|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 14:24:37 GMT 1
Luke was not practicing Satanism, well that’s how the media portrayed it anyway, Satanist do not generally even believe in the devil its just a name. What luke was doing if the media portrayal is to be believed was devil-worshipping.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 15:28:15 GMT 1
Tuesg, I do think you capture much of what the prosecution and media left hanging in the air, as suggestion. What worship is, is a question. Worship often tends to be a reinforcement through ritual, often in collective setting. So devil-worshipping, even if the suggestion were to be entertained: has to do with somewhat ritualised activity which nominally refreshes a hermetic of subscription; you re-member and re-vitalise perspective in which you believe, through symbolism and ritual. Do you have media articles where this was documented? There is nothing exceptional in ritual, symbolism or worship: so attention would still be thrown back on this suggestion, that in the case of Luke Mitchell; it somehow betokened something which indicates a propensity or predisposition to murder. So you again have to look at what is being indicated by the term "devil": and again, I would argue, the prosecution and media proceeded by way of unsubstantiated inuendo; and not by any explicit specification and documentation. No matter what Luke Mitchell was doing, or did as symbol or ritual: there has been, to my mind, nothing documented or explicated, in that doing; that indicates Luke would murder, rather than not murder. Nothing that was led to do with satanism, the devil, worshipping, or whatever in this narrow regard: came to indicate likeliehood that Luke Mitchell would or had murdered; and as such, and in anticipation of possible prejudice arising thereby in the juries mind, in should not have been allowed as admissable evidence. It may well be that portrayal of what Luke did in this regard, could have been worked into being admissable evidence: by the explicit modelling as to cause and effect, and the documentation which showed that this modelling applied to Luke; was simply not done. As it stands, the notion that recourse to perspective and ritual involving the devil and satan: shows an unusual and significant predisposition to murder; is simply a matter of folk prejudice. The concern in this case, is that parties which included at least the police, the prosecution and the media, if not the court itself: colluded to prosecute and convict Luke Mitchell; through a manipulation of this folk prejudice in the public mind. This collusion need not be seen as malicious, or even conscious: exemplifying more that these various parties have come to share perspectives and values; such that, once Luke Mitchell was put in the frame by the Lothian and Borders police, these parties were simply never able to extricate themselves from the pre-judgement that he was in fact guilty. So, again, we come back to a New Labour horizon: where the social process that New Labour are progresively instigating; involves implict yet powerful prescription and proscription about who and what "decent" social participants are. Such that merely waving about some rhetoric concerning the devil and satan, and bottles or urine, and cannabis, and Goth, and whatever: put Luke Mitchell so far beyond the pale of such New Labour "decency"; that only a few mavericks, such as Donald Findlay, have taken the trouble to actually look and see what this condemnation actually amounted to.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 15:42:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by unconstitutedonred on Feb 15, 2005 16:19:46 GMT 1
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4187007.stmAnd i quote from that artical "Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help." "had scratched the numbers 666 on his upper-right forearm with a compass." Regardless of what Luke said about following the teachings of satan, there is no evidence of his actually doing so. His statement stands alone as a matter of fact, tthat if 'I' were to follow the teachings of satan then 'I' would not need psychiatric help. The quote that the media has hung on, "I've tasted the devil's green blood", was as it turns out a quote from the computer game Max Payne. All very superficial and not evidence of satanism, or a knowledge of satanism and certainly not knowledge or capacity to carry out ritualistic murder. What the prosecution were successful in doing, was to imply a link between satanistic rituals, and the mode of Jodi's murder; or a link between the black Dahlia murder and Jodi's. Or again, a link between goth subculture and the mode of Jodi's murder. The media has taken all of these and stirred them up and come out with a hotchpotch of fantasy fit to shock the oublic, and in turn chastise Luke. Beyond the veil there is little of any substance. The more I research this case, and not to be dramatic, the more concerned I get.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 16:42:01 GMT 1
All very superficial and not evidence of Satanism, or a knowledge of Satanism and certainly not knowledge or capacity to carry out ritualistic murder. What the prosecution were successful in doing, was to imply a link between Satanic rituals. While were on it stop using the term Satanism, the media doesn't no what Satanism is, it has nothing to do with Satan ritual murders or anything. In fact one of the main teachings as i have already stated before is. "Ritual killing (of humans or animals) violates Satanic principles. Blood drawn from a victim is useless. Victims are killed symbolically, not actually" The media need to read up on such things before the go in Stating facts. Bobbie Dog I have been wondering, why do you keep relating Goth Culture to New labour?
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 17:11:00 GMT 1
Quote begins: His fascination with the darker areas of human behaviour was also reflected in his opinions on religion. His school jotter was covered in Satanic slogans, with the numbers 666 and references to the Devil. He also wrote an essay questioning God's existence and saying the world needed Satanic people - "People like you need Satanic people like me to keep the balance." The word Satan was written across the back of a jotter with the phrase: "I have tasted the Devil's green blood." In another essay, Mitchell wrote: "So what if I am a Goth in a Catholic school? So what if I dress in baggy clothes? "Just because I am more violent than others and cut myself, does that justify some pompous git of a teacher to refer me to a psychiatrist? "Just because I have chosen to follow the teachings of Satan doesn't mean I need psychiatric help." End quote. So Luke had opinions on religion. Luke questioned God’s existence. Luke used the number 666 as decoration or symbol. Luke reckoned that the world was balanced when people believed in both God and not-God. He has an opinion that his views on religion do not indicate that he requires psychiatric correction. There is not one whit of data in any of that indicates substantive devil or satan “worship”. Every position he takes has intellectual legitimacy. None of it is illegal, to my knowledge. None of this indicates any “fascination” with the “darker areas of human behavior”. All of the judgmental conclusions concerning Luke, in this regard, are what used to be called “value laden”: reflecting primarily the subjectivity of the judger; and in this instance, seeming to have no substantive connection with any data set.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 17:23:32 GMT 1
"None of this indicates any “fascination” with the “darker areas of human behavior”."
I would suggest carving 666 on your arm with a compass suggests otherwise
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 17:31:06 GMT 1
Thanks for that religious blog link Tuesg, that's a goodie. What is does show, is a propensity to reductive profiling. For example, Luke's references to death become a "fixation". Much of the phenomenal logic of the picture the blog draws remains of this order: but, like many portrayals drawn by religious folk, it has a robust, tightly woven quality. Rebuttal of it would require more patient analysis: but the primary point that would be repeated in such analysis, is that the portrayal secures none of its own data; rather it builds a construction and wieght, from elements it lifts from others claims, where the logical inter-relation between these many elements, is left unexplored. So someone said this, and someone else said that, or this may have happened: nothing properly documented; yet all the time the extruded portrayal is becoming ever more compelling and extensive. Castles in the air stuff: pre-judgement on the basis of data not properly scrutinised; tells you more about religiousity, than it ever could about Luke MItchell. I think the killer is the wieght put on the urine bottles. Maybe I'm thick. I just can't see why they indicate a propensity to murder, or darkness, or the satanic. You kind of wonder if the innuendo is that he is holding on to the urine for some dark, retentive purpose: but no-one has the gall or the guts to state that explicitly; another piece of "evidence" that simply had no business being admitted.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 17:36:00 GMT 1
The collection of Urine Bottles is usually and indication of schizophrenia, tho of course this is not always the case.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 17:39:10 GMT 1
"None of this indicates any “fascination” with the “darker areas of human behavior”." I would suggest carving 666 on your arm with a compass suggests otherwise[/quote I don't see that either. Self harming, mutilation; sure. Dodgy taste in culture and symbol; sure. Making a mark of demarcation from those who exclusively favour righteous hermetic; sure. Fascination with darker areas of human behaviour; no. Setting yourself apart from a contextual culture or social setting, is not intrinsically a dark thing, not a dark way of doing. Its just being autonomous: thinking and feeling for yourself; striking out on your own, a la thingy Whittington. New Labour and much folk predujice would have it that it is a dark thing, a suspect way of doing: that is their judgment, ideology and value; and good on them for that: but ideology does not a universal empiricality make. Legal process has no right to be dealing in such prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 17:42:38 GMT 1
Its not the fact about the self harm, but what he chose to carve on to himself
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 17:44:23 GMT 1
Even if that were accepted: we take a serious step when being characterised as schizophrenic, sees you profiled as being more likely to commit murder, than the non-schizophrenic. Again, folk prejudice would have it that the schizophrenic is the more likely murderer: but there is no science in that; there is no indication in the data of being schizophrenic, that indicates any special predisposition to murder. The urine bottle reference remains inadmissable evidence: designed only to cast prejudice against a subject; and giving no indication whatsoever as to probality of the subject being a murderer.
|
|
Bobbie dog as guest
Guest
|
Post by Bobbie dog as guest on Feb 15, 2005 17:45:40 GMT 1
What do you take to the significance of "666"?
|
|
|
Post by Tuesg on Feb 15, 2005 17:47:51 GMT 1
666 The number of the beast
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 15, 2005 18:19:37 GMT 1
The girls were cited for court and were not called in as a witness against him as Luke's defence claimed it would be unfair, Sorry however the reasons these girls were not used in any prosecution had absolutely nothing to do with fairness. When the prosecuter is putting forward a case that is totally relient upon circumstantial evidance he would use every scrap of evidence against Luke Mitchell whether it seemed fair or not. The feelings of any girls would play no part in it.A prosectuting Lawyer desperate to gain a guilty verdict especially testimony in court from girls who woulld be willing to stand up in court and unfold to a Jury that this 14 year old boy had a history of violance with knives towards girls woud have gave creedance to the case The reason these girls were not called to give evidance was infact that they were not credible witnessess and would have been pulled to shreds by the defence team.. This is the reason that they were not given their day in court.. If they are credible they may still have there chance at an appeal to stand and give testimont. ise
|
|