Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[faithlilly]

Is there a transcript anywhere for the questions and answers Shane gave at court? I’m assume is that not something the public can view, like in America im sure all the information from court cases are open to public?
I’d love to have actually seen and heard what Shane actually said in what context, as this is key for me.  There has been so much said about how he was pushed to say stuff by prosecutors etc. He must know what happened that night, or if his brother was capable of such a crime, we would all love to hear his side but unfortunately it will never happen I don’t think. I understand if he wants a quiet life but I can’t imagine he will be getting much if one with all the online weirdo’s out there no doubt messaging him.

By the time Shane gave his testimony in court I’m sure he was terrified of giving the wrong answer to anything he was asked. Let’s not forget the perverting the course of justice charge had just been dropped, a charge that could have seen him jailed. That would be enough to make anyone guarded in their answers.

[Bullseye]

By the time Shane gave his testimony in court I’m sure he was terrified of giving the wrong answer to anything he was asked. Let’s not forget the perverting the course of justice charge had just been dropped, a charge that could have seen him jailed. That would be enough to make anyone guarded in their answers.

I always believed when AB was asked to identify Luke in court, she knew exactly what was being asked and exactly who Luke was, she still failed to identify him. Why? People change their appearance all the time so for me that’s no reason to fail to point him out. I always wonder if it’s because she did not believe it was Luke?

But same goes for Shane, if Luke was in the house and he does remember him being there then why not say so? I understand the prosecution could have had him tied up in knots, which is why I’d love to be able to hear for myself exactly what was said and how. Only Shane can clarify and that’s not going to happen. But if it was my statement that helped put my brother in jail and I thought he was innocent, I’d be fighting tooth and nail to get him out and be sure everyone knew exactly what I knew. But that’s just me.

[faithlilly]

I always believed when AB was asked to identify Luke in court, she knew exactly what was being asked and exactly who Luke was, she still failed to identify him. Why? People change their appearance all the time so for me that’s no reason to fail to point him out. I always wonder if it’s because she did not believe it was Luke?

But same goes for Shane, if Luke was in the house and he does remember him being there then why not say so? I understand the prosecution could have had him tied up in knots, which is why I’d love to be able to hear for myself exactly what was said and how. Only Shane can clarify and that’s not going to happen. But if it was my statement that helped put my brother in jail and I thought he was innocent, I’d be fighting tooth and nail to get him out and be sure everyone knew exactly what I knew. But that’s just me.

For me AB, latterly, did the right thing. At least 5 people were, supposedly, able to identify Luke in the dock, even after that long passage of time so it’s unlikely that he’d become unrecognisable.

As to Shane, I absolutely agree. I’d be fighting tooth and nail for my brother too but fortunately we’ve never had to live through the absolute hell he and his family did….and in the end what would speaking up achieve? His protestations could not be used to mount a new appeal and do you really think that anybody who doesn’t believe him already would be anymore convinced just because he had spoken out? Further you can just imagine the headlines in the tabloid press “Child killer’s brother says he’s innocent’…he’d already seen what happens after such headlines….his mother’s business torched, a brick thrown through her windscreen, reams and reams of viscous vitriol aimed at her on social media…would you open up yourself and your family to that kind of treatment? Honestly? Perhaps some part of him blames Luke for bringing everything that happened to the family’s door…not because he thought Luke guilty but because he got involved with Jodi and the Jones’s? Who knows?

Of course it could be Luke that doesn’t want Shane involved. He could believe that it was his brother’s lack of clarity and courage in court that secured his conviction. I’ve seen it posted that Shane doesn’t visit Luke in prison and if true that could just as likely be Luke’s choice as Shane’s. The truth is we simply don’t know the truth. Family relationships are complex, the dynamics within them puzzling to the outsider.

[Bullseye]

For me AB, latterly, did the right thing. At least 5 people were, supposedly, able to identify Luke in the dock, even after that long passage of time so it’s unlikely that he’d become unrecognisable.

As to Shane, I absolutely agree. I’d be fighting tooth and nail for my brother too but fortunately we’ve never had to live through the absolute hell he and his family did….and in the end what would speaking up achieve? His protestations could not be used to mount a new appeal and do you really think that anybody who doesn’t believe him already would be anymore convinced just because he had spoken out? Further you can just imagine the headlines in the tabloid press “Child killer’s brother says he’s innocent’…he’d already seen what happens after such headlines….his mother’s business torched, a brick thrown through her windscreen, reams and reams of viscous vitriol aimed at her on social media…would you open up yourself and your family to that kind of treatment? Honestly? Perhaps some part of him blames Luke for bringing everything that happened to the family’s door…not because he thought Luke guilty but because he got involved with Jodi and the Jones’s? Who knows?

Of course it could be Luke that doesn’t want Shane involved. He could believe that it was his brother’s lack of clarity and courage in court that secured his conviction. I’ve seen it posted that Shane doesn’t visit Luke in prison and if true that could just as likely be Luke’s choice as Shane’s. The truth is we simply don’t know the truth. Family relationships are complex, the dynamics within them puzzling to the outsider.

Agreed, there are lots of possibilities and only Shane can clarify which, as I said, is unfortunately unlikely to happen.
If he does believe his brother is innocent then I don’t agree that it would not make any difference if he spoke out. Ok it’s not going to get luke out but imo it’s one of the main reasons Luke was found guilty and why so many people still believe he is guilty. There is no hard evidence, nothing. No dna, no parka or proof it was destroyed, no knife and no motive proven. A couple of, imo, flimsy possible sightings and some circumstantial evidence is all they had, but Shane not confirm Luke’s alibi was huge. If he was to confirm it now that can only help Luke’s case surely? I think it would open a lot of eyes and change a few minds at the very least and who knows where that can lead.. There is always the ones whose minds will never be changed. I can understand him not wanting all the hassle that comes with it especially if he has a family. But it’s very sad.

[Bullseye]

I see Scott is being interviewed on James English tonight, he is going to say who he thinks killed [Name removed]. I thought he had already done that? I have to say, if what he is saying is true about the stocky guy attacking [Name removed] in the weeks before the murder plus all the other info on Stocky Guy, or [Name removed] brother if we are allowed to say. If true and he was never fully investigated due to mental health that is another worry and failure in the investigation. Shocking tbh.
I see in the trailer he also states he was Luke Mitchell’s Lawer a few years back, wonder if James will ask him to clarify that, I’m interested to know if he is an actual Lawer.

[Myster]

I see Scott is being interviewed on James English tonight, he is going to say who he thinks killed [Name removed]. I thought he had already done that? I have to say, if what he is saying is true about the stocky guy attacking [Name removed] in the weeks before the murder plus all the other info on Stocky Guy, or [Name removed] brother if we are allowed to say. If true and he was never fully investigated due to mental health that is another worry and failure in the investigation. Shocking tbh.
I see in the trailer he also states he was Luke Mitchell’s Lawer a few years back, wonder if James will ask him to clarify that, I’m interested to know if he is an actual Lawer.

He might be a lawer, but not a genuine bona fide lawyer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s

[Mr Apples]

A couple of, imo, flimsy possible sightings and some circumstantial evidence is all they had . . .

Really?? 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence is deemed 'some'?

Against that background the Advocate depute set out twenty adminicles of circumstantial evidence on the basis of which, he submitted, the jury was entitled to convict. Many of these have been outlined in the summary of the Crown case above. However, he expanded on the facts and on the inferences which, he contended, could legitimately be drawn from the case as presented by the Crown: (1) the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650; (2) the appellant had called the speaking clock at 1654 at a time when, it could be inferred, he was out of his house; (3) the appellant had been seen at the east end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1655 with a young female who, it could be inferred, was the deceased; (4) he had been seen at about the west end of the path at about 1740-45; (5) the appellant's conduct from about 1730 was that of a person seeking to put his defence in place, his subsequent explanations of his conduct being demonstrably false; (6) it was a reasonable inference from the appellant's conduct during the search that he already knew where the body was; (7) in contrast to others, he had shown no sign of emotion when the body was found; (8) he was familiar with the wooded area behind the wall; (9) the deceased had gone with someone she knew, there being no sign of a struggle on the path side of the wall, nor of a sexual assault; (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) he had had a jacket (which later mysteriously disappeared) which broadly matched that worn by the young man identified at each end of the path; (14) the log burner at his home that evening had been used, giving off an unusual smell; (15) he had previously told a witness that he could imagine getting "stoned" and killing someone; (16) he had, while showing a fellow pupil a knife, said that he knew the best way to slit someone's throat; (17) he had owned at the time a "skunting" knife which had mysteriously disappeared and equally mysteriously been replaced; (18) he had lied to the police about the last time he had contacted Kimberley Thomson, whom he was due to meet shortly after the murder, and had not told the deceased about her (a possible source of conflict between him and the deceased); (19) he had been observed walking outside his house about 2200 (when he had had the opportunity to dispose of a knife) and (20) his alibi had been undermined by the evidence of Mrs Bryson and of his brother. The evidence regarding Marilyn Manson was not founded upon. However, Janine Jones had bought not "The Golden Age of Grotesque", but another disc.

[faithlilly]

Really?? 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence is deemed 'some'?

Against that background the Advocate depute set out twenty adminicles of circumstantial evidence on the basis of which, he submitted, the jury was entitled to convict. Many of these have been outlined in the summary of the Crown case above. However, he expanded on the facts and on the inferences which, he contended, could legitimately be drawn from the case as presented by the Crown: (1) the deceased had told her mother that she was going to meet the appellant and had left home at about 1650; (2) the appellant had called the speaking clock at 1654 at a time when, it could be inferred, he was out of his house; (3) the appellant had been seen at the east end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1655 with a young female who, it could be inferred, was the deceased; (4) he had been seen at about the west end of the path at about 1740-45; (5) the appellant's conduct from about 1730 was that of a person seeking to put his defence in place, his subsequent explanations of his conduct being demonstrably false; (6) it was a reasonable inference from the appellant's conduct during the search that he already knew where the body was; (7) in contrast to others, he had shown no sign of emotion when the body was found; (8) he was familiar with the wooded area behind the wall; (9) the deceased had gone with someone she knew, there being no sign of a struggle on the path side of the wall, nor of a sexual assault; (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) he had had a jacket (which later mysteriously disappeared) which broadly matched that worn by the young man identified at each end of the path; (14) the log burner at his home that evening had been used, giving off an unusual smell; (15) he had previously told a witness that he could imagine getting "stoned" and killing someone; (16) he had, while showing a fellow pupil a knife, said that he knew the best way to slit someone's throat; (17) he had owned at the time a "skunting" knife which had mysteriously disappeared and equally mysteriously been replaced; (18) he had lied to the police about the last time he had contacted Kimberley Thomson, whom he was due to meet shortly after the murder, and had not told the deceased about her (a possible source of conflict between him and the deceased); (19) he had been observed walking outside his house about 2200 (when he had had the opportunity to dispose of a knife) and (20) his alibi had been undermined by the evidence of Mrs Bryson and of his brother. The evidence regarding Marilyn Manson was not founded upon. However, Janine Jones had bought not "The Golden Age of Grotesque", but another disc.

I’d forgotten how flimsy the circumstantial case was and how many of the points have been blown apart since.

[KenMair]

He might be a lawer, but not a genuine bona fide lawyer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s

He's not a lawyer just like SL isn't a "leading criminologist". Just made up nonsense for people that look no further than YouTube or FB for their information. SF has a law degree but not registered with The Law Society. If he really is LM's current lawyer it says a lot about the case if no one else will take it on.

I see he's now called a Detective on this YT trailer. Lord Almighty.

[John]

He's not a lawyer just like SL isn't a "leading criminologist". Just made up nonsense for people that look no further than YouTube or FB for their information. SF has a law degree but not registered with The Law Society. If he really is LM's current lawyer it says a lot about the case if no one else will take it on.

I see he's now called a Detective on this YT trailer. Lord Almighty.

He's a fantasist for sure. 

[Bullseye]

He's not a lawyer just like SL isn't a "leading criminologist". Just made up nonsense for people that look no further than YouTube or FB for their information. SF has a law degree but not registered with The Law Society. If he really is LM's current lawyer it says a lot about the case if no one else will take it on.

I see he's now called a Detective on this YT trailer. Lord Almighty.

I think they must have missed out the work armchair lol

[Bullseye]

I’d forgotten how flimsy the circumstantial case was and how many of the points have been blown apart since.

Totally agree!

[Venturi Swirl]

He might be a lawer, but not a genuine bona fide lawyer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s

something about kilts?

[Myster]

something about kilts?

Not sure what you mean?  Find it hard enough trying to follow his rapid-fire Scottish brogue!

[Venturi Swirl]

Not sure what you mean?  Find it hard enough trying to follow his rapid-fire Scottish brogue!

probably considered racist these days
https://youtu.be/AMDg4oVAR8E