It's seems apparent these things can happen in murder investigations and these failures are used by people like Luke Mitchell to maintain innocence.
However it is clear to me now that these failures aren't unusual in cases like this.
Could it possibly be that failures like this are apparently not unusual in cases like these (i.e. people maintaining factual innocence) because they are recognised and acknowledged tactics in cases of "fitting up" innocent people, rather than conducting proper investigations? I wouldn't dream of asking you to take my word for it - try Prof Phil Scraton, Prof Allan Jamieson, Prof Derek Pounder, Prof Tim Valentine, Dr Keith Ashcroft, former head of Scotland Yard Roy Ramm - I could go on.... and on... but I'm sure you'll get the point I'm making here.
I think it's wrong that you continue to point out these failures in cases like this,
Why do you think it's wrong? Take this away from individuals - the question remains, are we prepared to accept this rubbish as "investigation" from our police services, or as proof "beyond reasonable doubt" from our Criminal Justice System? You may well be, I most certainly am not.
especially if you are not willing to say who killed JJ - if it wasn't Luke Mitchell
The discussion just entered a logic-free zone. My ability or willingness to name the "real killer" (even if I could) has absolutely nothing to do with appallingly poor police and judicial processes (and media processes, just to be absolutely clear that they are all interlinked.)
My argument is not, and has never been, "It wasn't Luke who killed Jodi - I know this because it was X." Even if I had the photographs, accounts from witnesses who were standing there when the murder occurred, and a statement in blood from the real killer I STILL wouldn't name him publicly. Why? Because I still believe the
proper processes of the CJS are the best protection for everyone, and the real killer would be entitled to the full process of the law, from the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, through the right to protection against prejudicial information being publicised which might jeopardise his right to a fair trial, all the way through to solid evidence, full disclosure to the defence, and juries properly advised and directed. Then, and only then, can we have some assurance that the correct person has been convicted.
And yes, I would argue - even campaign- that the identity of the real killer be kept out of the media prior to trial, even if I personally knew who he was (which I don't.) Because I would not want to see a real perpetrator of a horrible crime "get off" because the rights to which he, however horrible his crimes, was entitled, were breached - that just gets in the way of true justice. Afford him all of his rights, force the police and the courts to do a proper job, and maybe then we'll end up with much more satisfactory outcomes.
Of the claimed "satanic influences" you said
On it's own i guess it's not extraordinary but given that his 14 year old girlfriend was murdered and her body grossly mutilated then 'laid out' I'd have thought it was of significance.
Where did you get the information that Jodi's body was "laid out?" It was not.
Or, for that matter "grossly mutilated?" How does "mutilated" differ from "grossly mutilated?" Are we talking pre or post-mortem mutilation? And how, exactly, do these phrases indicate anything significant about claimed "satanic influences?"
I do not ask these questions from some sort of sick desire to spell out all of the details of Jodi's injuries (nor am I blind to the rather obvious crumbs being dropped here in an attempt to lead me down certain paths!) Rather, I'm suggesting that we need clear definitions of terms being used, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding later.
