Murder in a Small Town

[54_and_counting]

9 hours 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

If thats true, then why didn't the police continue with their charge against his mother, its like they charged her with perverting the course of justice to make the conviction seem stronger after it was handed down, then dropped all charges against the mother 10months later when no one was looking

[Bert Raccoon]

2 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

If thats true, then why didn't the police continue with their charge against his mother, its like they charged her with perverting the course of justice to make the conviction seem stronger after it was handed down, then dropped all charges against the mother 10months later when no one was looking

I would tend to agree, I'm right on the fence with this, there definitely wasn't enough clear evidence to convict him but I'm also not convinced it wasn't him either. What was the explanation for him having a knife sheath with JJ 1989 - 2003 carved into it? Certainly not enough to convict him but extremely odd none the less. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Bert Raccoon

[54_and_counting]

19 minutes ago, Bert Raccoon said:

I would tend to agree, I'm right in the fence with this, there definitely wasn't enough clear evidence to convict him but I'm also not convinced it wasn't him either. What was the explanation for him having a knife sheath with JJ 1989 - 2003 carved into it? Certainly not enough to convict him but extremely odd none the less. 

Aye theres defo stuff pointing towards him, but weighing up both sides of the evidence i still can't believe a jury thought that he had done it beyond reasonable doubt, 

The witnesses changing their statements, all with the same changes should have set off an alarm in the jury nevermind the lack of forensic evidence, 

3 people basically all changed a statement to one that implicated mitchell, thats no dodgy at all, not a chance

As for the police treatment of him when questioning him, surely thats a sackable offence if any of them are still in the force 

[dundeefc1783]

Aye theres defo stuff pointing towards him, but weighing up both sides of the evidence i still can't believe a jury thought that he had done it beyond reasonable doubt, 
The witnesses changing their statements, all with the same changes should have set off an alarm in the jury nevermind the lack of forensic evidence, 
3 people basically all changed a statement to one that implicated mitchell, thats no dodgy at all, not a chance [emoji849]
As for the police treatment of him when questioning him, surely thats a sackable offence if any of them are still in the force 

What was the treatment of him by police?

[54_and_counting]

14 minutes ago, dundeefc1783 said:

1 hour ago, 54_and_counting said:

Aye theres defo stuff pointing towards him, but weighing up both sides of the evidence i still can't believe a jury thought that he had done it beyond reasonable doubt, 
The witnesses changing their statements, all with the same changes should have set off an alarm in the jury nevermind the lack of forensic evidence, 
3 people basically all changed a statement to one that implicated mitchell, thats no dodgy at all, not a chance
As for the police treatment of him when questioning him, surely thats a sackable offence if any of them are still in the force 

What was the treatment of him by police?

He was 15yo, questioned for hours, wasnt allowed to phone his mum or a lawyer to be with him, and the Lord Advocate i think it said last night basically said his human rights were violated by the treatment, 

Mitchell says as well that when he went to the toilet and standing at the urinal, two big coppers stood either side trying to convince him to confess

They basically tried to harass a confession out of him, weird as it is, had he confessed while he didnt have adult or legal representation and the crown used that confession in their case, his legal team could probably have more luck in his appeals, instead he withstood their harassment, stuck to his guns and they used other evidence instead

[dundeefc1783]

He was 15yo, questioned for hours, wasnt allowed to phone his mum or a lawyer to be with him, and the Lord Advocate i think it said last night basically said his human rights were violated by the treatment, 
Mitchell says as well that when he went to the toilet and standing at the urinal, two big coppers stood either side trying to convince him to confess
They basically tried to harass a confession out of him, weird as it is, had he confessed while he didnt have adult or legal representation and the crown used that confession in their case, his legal team could probably have more luck in his appeals, instead he withstood their harassment, stuck to his guns and they used other evidence instead

While I don't really know the ins and out of the case if that's true about the telling him to confess while at the bog is clearly out of order.

However in regards to his mum/legal representation I think the law was a bit different then to it is now. Back then I don't believe suspects were entitled to speak with a solicitor before police questioning. He will also surely have had an appropriate adult with him if he was only 15 when interviewed. It sounds crazy but it's how it was then. Think that changed about 10 years ago

[54_and_counting]

15 minutes ago, dundeefc1783 said:

While I don't really know the ins and out of the case if that's true about the telling him to confess while at the bog is clearly out of order.

However in regards to his mum/legal representation I think the law was a bit different then to it is now. Back then I don't believe suspects were entitled to speak with a solicitor before police questioning. He will also surely have had an appropriate adult with him if he was only 15 when interviewed. It sounds crazy but it's how it was then. Think that changed about 10 years ago

He didnt have anyone that was the big kick up, and given he asked for someone and waa refused, the whole thing is a shambles, 

Wether 15 or 50 you were always entitled to a rep of somesorts, the polis just acted the wideman trying to get a confession from him 

[dundeefc1783]

He didnt have anyone that was the big kick up, and given he asked for someone and waa refused, the whole thing is a shambles, 
Wether 15 or 50 you were always entitled to a rep of somesorts, the polis just acted the wideman trying to get a confession from him 

He will have had an appropriate adult surely and back in those days that's all they were legally entitled to.

[54_and_counting]

10 minutes ago, dundeefc1783 said:

30 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

He didnt have anyone that was the big kick up, and given he asked for someone and waa refused, the whole thing is a shambles, 
Wether 15 or 50 you were always entitled to a rep of somesorts, the polis just acted the wideman trying to get a confession from him 

He will have had an appropriate adult surely and back in those days that's all they were legally entitled to.

He had no one, that was the point made last night, 

[dundeefc1783]

He had no one, that was the point made last night, 

During an interview under caution?

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, dundeefc1783 said:

1 hour ago, 54_and_counting said:

He had no one, that was the point made last night, 

During an interview under caution?

Thats what the show implied last night yeah, the police breached his human rights but apparently still not grounds for an appeal fpr a miscarriage of justice

 

[TrebleTwenty]

8 hours ago, 54_and_counting said:

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

 So what other overwhelming circumstantial evidence is there on the others, that was not explained away in court. You have read the court documents right?

[54_and_counting]

53 minutes ago, TrebleTwenty said:

 So what other overwhelming circumstantial evidence is there on the others, that was not explained away in court. You have read the court documents right?

Not what im getting at, for mitchell there was absolutely not one single shred of undeniable evidence that he killed jones, none whatsoever, questionable witness statements and eye witness accounts, questionable police investigation, nothing concrete, no forensics, no confession nothing

If the police didnt investigate any other leads due to the circumstantial nature of the leads, why was the circumstantial mitchell evidence worthy of going to trial

Imo there is absolutely no way a jury should find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, theres just nothing concrete to say he done it, he even had an alibi that no one was able to discount (if his alibi provided by his mother could be proved to be false then why were charges dropped against her?) 

[dundeefc1783]

Not what im getting at, for mitchell there was absolutely not one single shred of undeniable evidence that he killed jones, none whatsoever, questionable witness statements and eye witness accounts, questionable police investigation, nothing concrete, no forensics, no confession nothing
If the police didnt investigate any other leads due to the circumstantial nature of the leads, why was the circumstantial mitchell evidence worthy of going to trial
Imo there is absolutely no way a jury should find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, theres just nothing concrete to say he done it, he even had an alibi that no one was able to discount (if his alibi provided by his mother could be proved to be false then why were charges dropped against her?) 

This isn't a dig as I am not familiar of all the ins and out of the case but is your opinion based on last night programme or have you done some other research into it?

Have not watched it yet but do plan to but take these programmes with a very large pinch of salt these days as they are very much made to fit a certain narrative and don't always tell anywhere near the full story. The BBC have become particulalry bad for it imo so can only imagine how channel 5 do it.

[TrebleTwenty]

34 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Not what im getting at, for mitchell there was absolutely not one single shred of undeniable evidence that he killed jones, none whatsoever, questionable witness statements and eye witness accounts, questionable police investigation, nothing concrete, no forensics, no confession nothing

If the police didnt investigate any other leads due to the circumstantial nature of the leads, why was the circumstantial mitchell evidence worthy of going to trial

Imo there is absolutely no way a jury should find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, theres just nothing concrete to say he done it, he even had an alibi that no one was able to discount (if his alibi provided by his mother could be proved to be false then why were charges dropped against her?) 

It is exactly what you were getting at. Again, what overwhelming evidence, against the others that had them bang to rights?

You do know, we in Scotland can convict on circumstantial evidence in Scotland. It is as if he is the only murderer that has ever been convicted in this way.

Are you trying to suggest, the police never investigated other suspects? Where are you getting this information from?

His alibi was his brother, his brother in court, failed to corroborate the story to Luke's whereabouts at the time of the murder. Which was in the house  burning dinner. His mother was not even in the house at this point, she was at WORK, how on earth could she have been a solid alibi, when she was not even there? Of course they won't tell you that in the program, in fact they never mention anything or the reasons why Luke was convicted, strange that?   Where is his brother now? Why has he never spoken out? I know why. Charges were dropped, because they wanted the bigger prize, IMO, the only MOJ in this case is that she never did some bird for her lies.

[Rob1885]

Polis made an absolute balls up of the crime scene. Nothing new. Hence why this can of worms can even be opened.

[Arch Stanton]

6 hours ago, dundeefc1783 said:

This isn't a dig as I am not familiar of all the ins and out of the case but is your opinion based on last night programme or have you done some other research into it?

From my post on this thread yesterday you can see I didn't watch the programme and therefore my opinion is not influenced by it.

All of the evidence was circumstantial

• he was the boyfriend
• he located the body
• the type of music he was into
• the neighbours said there was a smell of burning from the Mitchell's garden which could indicate that his clothing was burned
• the JJ 1989-2003 on the knife pouch
• the obsession with the Black Dahlia case.

Dismissing the alibi because the brother said he only looked at internet porn when the house was empty would be laughable if it wasn't tragic.

[kiddy]

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?
 
 

The driving experiment; have they changed the speed limits? As it was basically proven, after pointing people out (at the 3rd time of asking) that identification was nigh on impossible!
Forby stopping to ask directions, you've zero chance of describing anyone present; forby describing the number & possible gender.

[paranoid android]

A lot of local folk are now totally convinced that Mitchell is innocent, despite the fact that there was nothing new in the documentary - I can only assume they weren't paying attention at the time of the trial or any of the many subsequent appeals.

[54_and_counting]

41 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

A lot of local folk are now totally convinced that Mitchell is innocent, despite the fact that there was nothing new in the documentary - I can only assume they weren't paying attention at the time of the trial or any of the many subsequent appeals.

At the time of the crime, the media narrative (most fed by the police desperate for s conviction) was so one sided its easy to see why people went with the guilty verdict