Jump to content

Luke Mitchell


Johanes de Silentio

Recommended Posts

Vlad-Stupid

1. So you're saying liking a made up character who's bad means you're a killer.

?

 

2. An outstanding response. The JKB equivalent of "Na-na-na-na-na".

 

3. Dark and weird people, obviously.

 

4. But you did imply that because Luke was a weirdo he's likely to be guilty.

 

1. Don't be stupid. Killing somebody makes you a killer.

 

2. No it means, don't be so :Vlad-Stupid:

 

3. I'd imagine so. And killers.

 

4. I'm sorry I gave you the impression I thought that was the reason he was convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 712
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Pretty much sums up the most likely scenario for me, based on all I've read about it. Certainly more likely than a random bogeyman doing it, in my opinion.

 

I see some parallels with the original Knox/Sollecito conviction, and believe there is enough strong circumstantial evidence to point toward guilt in both cases. Neither clear cut, though.

 

 

Statistically, Sten probably is right. But the fact remains a large part of the prosecution was based on Luke finding the body and being creepy. It's hardly cast iron is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Don't be stupid. Killing somebody makes you a killer.

 

2. No it means, don't be so :Vlad-Stupid:

 

3. I'd imagine so. And killers.

 

4. I'm sorry I gave you the impression I thought that was the reason he was convicted.

 

So why mention any of those points in the first place if they don't really back up the point you were trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Car crash thread, with Sten drunk at the wheel.

 

Hoy - dinnae blame the thread for Sten's beheviour, by the way! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fabienleclerq

I have explained that the police were very selective about the information they chose to use for the prosecution. They spent months amassing statements and boasted that they had collected thousands of them. Why then, was so little proper information presented? Why were the majority of the prosecution witnesses related to Jodi's family? Why, with a crime-scene, forensic reports on Luke Mitchell and the body, ashes from a barbecue, several searches of the house and related vehicles, access to CCTV images and access to statements from a number of people who were using the path that day, was nothing tangible presented as evidence of the crime.

 

The type of evidence which was presented was:

 

Cheeky school essays - very common from 14-year old children - it is the most challenging age when kids are most likely to get cheeky and question authority.. Cheeky school essays do not prove that someone is a murderer.

Claims that Luke was a goth - not true, and certainly not proof that he is a murderer.

Claims that he was two-timing Jodi - with a girl he hadn't seen since the previous summer - before he met Jodi. However, even if he was two-timing Jodi, it doesn't make him a murderer. It was just another lie which was presented in lieu of proper evidence to flesh out a paltry case in the absence of anything else.

 

The worst "evidence" were insinuations that he had in an "unnatural relationship" with his mother. This enabled the police at a single stroke to destroy the reputation of both Luke and his mother. There was absolutely no evidence to back it up, and charges were never pressed with regard to child abuse, in spite of three searches of the house. Indeed, according to Mrs. Mitchell's speech at the Miscarriage of Justice day, they arrested Luke in the small hours of the morning, CSI style by breaking down his bedroom door rather than using a handle, which led to him being badly bruised as the door landed on him, so presumably they saw for themselves that he was in his own bedroom, in his own bed. Even so, whether or not he was a victim of child abuse, it does not make him a killer. Mrs. Mitchell was never charged with child abuse, because the police never seriously believed that Luke was being abused. They implied it purely to blacken both Luke's character and that of his mother, to prejudice the public against her. It was absolutely disgusting and disgraceful.

Ive never once said anything about him being an abused child/goth/bla bla bla and whatever spiel you wrote above. He was found guilty, thats good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically, Sten probably is right. But the fact remains a large part of the prosecution was based on Luke finding the body and being creepy. It's hardly cast iron is it?

 

Certainly not. It's not even "clear cut" as I just stated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Allan M, how do you know all the evidence that was presented?

 

He doesn't

 

Quite clear they all come from biased views on that other forum.

 

:lol:

 

Statistically, Sten probably is right.

 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoy - dinnae blame the thread for Sten's beheviour, by the way! :thumbsup:

 

The thread started off fine and there has been some interesting debate. It all went a bit downhill though when Sten offered up his patronising post towards Walter, dripping with irony. Whilst Walter can be controversial at times, he certainly comes across as intelligent and in this thread very much in the neutral camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few questions though.

 

What happened to the knife that went missing? Did Luke just say he lost it and didn't know?

 

Why was Luke's mum burning stuff? Did she normally burn stuff in her garden?

 

Good questions, although I have answered them in my previous posts already.

 

The knife had been given to Luke's lawyer. However, the police had found the sheath of the knife, which was displayed as evidence of the knife going missing. I have viewed a picture of that sheath on the WAP forum. The sheath was very small - about 2-3" long. It was seemingly a knife bought for camping. The knife which killed Jodi was so long that it hit her tonsils when stabbed into her mouth. In my view, therefore, the 2" "missing" knife was not the murder weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Pretty much sums up the most likely scenario for me, based on all I've read about it. Certainly more likely than a random bogeyman doing it, in my opinion.

 

I see some parallels with the original Knox/Sollecito conviction, and believe there is enough strong circumstantial evidence to point toward guilt in both cases. Neither clear cut, though.

 

What? Who suggested a... bogey man did it? There are numerous other suspects. Others are suggesting that the police took the path of least resistance when convicting their suspect and that path lead to Luke Mitchell.

 

Let's be honest, anyone claiming to know the answer either way is an idiot. At this point, the only man who knows for sure whether Mitchell was the perpetrator is Luke himself. Potentially the real killer as well if there is one.

 

Not a single person on this thread actually knows the truth, so stop pretending otherwise. You can choose a side and present ideas why you've chosen that side but the "fact" brigade are just showing themselves up as ill-informed sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Comedian

One FACT which this thread is missing so far -

 

There is of course one way which AllanM could know for a fact that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodie Jones.

 

I suggest he hands himself in to the Police ASAP.

 

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Not a single person on this thread actually knows the truth, so stop pretending otherwise. You can choose a side and present ideas why you've chosen that side but the "fact" brigade are just showing themselves up as ill-informed sheep.

 

:spoton:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Who suggested a... bogey man did it? There are numerous other suspects. Others are suggesting that the police took the path of least resistance when convicting their suspect and that path lead to Luke Mitchell.

 

Let's be honest, anyone claiming to know the answer either way is an idiot. At this point, the only man who knows for sure whether Mitchell was the perpetrator is Luke himself. Potentially the real killer as well if there is one.

 

Not a single person on this thread actually knows the truth, so stop pretending otherwise. You can choose a side and present ideas why you've chosen that side but the "fact" brigade are just showing themselves up as ill-informed sheep.

 

I am not pretending anything, or purporting anything as fact...simply giving my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Wiseau

Car crash thread, with Sten drunk at the wheel.

 

 

One FACT which this thread is missing so far -

 

There is of course one way which AllanM could know for a fact that Luke Mitchell did not kill Jodie Jones.

 

I suggest he hands himself in to the Police ASAP.

 

 

a095b62ba601cdf2e9b5ff3d0e9c8069_antanddecuhoh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vlad-Stupid

So why mention any of those points in the first place if they don't really back up the point you were trying to make?

 

Why not ffs? :lol: Am I only allowed to make one point per thread? Here, I'll break it down nice and simple.

 

He was a creepy ******* who murdered his girlfriend. Not somebody who murdered his girlfriend because he was creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

There are numerous other suspects. Others are suggesting that the police took the path of least resistance

 

COMPLETE FANTASY.

 

Other suspects were ruled out for a reason.

 

Plus your smart arse joke about the bogey man. Give it a rest man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

I am not pretending anything, or purporting anything as fact...simply giving my opinion...

 

First paragraph was for you Peebo. The rest was for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so a jury found him guilty after seeing the evidence.Good enough for me, how many appeals do we waste time and money on?

If i remember corectly they tried to get his sentence reduced because he was a child at the time of the crime, which to me is almost an admission of guilt. You would try overturn the verdict rather than reduce the sentence if you were innocent no?

 

I think I answered this question already. In order to get a retrial, Luke must submit an appeal to the SCCRC. They will not consider taking any case until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.. Now, as I explained before, although he has exhausted the "normal" appeals - I believe there have been two appeals now - there is a lot more evidence which continues to come forward, and any new evidence which throws more light on his case is grounds for a fresh appeal.. However, I believe that his legal team is correct to first go through the SCCRC, rather than present fresh evidence, even though their track record is pretty abysmal, and they can take years to come to any decision, often preferring to side with the "guilty" verdict, rather than to upset any apple-carts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Why not ffs? :lol: Am I only allowed to make one point per thread? Here, I'll break it down nice and simple.

 

He was a creepy ******* who murdered his girlfriend. Not somebody who murdered his girlfriend because he was creepy.

 

:smackdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

COMPLETE FANTASY.

 

Other suspects were ruled out for a reason.

 

Plus your smart arse joke about the bogey man. Give it a rest man.

 

Being that you were clearly in charge of the case DI Guns, what were the reasons?

 

And why haven't you replied to my other post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Other suspects were ruled out for a reason.

 

We don't know that for sure - I would hope so, but we don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rossthejambo

We don't know that for sure - I would hope so, but we don't know.

 

Whilst I agree, I think it's rather foolish to believe all that AllanM is saying about new evidence and whatever evidence was/wasn't presented at the trial if you hold this view. (not that I'm suggesting you are btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Being that you were clearly in charge of the case DI Guns, what were the reasons?

 

And why haven't you replied to my other post?

 

List of suspects who were wrongly overlooked please.

 

AllanM - does Corrine Mitchell love a wee Bon Fire the night of a murder.

 

What was she burning.

 

:vrface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??? for AlanM

 

Why are the press no into this in a big way ?? if the press feel they have a big story they will print Re of who's involved, yet I see nothing

 

I can see you are totally convinced of Lukes innocence and respect for your stance but as you can see many think otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Why are the press no into this in a big way ?? if the press feel they have a big story they will print Re of who's involved, yet I see nothing

 

Members of Sandra Lean's forum are convinced that the press are conspiring against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not. It's not even "clear cut" as I just stated...

 

Sorry, the "hardly cast iron" part was just a general statement on the case and wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First paragraph was for you Peebo. The rest was for everyone.

 

Ok by random bogeyman I really meant random attacker. As I said earlier, I have followed the case pretty closely for years. No other suspect seems plausible to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... So far, unfortunately, no-one seems to be able to give any reason for thinking he's guilty,

 

1. A man was seen fitting his descrition, talking to a girl fitting Jodi's just prior to the murder.

2. The man was wearing a hunting style jacket with bulging pockets. Luke was known to own one. Shortly after the murder it mysteriously went missing and has never been found. His mum was burning stuff late at night and iirc; later bought a replacement !

 

3. Luke was known to own a hunting knife, similar to the assumed murder weapon. It too went missing after the murder and hasn't been found. His mum bough a replacement in Dec 2003 - the pouch was foiund inscribed with the well known Nirvana quote, the second knife hasn't been located.

 

Whilst these aren't enough in themselves.(he was convicted because he walked through the V in the wal), the circumstantial stuff all adds up . That's why the jury found him guilty imo.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

List of suspects who were wrongly overlooked please.

 

 

I didn't claim any were wrongly overlooked. Stop trying to squeeze in my views to fit your agenda. I clearly said that there were other suspects, are you denying that? I then went on to say what others believe, not what I believe.

 

I genuinely believe that you genuinely believe you are 100% in the right on this thread. You're an incredibly obtuse and ignorant individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal justice threads on JKB are probably my favourite thing on the planet.

 

Now before I settle down to this, pour a large cognac and spark up a Montecristo no.4, please tell me that someone has called the boy a murdering *******, then in the same breath suggested he should have been given the death penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Members of Sandra Lean's forum are convinced that the press are conspiring against them.

 

Frightening.

 

Absolute horrific forum. 5 minutes was more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read that, thanks - thus proving that the forum is regularly and closely moderated, which you claimed it wasn't.

 

I did nothing of the kind, Paranoid Android..

 

Here is what I have said regarding the moderation of the forum:

 

Take a look at the Wrongly Accused website where you'll find a lot more about the case. Everything on there is carefully vetted by Sandra Lean, who has staked her professional status on it being accurate.

As far as I have seen, people can post anything they like there. There is no immediate moderation in place. If you read Luke's thread, you will see that many different people have joined and posted in favour of Luke, or otherwise.

 

The Wrongly Accused forum is carefully monitored to ensure that all information posted is accurate, and if anyone posts inaccurate information, the forum members correct them, and in the event of any dispute, Sandra posts to correct any inconsistencies. The only time I have seen posts actually deleted from the forum was when forum members began speculation about who killed Jodi, and these were promptly removed, in order to protect the people who were being discussed. Apart from posts which are potentially detrimental to a future trial of a different person, any other posts which are unhelpful or have wandered far too far away from the topic are moved to a different part of the forum, where they can be read by any visitor to the site. This is merely to ensure that the thread remains pertinent to the subject.

 

What I meant was that posts appear immediately, with no automatic moderation. This forum - Jambos Kickback - appears to be run the same way. All the posts are subsequently read, however, and any which might be obviously incriminatory to other individuals are removed, because it is inevitable that forum members speculate about certain individuals whose DNA was linked to the crime, who were seen at the murder scene at the time of the crime, who had previously been known to be violent or attack with knives, and so on. I imagine that on Jambos' Kickback, a similar form of moderation is in place.

 

Please read my posts with a little more care, so you do not jump to wrong conclusions. Perhaps if you had read the newspaper and other reports of the Luke Mitchell case with more care, you would not be shooting your mouth off about his guilt, while giving no proper reason for your incorrect assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Luke Mitchell is murdering scum and he should have been given the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal justice threads on JKB are probably my favourite thing on the planet.

 

Now before I settle down to this, pour a large cognac and spark up a Montecristo no.4, please tell me that someone has called the boy a murdering *******, then in the same breath suggested he should have been given the death penalty?

 

Criminal justice threads on JKB are probably my favourite thing on the planet.

 

I luaghed out loud at that post :lol: :lol: ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke Mitchell is murdering scum and he should have been given the death penalty.

 

Well......I suppose someone had to say it. Let's face it, it wouldn't really be JKB someone didn't. Now I.J can get cracking on with the cigars and cognac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sten Guns

Yon Luke Mitchell is one unlucky chap isn't he?

 

He goes to meet his girlfriend at a pre arranged time, when he arrives someone has already managed to commit an absolutely brutal murder that would have taken a fair bit of time.

 

So unlucky!

 

Even more unlucky is the fact his mother decided to have a cheeky wee bon fire the night it happened.

 

Absolute nightmare!

 

Then he lost his knife!

 

Sare yin!

 

Poor Luke. Let's free him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criminal justice threads on JKB are probably my favourite thing on the planet.

 

I luaghed out loud at that post :lol: :lol: ^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

There are few things finer in life than folk who spread lego on their toast kidding on they're Rumpole of the ****ing Bailey, Desmondo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ellie0028

Dont think im being rude Alan but I find rather odd that a stranger would spend most of the day arguing with a bunch of football fan about Luke Mitchell,you say your nothing to do with the Mitchell family just someone with and interest in the case..

 

 

Come on are you Corinne........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheeky school essays - very common from 14-year old children - it is the most challenging age when kids are most likely to get cheeky and question authority.. Cheeky school essays do not prove that someone is a murderer.

Claims that Luke was a goth - not true, and certainly not proof that he is a murderer.

Claims that he was two-timing Jodi - with a girl he hadn't seen since the previous summer - before he met Jodi. However, even if he was two-timing Jodi, it doesn't make him a murderer. It was just another lie which was presented in lieu of proper evidence to flesh out a paltry case in the absence of anything else.

 

For some one not connected with him you seem to know an awful lot about his personal life!? Or at least think you do.

 

I joined out of interest in the case, after I saw the debate had started. I am interested in knowing about this case, and I was hoping I might learn a bit more about it as some local people might have been members of this forum. So far, unfortunately, no-one seems to be able to give any reason for thinking he's guilty, which disappoints me. I kinda have always thought that the Scots had brains and had healthy cynicism about the gutter press. I should have remembered about Edinburgh's witch trials. They made Edinburgh notorious way back then, and I think that this case will make Edinburgh and the Scottish justice system notorious in times to come.

 

then seem to suggest you are not even local.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

I did nothing of the kind, Paranoid Android..

 

Here is what I have said regarding the moderation of the forum:

 

Please read my posts with a little more care, so you do not jump to wrong conclusions. Perhaps if you had read the newspaper and other reports of the Luke Mitchell case with more care, you would not be shooting your mouth off about his guilt, while giving no proper reason for your incorrect assumptions.

 

If you read my posts with any care at all, you will quite clearly see that I have not been shouting my mouth off about Mitchell's guilt in any way shape or form.

 

Please show me where I have claimed that Mitchell is guilty.

 

Please show me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Plissken

Wait, wait, wait...

 

Did this AllanM chap only join the forum because he saw this thread?

 

 

:cornette:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not ffs? :lol: Am I only allowed to make one point per thread? Here, I'll break it down nice and simple.

 

He was a creepy ******* who murdered his girlfriend. Not somebody who murdered his girlfriend because he was creepy.

 

See, that I have no problem with. According to the law, he killed his girlfriend. And he was a fecking weirdo. I just reckon too much of the prosecution rested on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Wait, wait, wait...

 

Did this AllanM chap only join the forum because he saw this thread?

 

:cornette:

 

Yup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Plissken

There are few things finer in life than folk who spread lego on their toast kidding on they're Rumpole of the ****ing Bailey, Desmondo.

 

:jjyay:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandra Lean

 

I'm sure that it was posted on here somewhere that Sandra Lean is a a lawyer. The link above doesn't mention this. However it does have this sentence in it.

 

"I was offered a PhD studentship in 2008, which I accepted, still working to support myself and my kids. At the same time, I completed a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law."

 

Why would a lawyer be doing a qualification as a paralegal?

 

And why does she describe herself as an author?

 

Maybe the appeals aren't going too well as they are being pushed along by someone with no practical knowledge of the law apart from what they have read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

Sandra Lean

 

I'm sure that it was posted on here somewhere that Sandra Lean is a a lawyer. The link above doesn't mention this. However it does have this sentence in it.

 

"I was offered a PhD studentship in 2008, which I accepted, still working to support myself and my kids. At the same time, I completed a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law."

 

Why would a lawyer be doing a qualification as a paralegal?

 

And why does she describe herself as an author?

 

Maybe the appeals aren't going too well as they are being pushed along by someone with no practical knowledge of the law apart from what they have read?

 

I'm not sure whether she's a lawyer or not - she has written a book, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snake Plissken

Yup!

 

:rofl:

 

So a non-Hearts fan specifically joins a Hearts supporter's forum to argue with Hearts supporters about the Luke Mitchell case.

 

**** me, that's an odd way to spend your time, how did he even find us? I actually Googled 'Luke Mitchell' to see if this thread pops up and it doesn't. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johanes de Silentio

:rofl:

 

So a non-Hearts fan specifically joins a Hearts supporter's forum to argue with Hearts supporters about the Luke Mitchell case.

 

**** me, that's an odd way to spend your time, how did he even find us? I actually Googled 'Luke Mitchell' to see if this thread pops up and it doesn't. :mellow:

 

There's a link to this Kickback thread on Sandra Lean's forum - I'm guessing that's how he found us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...