HMFC 1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 In my opinion the guy is guilty, And the jury have made the right call. Mitchells supporters have blamed a series of things in an act of desperation, from the media to the jury and even Mitchell's lawyer. From what I have read of the WAP forum, as someone else has said is very one sided. My opinion of course, although people who thInk (or as some claim "know") Luke Mitchell is innocent won't want to acknowledge this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie0028 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Exactly - it's her opinion - the same opinion that is being repeated by her supporters, who hang on her every word - people like AllanM. we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 TBH your obsession on this tragic case is a worry, now the Jury are guilty Its patently obvious you feel luke is wholeheartedly innocent, fair enough but expect others see it different And why did the Mitchells leave it so late to speak out when by tour account they are totally innocent of all accusations What is your connection to those involved if any As for the lottery of the Jury thats a factof life, wouldny like you to be on one as rationality seems to be a non event when you express an opinion The jury was comprised of normal people. If the people on this forum can be considered to be normal people, then they can be likened to the jury at the trial of Luke Mitchell. I speak as I find with regard to the prejudice on this forum. No-one so far has come up with any answer to my repeated queries regarding why they think he is guilty. Indeed, there is such blindness and entrenched thinking that I find it truly disturbing. Is it totally impossible for the average person to assimilate new information and review their ideas in light of it? With regard to speaking out, what has that to do with guilt or innocence? Nothing. I have no affiliation or connection to any of the Mitchell family. I consider myself to be rational. My rationality enabled me to read all the same defamatory news stories as you have, but still retain enough doubt to spur me on to find out more. I was able to read all the tabloid press reports about the trial of Luke Mitchell, and retain my objectivity. This ability to be rational has led me to read a lot more about the case, which is why I am posting here today. I had heard that Luke Mitchell had passed a lie detector, and did a search hoping to find more information, and this forum was the top link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 we agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 this forum was the top link. Do you recognise this guy? Hope not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Family dog eh? Not partially trained police sniffer dog? :interesting: The family dog was a german shepherd dog which was half-way through a tracker course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I don't need a theory. The early search party statements described the dog pulling Luke back to the gap in the wall and standing up on it's hind legs so its head was level with the crack. As a result of this Luke went over the wall, to take a look around, using a high powered torch. After a short time, he called back to say that he could see something. Two other people joined him, and they also saw what he saw. Together, they went closer to discover the body, half-hidden in the vegetation. They all saw something, just as Luke did, from the same point he was standing. Those search party statements were taken shortly after the discovery of the body. In the ensuing months, these witnesses changed their stories, identically, to a denial that the dog had alerted them to the whereabouts of the body. This was never made clear in court, and the people whose stories all changed were never asked to give an explanation for the reason their accounts had been changed. Can I see the proof of this, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 No-one so far has come up with any answer to my repeated queries And you haven't responded to a posters repeated requests that you address post 150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 And you haven't responded to a posters repeated requests that you address post 150. And many others - what a ******* cheek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Please point out where I said he was convicted for being creepy. A jury convicted him on all the evidence presented to them. I'm more than happy with that. Why would all those random people conspire to convict him? I take it you were on the jury? Or are you just pretending to know everything about the case? The evidence presented to the jury at the trial has been brought up on this thread, and it was reported in the press accounts of the trial, many of which are available for view if you do a web search. It was basically a lot of nonsense, and accusations with little or no proof to back any of those accusations up. What happened to Luke Mitchell is not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawberry2 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Oh my god, I have sat back and watched his thread grow, allanM I`m sorry u talk some bull, was out playing with friends eh no think you will find it was way after he was seen with them, why phone her mum and ask long after she was meant to meet him where was she ? why phone the talking clock when he was meant to be in his kitchen? Why did u not say he had already stabbed her with a knife ? Oh wait cause u blind, take it from me he should rot in hell , as for his mother don`t even go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC 1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Can I see the proof of this, please? Already asked this, still waiting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Allan, do you believe Luke should have been found Not Guilty or Not Proven? If its Not Guilty, you cannot possibly know that for certain. If its Not Proven, I suppose I can understand where you are coming from a little better. But i would be thankful the jury wasn't made up of a group of "AllanM's". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 What happened to Luke Mitchell is not acceptable. What happened to Jodi Jones is not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The family dog was a german shepherd dog which was half-way through a tracker course. It's the dog that blew the case open. Read something about dogs and you can get them to follow treats. The brother was watching porn at the time of the incident. Was the pc in the lounge? You say he was out with his mates at the time but his testimony says he was in the house. It's not for me to decide. I won't join a crusade either way but leave it to the powers that be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Already asked this, still waiting..... It seems to me that 'Allan' has the answer to everything, but he's yet to provide us with a single piece of evidence to back up his claims. 'His' true colours came out earlier when he claimed Mitchell had no trace of drugs on him and then bizarrely mentioned that Jodie Jones was found to be heavily intoxicated, almost as if he was trying to allude to something sinister. Without a doubt Mitchell's mother or another family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Hmmmm...... You're right, but, human nature being what it is, I'm not sure how easy / possible it actually is to not allow these things to influence your thought process, even just subconsciously.... There was a media feeding frenzy over this case in general, and Luke's "guilt" in particular, and that makes me uneasy about the systems ability to deliver a fair trial and/or a safe conviction. A classic recent example of this was Christopher Jefferries (Jo Yeates landlord) who was singled out by the media in her case. Everyone "new" he was guilty, they just needed to find the proof to back that up. Only he wasn't guilty. The police caught the actual murderer, and secured a conviction against him in court. I can't help but wonder how Jefferries might have fared had Vincent Tabak not been caught...? I do absolutely agree with you that lack of proof of guilt does not necessarily prove innocence, but that is the assumption we have to make. This is a good post. I too remember the Joanna Yeates case. I also remember seeing many posts in a forum by members who were convinced that her boyfriend was guilty of the crime, in spite of the fact that he had not even been arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawberry2 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 the creep should be right beside Luke and his mother, sorry but its so close to me i`m so angry .anything to get this horrid pile of poo in the lime light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 This is a good post. I too remember the Joanna Yeates case. I also remember seeing many posts in a forum by members who were convinced that her boyfriend was guilty of the crime, in spite of the fact that he had not even been arrested. What order are you reading this thread in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Without a doubt Mitchell's mother or another family member. Without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 What order are you reading this thread in? The order that suits him and his agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Apologies to anyone who is finding my repeated asking of the following question monotonous but the sooner he stops ducking it and gives an answer (preferably one based on fact and not hearsay) then we can move the discussion on. @AllanM Could you answer the question that I raised on post 150 of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 A jury found him guilty. Juries have been known to get it wrong. They are not presented with all the facts. They are presented with as much information as they can cobble together to try to convict the accused person. If the defence case is not robust, then innocent people can be convicted of crimes. In terms of the Luke Mitchell case, I have some sympathy with the lawyer. The policeman in charge of the case boasted about the number of people they had working on the case, and the number of statements they had taken from many, many people. To try to wade through it all in time for the trial must have been an overwhelming and impossible task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 This is a good post. I too remember the Joanna Yeates case. I also remember seeing many posts in a forum by members who were convinced that her boyfriend was guilty of the crime, in spite of the fact that he had not even been arrested. Scots law is different, you are innocent until proven guilty in Scotland so you don't have to say much if you are innocent. You come out with a statement in Scotland and its up to the legal system to prove you wrong. In England you are guilty until proven innocent......I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 If's defo not his mother as she has a wicked temper on her and would have snapped by now. Ita not a pretty sight when she loses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawberry2 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Allan M, can I ask how you know these search party witnesses changed their statements? No 1 changed statements thats why he won`t answer, luke and only luke and dog took them to where JJ was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Juries have been known to get it wrong. They are not presented with all the facts. They are presented with as much information as they can cobble together to try to convict the accused person. If the defence case is not robust, then innocent people can be convicted of crimes. In terms of the Luke Mitchell case, I have some sympathy with the lawyer. The policeman in charge of the case boasted about the number of people they had working on the case, and the number of statements they had taken from many, many people. To try to wade through it all in time for the trial must have been an overwhelming and impossible task. Once you've dealt with my initial question raised on post 150, you may answer this one. Do you believe that Donald Finlay was incompetent? And if so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Apologies to anyone who is finding my repeated asking of the following question monotonous but the sooner he stops ducking it and gives an answer (preferably one based on fact and not hearsay) then we can move the discussion on. @AllanM Could you answer the question that I raised on post 150 of this thread? Corrine AllanM will get to it - she he seems to be working backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie0028 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 If's defo not his mother as she has a wicked temper on her and would have snapped by now. Ita not a pretty sight when she loses it. Would it be to late to ask her to donate to flag fund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Once you've dealt with my initial question raised on post 150, you may answer this one. Do you believe that Donald Finlay was incompetent? And if so, why? minor point i think it was actually post 149 your question and its donald findlay QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is it not a criminal offence to carry knives and deal drugs anyway? Knives - exceptions are made in certain cases. Luke was bought the knife for camping and fishing purposes, and that is acceptable legally, I believe. Dealing drugs - Yes. Incidentally, however, the member of Jodi's family who was Luke's supplier for the small amount of cannibis he purchased to share between his friends, stated in court that Luke still owed him for the last batch. As far as I know. he was never prosecuted for dealing drugs to a 14-year old child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMFC 1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 No 1 changed statements thats why he won`t answer, luke and only luke and dog took them to where JJ was Seems to be ducking a few questions raised here. I dot see how someone could originally give a statement to say they were present when the body was found then weeks or even months later change their statement to say that it was Mitchell alone that found the body. Must of been the bullying and intimidation of the police eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 What order are you reading this thread in? I said something that just happened to suit his agenda, so he found it worth quoting and commenting on.... Much easier than continually dodging the questions he can't/won't answer, I suppose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 minor point i think it was actually post 149 your question and its donald findlay QC Don baby to his pals as well!! And you're right about the post. Maths was never my strong subject. #149 AllanM... please answer and stop ducking - there's a good lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Not every post, silly Billy I think it's fairly obvious to most reading this thread who is - through design or through utter stupidity - making themselves look utterly stupid. I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about the case to be making personal judgements on whether he is guilty or not - that's why we have trials by jury. I'm not holding too much stock in the clearly bias information presented on this thread by both sides. From all I have read about the case, though, I am far from satisfied that the conviction is safe - that's not to say I think he's innocent, rather I have never been convinced of his guilt. One thing I do agree with is the trial by media aspect - regardless of whether the jury were told to ignore the media coverage in the lead up to the case or not, it's only human nature to be influenced by it, even on a subconscious level. I mean, who actually gives a shit if he listened to Marilyn Manson or not? I find it incredible that formed the basis of any part of the media coverage, let alone the trial - yet this will have played a part in forming the picture that Mitchell was dangerous and a potential killer. Absolutely. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gunn Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 So they both passed a lie detector?? Strange. Al seems to be saying an awful lot but not showing us any proof to back it up, i have an open mind if i can actually see all the facts, which we are not getting. I am a bit confused about the lie detector, it would be a heck of a risk if they both knew he did it, knowing that it could pretty much be the final thing that could feck them (if the detector said they are lying). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Corrine AllanM will get to it - she he seems to be working backwards. Maybe a sordid Q & A session from a graveyard live on Sky is on the cards. Seriously though, guilty or innocent, out of the bounds of taste that interview with Sky was inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 I'm now convinced it's IJ on the wind-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConsiderThis Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 He is still guilty. Yes, in the eyes of the law and according to the majority of the people on this thread, so far, "He is still guilty" but don't you think it odd that 2 individual people relating to the same case would both pass the test if they were lying? This is my first post so I'll keep it short and sweet lol Were you satisfied that the police investigation followed every line of enquiry before arresting LM? Do you accept this was not a sexually motivated crime, as claimed by SIO Dobbie? If so, what are your reasons for accepting this? The reason I ask is I can't understand if there was no sexual motivation, why was there semen/sperm on and in the body (which was naked), semen/sperm on underwear and items of clothing and footwear found scattered at the locus? That is not to mention the blood, saliva, hairs unidentified cells on the body and items of clothing, none of which belonged to LM. If they could identify the owner of blood and semen found on certain items of clothing, and also identify the semen found in the used condom which was in the vicinity of the body, why could they not find any dna belonging to LM on JJ, and why no traces of JJ on LM? I'd be grateful for any information that you could provide to support your view that he is still guilty. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie0028 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Maybe a sordid Q & A session from a graveyard live on Sky is on the cards. Seriously though, guilty or innocent, out of the bounds of taste that interview with Sky was inappropriate. Funny I was talking about that today,shocking time to do an interview and shocking on Sky for filming it that day and showing it...Would it be fair to say that many level headed people just wouldnt do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 So they both passed a lie detector?? Strange. Al seems to be saying an awful lot but not showing us any proof to back it up, i have an open mind if i can actually see all the facts, which we are not getting. I am a bit confused about the lie detector, it would be a heck of a risk if they both knew he did it, knowing that it could pretty much be the final thing that could feck them (if the detector said they are lying). What should they have done before the lie detector test then? Personally it seems more like a drug debt that has went horribly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yes, in the eyes of the law and according to the majority of the people on this thread, so far, "He is still guilty" but don't you think it odd that 2 individual people relating to the same case would both pass the test if they were lying? Oh FFS there's two of them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoJack Horseman Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It seems to me that 'Allan' has the answer to everything, but he's yet to provide us with a single piece of evidence to back up his claims. 'His' true colours came out earlier when he claimed Mitchell had no trace of drugs on him and then bizarrely mentioned that Jodie Jones was found to be heavily intoxicated, almost as if he was trying to allude to something sinister. Without a doubt Mitchell's mother or another family member. Has to be. It's a really unhealthy obsession otherwise. Out of all the conspiracy theories in the world, why choose this one to obsess over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Oh FFS there's two of them now. :lol: You see the power of kickback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellie0028 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 and now here someone else Corinne is that you? Tell you what I'll be really pissed off if it turns out these two are hibs fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondo Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Oh FFS there's two of them now. Mike and Berny Winters alert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllanM Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 You should get yourself over to the UFO thread AllanM, thats the place where fantasy and made up bullshit is the order of the day In response to popular request, I am responding to this post - number 150. Was this really considered worth reading, or did people feel that I should correct the punctuation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConsiderThis Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 As I mentioned Jeremy Bamber took and passed a LDT in prison, think its unusual for it to be allowed but it does happen English Law and Scottish Law are different but they are all HMP so I expect it would be down to the individual prison, either the governor or the head of security or a joint decision. I remember Joe Steele done one, Tommy Campbells co accused. He passed it but it didnt help him to get released, it was other evidence that managed to do that. Joe Steele tried everything to get the truth out as did TC, and they got their in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Oh FFS there's two of them now. Bet they're going to tag team poor PA...! :smackdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Were you satisfied that the police investigation followed every line of enquiry before arresting LM? Do you accept this was not a sexually motivated crime, as claimed by SIO Dobbie? If so, what are your reasons for accepting this? The reason I ask is I can't understand if there was no sexual motivation, why was there semen/sperm on and in the body (which was naked), semen/sperm on underwear and items of clothing and footwear found scattered at the locus? That is not to mention the blood, saliva, hairs unidentified cells on the body and items of clothing, none of which belonged to LM. If they could identify the owner of blood and semen found on certain items of clothing, and also identify the semen found in the used condom which was in the vicinity of the body, why could they not find any dna belonging to LM on JJ, and why no traces of JJ on LM? If I may: 1 - I'm not convinced that the police followed up fully on every lead. 2 - I'm not sure that Jodi's murder wasn't sexually motivated in some way - I just don't know. 3 - There was sperm in and on Jodi's body? Where are you getting that from? 4 - The sperm on the top Jodi was wearing belonged to Jodi's sister's boyfriend, did it not? Jodi was wearing her sister's top, was she not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.