Talk:Luke Mitchell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
This article seems to focus on the fact that he, supposedly, was s satanist, listened to Marilyn Manson, was "goth", etc. It seems like those are being given as motives for the crime. I dont think it should be as skewed towards the bend as it is. Any insight?
[edit] Satanist??
There is a link from this page to the page on Satanists. For goodness sake, this was a 14 year old boy who had scribbled some song lyrics and video game related phrases in his school jotter. Yes, he had written an essay at school claiming to worship the devil, but what teenage boy doesn't do that sort of thing at some stage?
I'm for removing that link, I think it's a disgrace. This person will be up for parole one day, and having served his time shouldn't be recorded as one of history's notable satanists. He may be a murderer, he may be screwed up, but technically I doubt he can be classed offically as a satanist.
I'd be interested in the views of other before I remove the link.
[edit] Not Accurate
I feel that this article is not accurate.
The article states that Mitchell may have been found guilty only because of his taste in music. The article however neglects to inform that during the search which was at night and in bad weather Mitchell managed to find the body almost straight away.
The article also fails to inform on two key elements of the trial.
1.That the crux of the case was that Mitchell and possibly another conspired to destroy evidence. That other was lucky not to be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice.
- This is clearly absolute nonsense to anyone who followed the trial in any detail. The prosecutions claim that clothing was burnt by Mitchell following the murder was never actually established. The perjury allegation made above, again, is factually nonsense because no one else was ever charged with any offense relating to the trial or the murder.
2. That Mitchell's brother who gave evidence during the trial contradicted the alibi Mitchell gave which was crucial to the Prosecution case.
This alleged conspiracy and destruction of evidence explains the length of time it took to get the case to Court.
Holden 27
- It says something about a conviction when the crux of the case lies on the accused possibly conspired to destroy evidence. Jizz 11:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
The first half of the article is great, but the last half seems like a rant. -RomeW 06:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed part of the sentence that read (hardly abnormal in a rebellious teenager) to 'hardly abnormal in a rebellious tenager'. Replacing the parentheses with quotation marks makes it look more like the original author was citing criticism than giving an opinion. The later parentheses' are fine in regards to the 'urine' imo. Could do with some more details: background on Jodi, her relationship with Mitchell, media response, actual grounds for appeal. Great article so far. - K.Smythe
[edit] Notable person?
Is this person notable in any other way? Or are we going to list everyone who has been accused of something by someone? 8-(--Light current 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- He wasn't just accused but found guilty (with very limited evidence too) in the longest criminal trial in Scottish history. Notability surely isn't a problem. Jizz 11:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
this was a high profile case, for what other reason would he have to be notable? 217.42.166.79 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marilyn manson
so he was a fan of marilyn manson.why is this important?
