Tazio Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Sorry meant when certain evidence put to both when they both passed a lie detector Polygraphs are only used in the US as no other country considers them legitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve123 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/02/evidence-that-convinced-a-jury-of-luke-mitchells-guilt/ Bit of background on what was used to convict him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 15 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Sorry meant when certain evidence put to both when they both passed a lie detector As has been said, hardly any countries use them or give them any credence. People can train themselves to pass them, especially cold blooded psychopaths who have convinced themselves they're telling the truth. I'd imagine the yes/no type questions they were being asked makes it even easier to "pass" the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshed Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 30 minutes ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Just watched part 2 still plenty doubt for me She passes a polygraph test as does Luke when that and other stuff was put to them It surely has to go back to court for me All the stuff we seen the other night has already been seen by appeal judges I think so unless fresh evidence appears then nothing will happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 They never pressed Mum enough about burning clothes and buying/replacing a new army type jacket either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 2 hours ago, haveyouheard1874 said: Just watched part 2 still plenty doubt for me She passes a polygraph test as does Luke when that and other stuff was put to them It surely has to go back to court for me It’s Channel 5. It’s got the credibility of a Christmas pantomime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 I get get what you are saying was just tuning in and expressing an opinion Its a bit like reading the Guardian/Times , hust because they articulate better than the Tabloids doesnt mean to say what you are reading is still a pile of Hibs What docs would you suggest,, as opposed to say Chan 5's efforts ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 2 hours ago, McGlynn The Money said: As has been said, hardly any countries use them or give them any credence. People can train themselves to pass them, especially cold blooded psychopaths who have convinced themselves they're telling the truth. I'd imagine the yes/no type questions they were being asked makes it even easier to "pass" the test. Isn't yes/no how these things work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 23 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: Isn't yes/no how these things work? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 27 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: Isn't yes/no how these things work? Which probably explains why they have such limited credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 23 hours ago, haveyouheard1874 said: A bit sick but she looked well worth a rattle in her day 😛 Isn't she like a proper Witch?! The dude they interviewed in the field was the guy who wanted the £50k with his junkie pal back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haveyouheard1874 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, Armageddon said: Isn't she like a proper Witch?! The dude they interviewed in the field was the guy who wanted the £50k with his junkie pal back in the day. A rides a ride at times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kaiser Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 My understanding of lie detectors is that they actually measure/detect stress not telling a lie. This is why they can be beaten and also even provide incorrect responses where someone's nervousness can register a spike in the test when they're actually being honest. Ultimately if they were infallible they'd be used far and wide across the globe. The fact they're not speaks volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 15 hours ago, Peakybunnet said: Can you give examples of how a murder enquiry should work? By following protocols, not denying a 15yo his legal rights certainly doesn't fall into that category. Following up properly on other possible suspects. I will say, when you read background reports on Mitchell, it is hard to see him not being the culprit. Out of control behaviour, school reports, heavy dope smoking, constantly fighting in school, love of knives. He pulled a knife on a a previous GF, he had a second GF on the go that he was to spend 2 weeks with imminently. He must have been a charmer, although avery smelly one going by hygiene habits. When you take all these into account, the coincidence of some other freak being in the right place and right time becomes pretty unrealistic. But hey, you just never know. Mark Kane could well have been that freak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armageddon Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 On 09/09/2013 at 12:27, Templeton Peck said: Wasn't there allegations he shagged his maw? Or the dog? Or the dog shagged the maw? Can't remember. So the dug shags Luke, the dug then finds out he's got a girlfriend and kills her in a jealous rage - did they question the dug? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Armageddon said: So the dug shags Luke, the dug then finds out he's got a girlfriend and kills her in a jealous rage - did they question the dug? Maybe the dog is barking mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 10 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said: Maybe the dog is barking mad. It got hounded out of town years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 8 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said: It got hounded out of town years ago... Well there goes another lead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 On 01/03/2021 at 08:28, Tommy Brown said: By following protocols, not denying a 15yo his legal rights certainly doesn't fall into that category. Following up properly on other possible suspects. I will say, when you read background reports on Mitchell, it is hard to see him not being the culprit. Out of control behaviour, school reports, heavy dope smoking, constantly fighting in school, love of knives. He pulled a knife on a a previous GF, he had a second GF on the go that he was to spend 2 weeks with imminently. He must have been a charmer, although avery smelly one going by hygiene habits. When you take all these into account, the coincidence of some other freak being in the right place and right time becomes pretty unrealistic. But hey, you just never know. Mark Kane could well have been that freak. Not sure where you are coming from on this. First you say he never had his legal rights and that nobody else was investigated or followed up properly. What were his legal rights when detained and who are the other suspects. How do you know other suspects were not looked at? Then you go on to say its hard to see him not being the culprit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Peakybunnet said: Not sure where you are coming from on this. First you say he never had his legal rights and that nobody else was investigated or followed up properly. What were his legal rights when detained and who are the other suspects. How do you know other suspects were not looked at? Then you go on to say its hard to see him not being the culprit? Do some research yourself, it will be clear what I am on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: Do some research yourself, it will be clear what I am on about. That's pretty much saying you dont know what his lawful rights were and you dont know what follow up was carried out by the police into any other suspects or named individuals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Peakybunnet said: That's pretty much saying you dont know what his lawful rights were and you dont know what follow up was carried out by the police into any other suspects or named individuals? His rights are he is entitled to Lawyer and responsible adult (parent) when being interviewed, he didn't get either. John Scott QC could not understand why others were not followed up. Prof Jamieson, Head of Forensic institute questions the lack of foensic evidence. arse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 4 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: His rights are he is entitled to Lawyer and responsible adult (parent) when being interviewed, he didn't get either. John Scott QC could not understand why others were not followed up. Prof Jamieson, Head of Forensic institute questions the lack of foensic evidence. arse Jamieson is another one who seemingly has a chip on his shoulder about the police according to my ex cop http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2013161.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 On 01/03/2021 at 08:28, Tommy Brown said: By following protocols, not denying a 15yo his legal rights certainly doesn't fall into that category. Following up properly on other possible suspects. I will say, when you read background reports on Mitchell, it is hard to see him not being the culprit. Out of control behaviour, school reports, heavy dope smoking, constantly fighting in school, love of knives. He pulled a knife on a a previous GF, he had a second GF on the go that he was to spend 2 weeks with imminently. He must have been a charmer, although avery smelly one going by hygiene habits. When you take all these into account, the coincidence of some other freak being in the right place and right time becomes pretty unrealistic. But hey, you just never know. Mark Kane could well have been that freak. Not just in relation to this case but the traits used to describe Luke are so common that for me they cannot in isolation be used to determine someone's guilt but are often used against defendants that don't fit societal norms, thinking back to when I was 15 there were plenty folk in my year at school that teachers said were 'out of control', had bad report cards, smoked dope, cheated on their girlfriends and got in fights, no doubt there would have been a fair few that carried knives too - does that make all of them murderer's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: His rights are he is entitled to Lawyer and responsible adult (parent) when being interviewed, he didn't get either. John Scott QC could not understand why others were not followed up. Prof Jamieson, Head of Forensic institute questions the lack of foensic evidence. arse Have you read the judgement from any of his appeals? The answers are there. A social worker from Dalkeith social work department was present as a responsible adult when he was questioned, his mother was deemed unsuitable. Nothing from these interviews was used as evidence in court anyway. There was enough circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to return a guilty verdict. Why would you follow anything up when it has been proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator is in custody? https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 Edited March 2, 2021 by graygo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 20 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: His rights are he is entitled to Lawyer and responsible adult (parent) when being interviewed, he didn't get either. John Scott QC could not understand why others were not followed up. Prof Jamieson, Head of Forensic institute questions the lack of foensic evidence. arse I believe and correct me if wrong as I am far from a legal expert but if a person is being detained under the legislation at the time and has been taken to a police station they would be entitled to have intimation of their detention sent to a solicitor and to one other person reasonably named by him. If a child then intimation should be made to the childs parent . The law at the time didn't make reference to these people being allowed to be present when interviewed. But please correct me if wrong. I believe the law has now been changed to allow this access. Please there is no need for insults I am asking reasonable questions based on your assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ribble said: Not just in relation to this case but the traits used to describe Luke are so common that for me they cannot in isolation be used to determine someone's guilt but are often used against defendants that don't fit societal norms, thinking back to when I was 15 there were plenty folk in my year at school that teachers said were 'out of control', had bad report cards, smoked dope, cheated on their girlfriends and got in fights, no doubt there would have been a fair few that carried knives too - does that make all of them murderer's? That's where I am, too. If I was on the jury, I would more likely be saying there is reasonable doubt. I tend to think he most likely did it, if he did, he did one hell of a job not leaving any evidence, though. Summarise, I think most police are useless and juries unreliable. That's my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 14 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said: I believe and correct me if wrong as I am far from a legal expert but if a person is being detained under the legislation at the time and has been taken to a police station they would be entitled to have intimation of their detention sent to a solicitor and to one other person reasonably named by him. If a child then intimation should be made to the childs parent . The law at the time didn't make reference to these people being allowed to be present when interviewed. But please correct me if wrong. I believe the law has now been changed to allow this access. Please there is no need for insults I am asking reasonable questions based on your assumptions. apologies. I thought he were trying to be smart with me. wasn't in the mood. I have no idea if your reply is correct, but recently watching a drama doc on Fred West in the 90's, he got a responsible person. Cadder appeal refused[edit] On 15 April 2011, Mitchell's bid to challenge his conviction for murder following a human rights ruling by the Supreme Court in the Cadder case was rejected. His lawyer told the Appeal Court in Edinburgh that his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during an interview. Lord Osborne sitting with Lord Hamilton (Lord Justice General) and Lord Kingarth told Mitchell that the application for leave to lodge the additional ground was refused. The appellant's appeal against sentence was finally disposed of on 2 February 2011 and in such circumstances there did not exist a live appeal in respect of which leave could be granted under section 110(4).[11] In November 2011 Mitchell was refused leave to take his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on the basis that his previous appeal had been dealt with before the Cadder ruling and could therefore not be re-opened.[12] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Truly the greatest piece of investigative journalism since watergate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Truly the greatest piece of investigative journalism since watergate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 16 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Truly the greatest piece of investigative journalism since watergate I'm waiting for the Oliver Stone movie to come out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 50 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said: apologies. I thought he were trying to be smart with me. wasn't in the mood. I have no idea if your reply is correct, but recently watching a drama doc on Fred West in the 90's, he got a responsible person. Cadder appeal refused[edit] On 15 April 2011, Mitchell's bid to challenge his conviction for murder following a human rights ruling by the Supreme Court in the Cadder case was rejected. His lawyer told the Appeal Court in Edinburgh that his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during an interview. Lord Osborne sitting with Lord Hamilton (Lord Justice General) and Lord Kingarth told Mitchell that the application for leave to lodge the additional ground was refused. The appellant's appeal against sentence was finally disposed of on 2 February 2011 and in such circumstances there did not exist a live appeal in respect of which leave could be granted under section 110(4).[11] In November 2011 Mitchell was refused leave to take his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on the basis that his previous appeal had been dealt with before the Cadder ruling and could therefore not be re-opened.[12] I understand the Cadder case is what changed the law in Scotland which in ordinary circumstances would make it illegal for the police to interview when a lawyer had been requested. This was made law in 2010. Mitchell tried to make the law retrospective which is why it was refused. Fred West was from Gloucester which comes under English law. This is an entirely different kettle of fish . The PACE act of 1984 was 25 years ahead of Scotland in allowing the suspect access to his lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 2 hours ago, Tommy Brown said: His rights are he is entitled to Lawyer and responsible adult (parent) when being interviewed, he didn't get either. John Scott QC could not understand why others were not followed up. Prof Jamieson, Head of Forensic institute questions the lack of foensic evidence. arse Where a couple knew each other forensics are pretty useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 It might be the Daily Ranger but is an accurate account of the evidence. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583?fbclid=IwAR3jAkiJaDih3gEMMDW9jZuERf1UtctIjOkjVcQMTRUyx1QRnifuAd2Cc_Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 On 02/03/2021 at 14:03, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Truly the greatest piece of investigative journalism since watergate Well said! It was the reconstructions that convinced me. If an ex-cop lying down in the woods talking to his pal, than one of their daughters driving past a random couple in the street a few times doesn't prove Mitchell's innocence the I don't know what will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 18 minutes ago, McGlynn The Money said: Well said! It was the reconstructions that convinced me. If an ex-cop lying down in the woods talking to his pal, than one of their daughters driving past a random couple in the street a few times doesn't prove Mitchell's innocence the I don't know what will. It probably proves that the lassie in the car must have been lucky to pass her Hazard Perception Test for her driving licence. She didn't see anything but the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theshed Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Think it’s very telling that the brother didn’t stand up for him at court and no where to be seen on the tv programme If you know your brother done nothing wrong the surely you’d do anything to prove his innocence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) Ended up watching it just because there was so much chat on it. Obviously it was tagged as being from his perspective and ended up being as biased as folk said. I agree conducting some interviews with that Sandra in her car was bizarre. Were they trying to be all artistic or gritty? Whatever it was, it was weird. The car experiment might be the most stupid experiment I've seen. Channel 5 should avoid cars pretty much. I do think there are a few interesting aspects to the case that give pause for thought. But I'll need to read the court appeal document to actually try and decide what I think. Edited March 4, 2021 by AlphonseCapone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maroon Sailor Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 2 hours ago, McGlynn The Money said: Well said! It was the reconstructions that convinced me. If an ex-cop lying down in the woods talking to his pal, than one of their daughters driving past a random couple in the street a few times doesn't prove Mitchell's innocence the I don't know what will. Don't forget the gut instinct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamstomorrow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 On 28/02/2021 at 19:41, Tazio said: Polygraphs are only used in the US as no other country considers them legitimate. Polygraph testing was good enough for Jeremy Kyle . . . . . and look where that got him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamstomorrow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 On 02/03/2021 at 13:05, Ribble said: Not just in relation to this case but the traits used to describe Luke are so common that for me they cannot in isolation be used to determine someone's guilt but are often used against defendants that don't fit societal norms, thinking back to when I was 15 there were plenty folk in my year at school that teachers said were 'out of control', had bad report cards, smoked dope, cheated on their girlfriends and got in fights, no doubt there would have been a fair few that carried knives too - does that make all of them murderer's? Potential murderers, yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Jamstomorrow said: Potential murderers, yes! Everyone is a potential murderer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Ribble said: Everyone is a potential murderer Can you be a potential murderer if you've already murdered? 🥴 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGlynn The Money Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 On 04/03/2021 at 13:39, Maroon Sailor said: Don't forget the gut instinct Indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossi_1983 Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Seems a bit too obvious a mistake to have left the name of the “main suspect who they couldn’t name” visible on the screen when it was first aired (original version is still available on YouTube as well!). The lack of DNA evidence for the case against Luke Mitchell is surprising, but there are so many unanswered questions around the circumstantial evidence against him, that I think he probably was involved. I think the police were so certain they had the right person due to his behaviour, that they didn’t do the due diligence on all the other leads to properly rule them out. Think mark kane is a red herring (and there are posts from him online from before he died shedding some light on the behaviour of scott Forbes and Sandra lean). The big question marks for me are around the boys on the moped, who cant explain why they were at the v around the time of the murder, and the “suspect who can’t be named” who was apparently identified walking along the street behind Jodie shortly before the murder. It was such a tragic case, and there are so many unanswered questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor FinnBarr Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 On 04/03/2021 at 16:04, Jamstomorrow said: Polygraph testing was good enough for Jeremy Kyle . . . . . and look where that got him! Aye, sitting in the hoose wi millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¼½¾ Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 8 hours ago, rossi_1983 said: Seems a bit too obvious a mistake to have left the name of the “main suspect who they couldn’t name” visible on the screen when it was first aired (original version is still available on YouTube as well!). The lack of DNA evidence for the case against Luke Mitchell is surprising, but there are so many unanswered questions around the circumstantial evidence against him, that I think he probably was involved. I think the police were so certain they had the right person due to his behaviour, that they didn’t do the due diligence on all the other leads to properly rule them out. Think mark kane is a red herring (and there are posts from him online from before he died shedding some light on the behaviour of scott Forbes and Sandra lean). The big question marks for me are around the boys on the moped, who cant explain why they were at the v around the time of the murder, and the “suspect who can’t be named” who was apparently identified walking along the street behind Jodie shortly before the murder. It was such a tragic case, and there are so many unanswered questions When one of the witnesses described Mitchell, they said he had a bulging pocket. Was there any relevance to this, as I've no seen it mentioned anywhere else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 On 02/03/2021 at 15:19, Peakybunnet said: It might be the Daily Ranger but is an accurate account of the evidence. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hard-facts-prove-luke-mitchell-23588583?fbclid=IwAR3jAkiJaDih3gEMMDW9jZuERf1UtctIjOkjVcQMTRUyx1QRnifuAd2Cc_Y ..."hard facts" that all add up to reasonable doubt imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peakybunnet Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 20 minutes ago, felix said: ..."hard facts" that all add up to reasonable doubt imho. That's an oxymoron. 😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 25 minutes ago, Peakybunnet said: That's an oxymoron. 😀 If you had been on the jury or from what you've read. Are you guilty camp? Beyond all reasonable doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.