven't really seen such; and even where it was suggested by others, I would wonder whether they were squeezing sonebody they had no understanding off, into categories and forms with which they were familiar. Luke Mitchell seems closer to fifties and sixties and subsequent rock stars: people who sometimes Icarus like, and sometimes more darkly, felt they could do it all; could prime the existential pumps with drugs, and fly and survive. Very often, off course, and ingloriously, they hit walls, or trees, or whatever. They could not in fact do it: not by the methods they had chosen; not with the perspectives they had to hand to guide them. I know this all happened in Dalkeith: but Luke Mitchell was taking his run at repeating the human experiment; where I think he was simply not willing to be confined by the understanding of his neighbours. I wonder if he has paid a terrible price for that difference, as some of his neighbours took a revenge, and simply fitted him up. I think that, even at its nost formally concieved, as matters of circumstantial and causitave evidence, that is all that happened: data was squeezed into the forms of a pre-judgement. All that remains separate from any question of innocence or guilt. There was simply nothing in the prosecution case which really dealt with that. Guilt was not proved, that is the ground of absence of safety in verdict.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Mar 1, 2005 1:01:55 GMT 1
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Mar 1, 2005 1:19:18 GMT 1
Just as a straw poll. If you were to compare the human qualities of the writer of the Mirror article, with the writer of this alleged letter: just how would you rate and compare them?
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on Mar 1, 2005 9:52:11 GMT 1
All I can say is - i definitely won't be on that mirror writer's Crimbo card list.....with the exception of bloodlust (Angelina Jolie anyone?) the musical tastes and fasscination is not entirely unusual . .. and definitely nothing to sensationalise....
|
|
|
Post by tinchick on Mar 1, 2005 9:56:16 GMT 1
ugh . . .lack of sleep and caffiene . . . grammar and spelling awful - apologies
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Mar 3, 2005 13:28:01 GMT 1
Bobbie Dog, could you tell me why finger prints would not figure there?
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Mar 3, 2005 14:41:08 GMT 1
I was speaking as an ignorant layman here. I suppose I was thinking of the active organic nature of skin: with gross factors such as sweat, hair, dead flakes; and the skins ability to act back against an impression, tending to make it dissapear. So, and again as an ignorant laymen: I can see the possibility of bruising and other trauma traces, and I can see the possibility of DNA and other deposity (especially in skin to skin violence); but, and may be thinking too much of fingerprints on glass, I couldn't quite see what form fingerprints on skin might take
|
|
|
Post by Not Convinced on Mar 3, 2005 15:30:42 GMT 1
|
|