Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[faithlilly]

It's certainly a plausible theory that it was premeditated (Mitchell having boasted to friends in the past that he knew the best way to kill someone and telling pals during a cannabis-smoking session that he could "imagine getting stoned and going out and killing someone just for a laugh"; and, of course, we can also factor in his previous violent conduct and behaviour against females and males alike). Interesting, too, you mention Jodi not having her phone that day due to it being broken and this potentially playing a part in his decision to murder her that day (opportunistic?). As regards LM 'beckoning' the girl down that path, I'm not so sure. I've always thought -- in line with what was depicted in the BBC Frontline Scotland documentary from 2007 -- that LM was reasoning with Jodi rather than beckoning her somewhere she didn't want to go. I would like to read all of AB's statements around her sighting that day (one of the most interesting things I've read with regard to AB's statements was that she thought "it didn't look like they were there to meet"; this can be cited from an old newspaper article). On the blue JB forum, I'm sure I read that Jodi & Luke had been arguing in school that day (spotted, uncharacteristically, with their backs to one another). Can anyone shed some light on this? It would certainly tie in with them arguing at the top of that path in Easthouses like AB strongly implied. I've always thought that they were arguing at the top of that path, it continued down as they were walking towards newbattle and LM snapped and murdered Jodi in a fit of rage. No premeditation involved, imo. I think LM was under the influence of cannabis, which could've explained the calmness in those post-murder mutilations after that momentary rage subsided. Still, premeditation is a possibility, although carrying this out in the middle of the day in peak summertime would be completely illogical.

Can you please point out what part of the above isn’t either forum rumour or tabloid tittle tattle?

[Mr Apples]

Can you please point out what part of the above isn’t either forum rumour or tabloid tittle tattle?

Purely circumstantial cases tend to beget speculation, my dear. Par for the course. I've always wanted to read all of what AB said verbatim. In fact, ideally, I'd like to watch a recording of the trial in its entirety. I've always found it a tad odd the way in which SL frames some of AB's eyewitness evidence -- namely the evidence that was (initially) supposedly from her husband, saying that a youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots was spotted with that girl at the top of the path at Easthouses, but it actually emerged that the evidence was from AB herself (I made a post about this on one of the other threads); I don't understand how the source of such important evidence (yes, it was established that LM owned army clothing pre-murder) could get mixed up.

So, Faith, off the cuff . . . you've never heard about LM and Jodi arguing in school that day (their backs to one another in the China Gardens that afternoon)?

[faithlilly]

Purely circumstantial cases tend to beget speculation, my dear. Par for the course. I've always wanted to read all of what AB said verbatim. In fact, ideally, I'd like to watch a recording of the trial in its entirety. I've always found it a tad odd the way in which SL frames some of AB's eyewitness evidence -- namely the evidence that was (initially) supposedly from her husband, saying that a youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots was spotted with that girl at the top of the path at Easthouses, but it actually emerged that the evidence was from AB herself (I made a post about this on one of the other threads); I don't understand how the source of such important evidence (yes, it was established that LM owned army clothing pre-murder) could get mixed up.

So, Faith, off the cuff . . . you've never heard about LM and Jodi arguing in school that day (their backs to one another in the China Gardens that afternoon)?

So you admit that much of what you write is speculation. Well it’s a start.

So to be clear who do you think actually saw the two youths at the Easthouses entrance to RDP?

As to your question, I’ve never seen any verifiable testimony from any witness that suggested that Luke and Jodi had had a falling out at school on that afternoon. Perhaps you can provide a cite? If you are suggesting that this falling out was over KT then Jodi certainly didn’t tell any of her girlfriend’s or any of her family about such a devastating event and apparently was very happy about her grounding being lifted so she could meet Luke that night. Jodi wrote in her diary, and I’m paraphrasing, that if Luke finished with her she’d die….does that sound like a girl who would be able hide from her mother her devastation at finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her?

[Mr Apples]

So you admit that much of what you write is speculation. Well it’s a start.

So to be clear who do you think actually saw the two youths at the Easthouses entrance to RDP?

As to your question, I’ve never seen any verifiable testimony from any witness that suggested that Luke and Jodi had had a falling out at school on that afternoon. Perhaps you can provide a cite? If you are suggesting that this falling out was over KT then Jodi certainly didn’t tell any of her girlfriend’s or any of her family about such a devastating event and apparently was very happy about her grounding being lifted so she could meet Luke that night. Jodi wrote in her diary, and I’m paraphrasing, that if Luke finished with her she’d die….does that sound like a girl who would be able hide from her mother her devastation at finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her?

There were 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial, so it was a robust case. In between these 20 main pieces of evidence were other pieces of incriminating information which were never in the public domain but discussed on forums whose members were actually present at the original trial (such as a boardmember called 'Curious' or 'Concerned' on the tapatalk forums, ). For example, the boys in the abbey testifying that LM looked a lot cleaner than his usual self that night was never in the public domain; likewise, the argument in school might have happened but never released in the public domain (it may only have been discussed briefly in the early days, but then gradually petered out). So, the point I am trying to make here is that just because certain info isn't in the public domain does not mean it didn't happen. I'm sure I read on the blue JB forum that they had had, uncharacteristically, an argument that day in school (and this would certainly tie in with the actions/gesticulations/hand gestures/body language of the male with that female spotted by AB at 1654 at the top of the path in Easthouses, the argument possibly continuing from high school earlier; remember, too, Jodi's close friend Kisten Ford told a newspaper at the time of the trial that "Jodi seemed quiet that day, the more I think about it"). From memory, there was one forum member either on the JB blue forum or Shirley McKie tapatalk forum who claimed they were at the trial, though did not state in which capacity (think their username was 'Curious').

Anyway, I am convinced it was AB herself that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing when communicating with that girl on the top of the path at Easthouses. If it had been AB's husband who saw the couple, then he would have been called to court as a witness, too. It seems to me that police may have gotten mixed up at certain points whilst taking statements from AB, especially if her husband and brother-in-law knew the Joneses & Walkers and were present when AB gave her statements to them (the police may have written down statements from them even though they weren't witnesses).

Jodi simply may not have wanted to discuss it with her mother, and I'm sure Judith wasn't that keen on LM -- all the more reason for Jodi not confiding in her mother about their relationship. Teenagers are fickle, so can  move on quickly from disappointment and tragedy.

[faithlilly]

There were 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial, so it was a robust case. In between these 20 main pieces of evidence were other pieces of incriminating information which were never in the public domain but discussed on forums whose members were actually present at the original trial (such as a boardmember called 'Curious' or 'Concerned' on the tapatalk forums, ). For example, the boys in the abbey testifying that LM looked a lot cleaner than his usual self that night was never in the public domain; likewise, the argument in school might have happened but never released in the public domain (it may only have been discussed briefly in the early days, but then gradually petered out). So, the point I am trying to make here is that just because certain info isn't in the public domain does not mean it didn't happen. I'm sure I read on the blue JB forum that they had had, uncharacteristically, an argument that day in school (and this would certainly tie in with the actions/gesticulations/hand gestures/body language of the male with that female spotted by AB at 1654 at the top of the path in Easthouses, the argument possibly continuing from high school earlier; remember, too, Jodi's close friend Kisten Ford told a newspaper at the time of the trial that "Jodi seemed quiet that day, the more I think about it"). From memory, there was one forum member either on the JB blue forum or Shirley McKie tapatalk forum who claimed they were at the trial, though did not state in which capacity (think their username was 'Curious').

Anyway, I am convinced it was AB herself that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing when communicating with that girl on the top of the path at Easthouses. If it had been AB's husband who saw the couple, then he would have been called to court as a witness, too. It seems to me that police may have gotten mixed up at certain points whilst taking statements from AB, especially if her husband and brother-in-law knew the Joneses & Walkers and were present when AB gave her statements to them (the police may have written down statements from them even though they weren't witnesses).

Jodi simply may not have wanted to discuss it with her mother, and I'm sure Judith wasn't that keen on LM -- all the more reason for Jodi not confiding in her mother about their relationship. Teenagers are fickle, so can  move on quickly from disappointment and tragedy.

Firstly a robust prosecution would have resulted in a unanimous verdict…that didn’t happen.

Did you know that I used all my holidays from work to attend the whole of Luke’s trial and there was a witness, their name escapes me now, who claimed that at the time the police believe Jodi was being killed Luke was in his living room watching Crossroads with him.

Of course the above is absolute rubbish but it does prove how easy it is to claim any old nonsense on internet forums. Further there is always someone who will believe the nonsense and repeat it elsewhere. If the information ‘revealed’ by your forum member has never been in the public domain how do you know if it had any veracity? Is it simply that as long as it fits your preferred narrative, and isn’t it strange that these posters always claim knowledge that further vilifies Luke, then it passes the sniff test?

Bryson didn’t describe her sighting as wearing any kind of military clothing. She described the male as wearing clothing you’d wear when fishing. The rest of the paragraph shows that you clearly don’t understand the rules that police have to adhere to when taking witness statements.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, and you, apart from an anonymous poster on an internet forum there is not one scintilla of proof that Jodi and Luke had any kind of falling out on the day she died.

[KenMair]

Did you know that I used all my holidays from work to attend the whole of Luke’s trial and there was a witness, their name escapes me now, who claimed that at the time the police believe Jodi was being killed Luke was in his living room watching Crossroads with him.

Crossroads finished in May 2003, unless it was a video.  I know I know it wasnt really.

Was it yourself that vaguely knew LM's Cockburn St group or am I getting mixed up?

[faithlilly]

Crossroads finished in May 2003, unless it was a video.  I know I know it wasnt really.

Was it yourself that vaguely knew LM's Cockburn St group or am I getting mixed up?

You’re getting mixed up. I can’t remember ever having been to Dalkeith or surrounding areas.

[Mr Apples]

This fantasizing of the best way to kill someone comes with an element of pre-meditation. You want to apply the minimum time of just  FIVE minutes. Which tells us, if this were the time it took, then Mitchell without doubt had clothing stashed in his playground. That woodland by his estate,

Then we apply clothing. Where we know just how much of Mitchell could/would be covered by what he was wearing, which left virtually nothing of himself exposed to any elements. Part of his face and at a push some strands of hair. And we never discount having gloves on. So, he needed a basic wash of surface contamination to the very little of himself exposed. Into other clothing and back on to that road. Your minimum 5 mins is ample time here.

As I said before, I don't think it was premeditated. The stashing of clothing just seems a bit of a stretch to me. If there had been any stashing of jackets between 1740 - 1800, I think it would only have happened if he'd had the bomber jacket on underneath that parka. This is a possibility, as I think he dropped everything he was doing at 1634 when that first text from Jodi came through to say she was free to come out right there and then as opposed to her then curfew time of 1800 and headed to meet her immediately on foot or push bike. He'd worn the green bomber jacket to school that day, so there was every chance he was still wearing it in his house as Jodi text him at 1634. It was dull and overcast outside, threatening to rain, so LM may have decided to grab that parka just in case of rain, slipping it on top of his bomber jacket. And, as you say, that long parka, by its volume and length, catching the brunt of DNA traces from that poor girl -- transference to other parts of him and other clothing very unlikely. Perhaps he removed the parka in the woodland behind that gate & hid in there for 10-15 mins before emerging back on to n'battle road wearing only the bomber for that window between 1800 - 1820 (during which time he was seen by 6 different people). I think he then, possibly, went back into that woodland and retrieved the parka and went home to begin full disposal of all his clothing (informing his mother & brother what had happened to Jodi), bar the bomber, cleaning up in the adjacent rivers before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1930.

[Rusty]

Just catching up, and well, reading through some of those comments below the latest video, Forbes and Val Young is it? Must have about 2000 comments between them lol, don't these people have day jobs? Anyway, after reading some of the nonsense getting spouted from those that support the Mitchell's, we can be 100% sure that Luke will be spending many more years behind bars. 

[Bullseye]

AB paid for her shopping at 1632 then went to a house viewing in easterhouses. She spotted the 2 people near the path at 1654 after viewing the house I believe. Was wondering if anyone knows if she just drove past the house to have a look or parked and went inside to view the house?

[faithlilly]

AB paid for her shopping at 1632 then went to a house viewing in easterhouses. She spotted the 2 people near the path at 1654 after viewing the house I believe. Was wondering if anyone knows if she just drove past the house to have a look or parked and went inside to view the house?

I believe that she didn’t go inside but simply viewed it from the car.

This is from an earlier post of mine.

In AB’s first statements she arrives in Easthouses at around 5.10, gets a bit lost as she said that she didn’t know Easthouses very well, finds the house, has a look and as it’s in a cul de sac has to manoeuvre back out and back up on to the main road  to see  the  individuals at around 5.40...so around 20-30 minutes. Not long if have difficulty finding the house, have a good look from outside then retrace your steps back to the main road and travel on to the locus of the sighting.

The revised timeline however, as you can see, leaves no time for viewing the house. Of course you could argue that AB’s time estimates are only that, estimates but can we really believe that a woman who, we are told, narrowed down a sighting to minutes couldn’t tell the difference between taking 10 minutes to get home and taking around 55 minutes, if her 5.50 estimate is correct. Then again perhaps AB did get home 10 minutes after her 4.54 revised sighting time but then this would leave approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between getting home and her husband’s phone call, instead of the 30 minutes she first estimated ( a 45ish minute discrepancy, just as Rolfe posted). Does this sound plausible to you?

[Bullseye]

I believe that she didn’t go inside but simply viewed it from the car.

This is from an earlier post of mine.

In AB’s first statements she arrives in Easthouses at around 5.10, gets a bit lost as she said that she didn’t know Easthouses very well, finds the house, has a look and as it’s in a cul de sac has to manoeuvre back out and back up on to the main road  to see  the  individuals at around 5.40...so around 20-30 minutes. Not long if have difficulty finding the house, have a good look from outside then retrace your steps back to the main road and travel on to the locus of the sighting.

The revised timeline however, as you can see, leaves no time for viewing the house. Of course you could argue that AB’s time estimates are only that, estimates but can we really believe that a woman who, we are told, narrowed down a sighting to minutes couldn’t tell the difference between taking 10 minutes to get home and taking around 55 minutes, if her 5.50 estimate is correct. Then again perhaps AB did get home 10 minutes after her 4.54 revised sighting time but then this would leave approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between getting home and her husband’s phone call, instead of the 30 minutes she first estimated ( a 45ish minute discrepancy, just as Rolfe posted). Does this sound plausible to you?

So the way I see it might be

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct, if til receipt was correct there is no way to have made it to path for 4.54)  -  pay for shopping
4.35 pack shopping leave for easterhouses
4.47 earliest possible time if direct to get to house viewing, not getting lost.
4.52 leave house viewing, giving 2 mins to get to path
4.54 see 2 people top of path
5.05 gets home
AB said she got call 30 mins later, 5.35 but call logged at 1817

Possible but tight, does not explain the call being 617.

Original timeline

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct)  - pay for shopping
5.10 get to easterhouses (for a 10 to 20 min drive seems a long time even if she did have to get to her car and pack it, unless the til receipt was correct?)
30 mins to find the house, view it from outside and drive to top of path. Seems a while but depends on how long she was driving around and how long she sat outside the house I suppose.
5.40 sees people on path
5.50 gets home, said received call 30 mins later
6.17 call received

Seems as with everything in this case there is an argument for both sides lol personally I think the original timeline is more plausible Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40

[faithlilly]

So the way I see it might be

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct, if til receipt was correct there is no way to have made it to path for 4.54)  -  pay for shopping
4.35 pack shopping leave for easterhouses
4.47 earliest possible time if direct to get to house viewing, not getting lost.
4.52 leave house viewing, giving 2 mins to get to path
4.54 see 2 people top of path
5.05 gets home
AB said she got call 30 mins later, 5.35 but call logged at 1817

Possible but tight, does not explain the call being 617.

Original timeline

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct)  - pay for shopping
5.10 get to easterhouses (for a 10 to 20 min drive seems a long time even if she did have to get to her car and pack it, unless the til receipt was correct?)
30 mins to find the house, view it from outside and drive to top of path. Seems a while but depends on how long she was driving around and how long she sat outside the house I suppose.
5.40 sees people on path
5.50 gets home, said received call 30 mins later
6.17 call received

Seems as with everything in this case there is an argument for both sides lol personally I think the original timeline is more plausible Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40

“Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40”

…..IF the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi and if she was right how can Luke have been on the Newbattle Road at around the same time to be seen by Andrew Holborn et al? Of course it would also mean that the Walsh/Fleming sighting could never have happened.

Of course we’ve discussed the contention that the first statement taken from a witness is almost always the most reliable…why is discussed in the link below.

14. Moreover, developing statements through numerous drafts, getting the witness to retell the story over and over, is a process which may corrupt memory and render the final product less reliable than the first “unvarnished” recollection.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Witness-statement-working-group-Final-Report-1-1.pdf


The timings in AB’s first statement were determined by fixed points in her day..picking up her children from school, the supermarket receipt etc. Everything fitted, nothing was forced and of course the statement was taken when AB’s recall was at its sharpest. How the time supplied by the bank for AB’s supermarket checkout was accepted over her supermarket receipt has never been satisfactorily explained or indeed how thoroughly the discrepancy in time was investigated. How readily the defence appear to have simply accepted the prosecution’s explanation for this time anomaly, for me, is one of the most frustrating elements of a desperately frustrating case.

Another anomaly directly related to AB’s sighting is the lack of a police appeal for the couple seen by  her to come forward and eliminate themselves. While the police made many appeals for other individuals to come forward including the moped boys, the lady with the pram and even stocky man no appeal was ever made for the young couple seen at RDP. If Luke was not, as some contend, a suspect at the time the lack of an appeal is puzzling. The couple could have eliminated themselves but more importantly may have seen something pertinent to the investigation. Could it be that the time of the sighting in AB’s first statement was thought by the police to be just too late to be relevant? That would certainly be the logical conclusion.

Of course the lack of an identity parade in relation to AB’s identification of Luke, in contravention of all police guidelines, was nothing short of mystifying. The white background on the photograph of Luke picked out by AB has been discussed infinitum but what is discussed less is Luke’s hair in the photograph….bear with me. AB, in her first statement could not describe any of the facial features of the male youth she saw. She described the clothes he wore and his hair “ sandy brown sticking up in a clump at the back”. The polaroid that was shown to AB showed Luke with obviously blonde hair with wispy hair at the nape of his neck..some think this is the ‘clump’ described by AB…but the photograph was taken at least six weeks after the murder. As already posted she couldn’t describe his face and in the photograph his clothes were different so there was only one way she could have identified him, his hair. In the six weeks between sighting and identification what had happened to that hair? Had it been longer in June and cut shorter by August? Had it been short in June and was longer by August? Was it ever established if it was in a different style in June? Was his hair blonder at the start of the summer? For an identification that seemed to rely solely on the style of the sighting’s hair the questions above seem to have been the minimum that should have been asked. Why weren’t they?

[Guiltyascharged]

“Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40”

…..IF the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi and if she was right how can Luke have been on the Newbattle Road at around the same time to be seen by Andrew Holborn et al? Of course it would also mean that the Walsh/Fleming sighting could never have happened.

Of course we’ve discussed the contention that the first statement taken from a witness is almost always the most reliable…why is discussed in the link below.

14. Moreover, developing statements through numerous drafts, getting the witness to retell the story over and over, is a process which may corrupt memory and render the final product less reliable than the first “unvarnished” recollection.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Witness-statement-working-group-Final-Report-1-1.pdf


The timings in AB’s first statement were determined by fixed points in her day..picking up her children from school, the supermarket receipt etc. Everything fitted, nothing was forced and of course the statement was taken when AB’s recall was at its sharpest. How the time supplied by the bank for AB’s supermarket checkout was accepted over her supermarket receipt has never been satisfactorily explained or indeed how thoroughly the discrepancy in time was investigated. How readily the defence appear to have simply accepted the prosecution’s explanation for this time anomaly, for me, is one of the most frustrating elements of a desperately frustrating case.

Another anomaly directly related to AB’s sighting is the lack of a police appeal for the couple seen by  her to come forward and eliminate themselves. While the police made many appeals for other individuals to come forward including the moped boys, the lady with the pram and even stocky man no appeal was ever made for the young couple seen at RDP. If Luke was not, as some contend, a suspect at the time the lack of an appeal is puzzling. The couple could have eliminated themselves but more importantly may have seen something pertinent to the investigation. Could it be that the time of the sighting in AB’s first statement was thought by the police to be just too late to be relevant? That would certainly be the logical conclusion.

Of course the lack of an identity parade in relation to AB’s identification of Luke, in contravention of all police guidelines, was nothing short of mystifying. The white background on the photograph of Luke picked out by AB has been discussed infinitum but what is discussed less is Luke’s hair in the photograph….bear with me. AB, in her first statement could not describe any of the facial features of the male youth she saw. She described the clothes he wore and his hair “ sandy brown sticking up in a clump at the back”. The polaroid that was shown to AB showed Luke with obviously blonde hair with wispy hair at the nape of his neck..some think this is the ‘clump’ described by AB…but the photograph was taken at least six weeks after the murder. As already posted she couldn’t describe his face and in the photograph his clothes were different so there was only one way she could have identified him, his hair. In the six weeks between sighting and identification what had happened to that hair? Had it been longer in June and cut shorter by August? Had it been short in June and was longer by August? Was it ever established if it was in a different style in June? Was his hair blonder at the start of the summer? For an identification that seemed to rely solely on the style of the sighting’s hair the questions above seem to have been the minimum that should have been asked. Why weren’t they?

Sandra I notice you say above "even fits with ao saying jodi had just left"

Don't you agree with Scott and lm on the "they"?

How long has the "they" claim been made?  Lm claims this via Scott, your post suggests its not in ao statements and you do not agree?

[faithlilly]

Sandra I notice you say above "even fits with ao saying jodi had just left"

Don't you agree with Scott and lm on the "they"?

How long has the "they" claim been made?  Lm claims this via Scott, your post suggests its not in ao statements and you do not agree?

I’m not Sandra but that aside the “even fits” was a quote from another member’s post. This makes your post rather irrelevant I’m afraid.