Murder in a Small Town

[Boo Khaki]

Anybody else watch this on C5/5Star last night?

https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town-2

Clearly the idea is to suggest that Luke Mitchell is quite possibly the victim of a miscarriage of justice, but having said that, I thought the first episode was still a bit partisan in how they went about telling the story. Clearly no input at all from Jodi Jones' family or Police Scotland, bar one short statement about the fact PS are 'satisfied' with Mitchell's conviction and see no need to investigate anyone else, but I thought it was odd that they mentioned that his mother was originally charged with obstruction, and attempting to defeat the ends of justice, yet didn't bother to explain how those charges were brought about, what prompted them etc. It was just quickly brushed aside.

Perhaps the second episode might be a bit more objective in terms of explaining what the case against Mitchell actually was, rather than simply being an exercise in randomly throwing shit at other walls. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[mozam76]

The two "detectives" were both investigated for fraud before leaving the service. Now keen to discredit the work of their colleagues, it would seem.

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Perhaps the second episode might be a bit more objective in terms of explaining what the case against Mitchell actually was, rather than simply being an exercise in randomly throwing shit at other walls. 

It's C5 mate, the TV equivalent of the National Enquirer. Not a chance will it be any more objective.

I did have a wee giggle at the maw's description of James Matthews (Sky News interviewer) though. 

[Fratelli]

It was incredibly one sided and sensationalised, and made it seem like there was no possible explanation for his conviction whatsoever. Which has of course riled the numpty Twitter detective types who think James English is Scotland's answer to David Frost. Will be interested to see if the second part goes into any actual detail in regards to the other side of the story but i'm not expecting it. Channel 5 exists for no reason other than to rile folk up by making things seem black and white, so any rational, analytical discussion would be a surprise. 

Not claiming to know the ins and outs of every bit of evidence in the case, but know it was a lot more complex than is being made out here.

[Alert Mongoose]

Did seem a bit one sided.  I'd struggle to give much credence to the guy that was describing the other 'suspect'.

[54_and_counting]

Tbf we've had one hour of a show that sides with mitchell against 17 years of it being one sided against him

Wether he really did it or not no one will really know, but there was absolutely no chance he was getting a fair and unbiased jury for his trial given the ten or so months leading up to it 

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Did seem a bit one sided.  I'd struggle to give much credence to the guy that was describing the other 'suspect'.

Before he mentioned his flat, my 'Leith Bam' detector was going full pelt, sirens wailing, the works.

[mozam76]

1 hour ago, 54_and_counting said:

Tbf we've had one hour of a show that sides with mitchell against 17 years of it being one sided against him

Wether he really did it or not no one will really know, but there was absolutely no chance he was getting a fair and unbiased jury for his trial given the ten or so months leading up to it 

I don't know about fair and unbiased, but there is certainly no chance that the jury would not have known anything about the case. It was the only story in town at that time, with the local tabloid in particular lapping it up day after day. It would be like finding Edinburgh residents who knew nothing about the fucking trams. 

[sfha]

My missus is a big true crime buff and had read a book about the case a year or so ago. From what she says about it, it does look as if the evidence was tenuous to say the least. 

[FuzzyBear]

Yes of course it is one sided but seems very strange that Quinn, Falconer, Kane and the moped lads were never interviewed as suspects. 

Not having legal representation at his police interview is shocking.

Am 50/50 if there has been a miscarriage of justice but the police conduct does look as if Mitchell was their only target.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by FuzzyBear

[54_and_counting]

I still cant believe after seeing evidence of witnesses changing statements, potential other suspects, poilce treatment of Mitchell, his alibi which was never proven false, plus absolutely nothing linking him to the crime forensically 

That the jury could still go away and still come back and say "aye im 100% convinced he done it" 

[Boo Khaki]

So, to sum up, it was an un-named random that did it, but they can't give any details at all about how they came to that conclusion, but suffice to say, he's a total radge and it was pure definitely him and no Luke.

Ok then.

[Arch Stanton]

I didn't watch the programme last night. I rarely watch anything on C5.

From memory the Police pursued Mitchell as the only suspect because he was the boyfriend, knew where the body was located, and was a bit of a weirdo.

Despite the "savagery of the attack" there was no DNA evidence presented. The theory that his clothes were destroyed in a fire pit in his garden was pure conjecture based on his neighbours saying "there was a funny smell". There was also the whole "Black Dahlia" drivel presented by the prosecution.

The lack of investigation in to other suspects reminds me of the Pamela Hastie murder in 1980 where Raymond Gilmour was the only suspect because he has a previous conviction for indecent exposure and some w**k mags were found in his bedroom. He, like Mitchell, maintained his innocence and spent 20 years in prison before his conviction was overtunred.

[FuzzyBear]

13 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

So, to sum up, it was an un-named random that did it, but they can't give any details at all about how they came to that conclusion, but suffice to say, he's a total radge and it was pure definitely him and no Luke.

Ok then.

Maybe I picked it up wrong but thought they were implying it was the guy whose semen was found in the condom.

[Bert Raccoon]

32 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

I still cant believe after seeing evidence of witnesses changing statements, potential other suspects, poilce treatment of Mitchell, his alibi which was never proven false, plus absolutely nothing linking him to the crime forensically 

That the jury could still go away and still come back and say "aye im 100% convinced he done it" 

In regards to his alibi, it wasn't shown on the show but I believe Luke Mitchell's brother said that Luke couldn't have been in the house at the time as he was looking at porn and wouldn't do that if there was anyone else in the house so Luke couldn't have been there

Edited February 25, 2021 by Bert Raccoon

[Arch Stanton]

9 minutes ago, Bert Raccoon said:

In regards to his alibi, it wasn't shown on the show but I believe Luke Mitchell's brother said that Luke couldn't have been in the house at the time as he was looking at porn and wouldn't do that if there was anyone else in the house so Luke couldn't have been there

I'd forgotten about that but the prosecution dismissing the alibi based on his brother saying he only had a w**k when he thought the house was empty is both laughable and tragic.

[kiddy]

1 hour ago, Bert Raccoon said:

In regards to his alibi, it wasn't shown on the show but I believe Luke Mitchell's brother said that Luke couldn't have been in the house at the time as he was looking at porn and wouldn't do that if there was anyone else in the house so Luke couldn't have been there

 

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

I'd forgotten about that but the prosecution dismissing the alibi based on his brother saying he only had a w**k when he thought the house was empty is both laughable and tragic.

Surprised it didn't include him listening to it wi headphones on & when he took them off there was a mug of cocoa & two slice of toast, on the bedside cabinet!

As for an appeal, it looked as though there was enough doubt cast on the conviction to warrant one, though why it was already rejected twice was never covered.

They certainly wanted questions asked of the prosecution, over the interrogation/forensics, sisters boyfriend, the Moped Boys/cousin, Condom Man & the unnamed new suspect.

Leith Ned's mate seemed a bit of a cul-de-sac though, with him being dead (confirmed?).

[paranoid android]

The most one-sided thing I've seen on the telly since that Germany Brazil game.

Sensationalist pish with an agenda - I'd like to know who paid for this to be made.

[TrebleTwenty]

I quite surprised this got the go ahead tbh. But it is C5 after all. Very amateurish & following a script.

Going with the sympathy vote, with a one-sided story based on sensationalism and blame game.  I've no doubt go fund me pages are being set-up, to cash-in.

As far as the Leith lad goes, it is the first time he has mentioned his pal carried knifes, he has always gone with the scratches acting weird story in the past, but has never mentioned the knife until now. I'm also sure, that he tried to get his pal to go along with the story and cash it in to the press. This particular lad, who was also in the frontline documentary many years ago that got pulled for aye you guessed it, being one-sided. This lad has also claimed, that he was a lawyer working on the case, back in the day. But since that chap is now dead, he cannot defend himself, which is why i think the knife was mentioned. Him and the so-called criminologist have been pals for a long time. I would take what this lad says, well lets be frank as bullshit.

The little experiment they did with the drive-by, was rather cringe, the area has changed. More cars, new houses and busier, these days. I wonder why they never done the experiment at the other end of the path after the murder, when he was seen alone by another 2 people.

The moped two, imo is also another exaggerated story. Yes I agree, they were on the path at some point in that afternoon, but the moped was never witnessed propped against the wall unmanned, it was claimed someone driving along a road over 400 yards away seen it, this would mean, looking up an embankment, over a field and though a very overgrown path, while driving, doubtful, and I will call BS on this unnamed witness supervision talents.

These two ex detectives, coming across as amateurs. And just finding out about their previous carry-on's in the force , I'm surprised they got vetted for this. Think they have a cert, but for legal reasons cannot name him. The person I think they are talking about, is condom man, I won't name him for legal reason, but his name is all over the net. The condom was found 50 yards away in the opposite direction, I cant remember what his story was to explain his w**k in the woods.

If they really need to someone else, it is Jodi's sisters BF. But I'm sure the police did.

IMO, i think Luke is bang to rights, but i agree, the crime scene was poorly managed and the media frenzy was unfair. Also not having a lawyer present during an interview was poor. But none of that make Luke innocent. Trying to portray Luke as some kind of nice wee boy, it could not be farther from the truth. The behaviour of him and him mother after the murder was very telling. I also think his brother failing to go along with the alibi, was the nail in the coffin, Why did the brother not show up on the program?

 

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 hours ago, Baptiste Bourgeois said:

The fella's been put away for 16 years essentially for being a goth who listened to Marilyn Manson.

Harsh but fair.

[54_and_counting]

6 hours ago, TrebleTwenty said:

I quite surprised this got the go ahead tbh. But it is C5 after all. Very amateurish & following a script.

Going with the sympathy vote, with a one-sided story based on sensationalism and blame game.  I've no doubt go fund me pages are being set-up, to cash-in.

As far as the Leith lad goes, it is the first time he has mentioned his pal carried knifes, he has always gone with the scratches acting weird story in the past, but has never mentioned the knife until now. I'm also sure, that he tried to get his pal to go along with the story and cash it in to the press. This particular lad, who was also in the frontline documentary many years ago that got pulled for aye you guessed it, being one-sided. This lad has also claimed, that he was a lawyer working on the case, back in the day. But since that chap is now dead, he cannot defend himself, which is why i think the knife was mentioned. Him and the so-called criminologist have been pals for a long time. I would take what this lad says, well lets be frank as bullshit.

The little experiment they did with the drive-by, was rather cringe, the area has changed. More cars, new houses and busier, these days. I wonder why they never done the experiment at the other end of the path after the murder, when he was seen alone by another 2 people.

The moped two, imo is also another exaggerated story. Yes I agree, they were on the path at some point in that afternoon, but the moped was never witnessed propped against the wall unmanned, it was claimed someone driving along a road over 400 yards away seen it, this would mean, looking up an embankment, over a field and though a very overgrown path, while driving, doubtful, and I will call BS on this unnamed witness supervision talents.

These two ex detectives, coming across as amateurs. And just finding out about their previous carry-on's in the force , I'm surprised they got vetted for this. Think they have a cert, but for legal reasons cannot name him. The person I think they are talking about, is condom man, I won't name him for legal reason, but his name is all over the net. The condom was found 50 yards away in the opposite direction, I cant remember what his story was to explain his w**k in the woods.

If they really need to someone else, it is Jodi's sisters BF. But I'm sure the police did.

IMO, i think Luke is bang to rights, but i agree, the crime scene was poorly managed and the media frenzy was unfair. Also not having a lawyer present during an interview was poor. But none of that make Luke innocent. Trying to portray Luke as some kind of nice wee boy, it could not be farther from the truth. The behaviour of him and him mother after the murder was very telling. I also think his brother failing to go along with the alibi, was the nail in the coffin, Why did the brother not show up on the program?

 

 

You dismiss a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing at other people, then claim luke was caught bang to rights based on nothing but circumstantial evidence