Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[faithlilly]

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

We speak like that to confound the English….apparently it works.

[John]

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.

Quite a bit to be going on with but there is much more. His alibi was completely blown apart which on its own was extremely significant. The conduct of his family afterwards was very telling, not the actions of a loving family who knew their son and brother was innocent.

Scott Forbes has brought nothing to light which could in any way render the original conviction unsafe. Notice that all he can come up with is to blame others including the now deceased Mark Kane. He didn't dare do that though when Mark was alive. The blaming of others is something that Sandra Lean relied on in her attempts to overturn Mitchell's conviction but that too fell by the wayside.

Both Lean and Forbes have now written books about the convinction of Luke Mitchell, effectively making money out of Jodi's death, a really sad pathetic state of affairs. Neither have added anying new to this case and to be frank, I'm not in the least surprised.

Mark Kane told us all before his death of how Forbes pressurised him to go to the police, to try and sell his story to the press so that they could share the proceeds of their deceit. There's a pattern here!

Mitchell is as guilty today despite all the bull that has been claimed over the years. The only mystery as far as I am concerned is why he did it?  Was it his weed saturated brain or was he simply an out of control nasty piece of work or possibly even both?

[faithlilly]

Quite a bit to be going on with but there is much more. His alibi was completely blown apart which on its own was extremely significant. The conduct of his family afterwards was very telling, not the actions of a loving family who knew their son and brother was innocent.

Scott Forbes has brought nothing to light which could in any way render the original conviction unsafe. Notice that all he can come up with is to blame others including the now deceased Mark Kane. He didn't dare do that though when Mark was alive. The blaming of others is something that Sandra Lean relied on in her attempts to overturn Mitchell's conviction but that too fell by the wayside.

Both Lean and Forbes have now written books about the convinction of Luke Mitchell, effectively making money out of Jodi's death, a really sad pathetic state of affairs.

Until recently you believed that this was a miscarriage of justice. I have never seen you post what changed your mind. It can’t have been the alibi or the way the Mitchell family acted after the murder….those were public knowledge and you still offered your support. So what was it that changed your mind?

[Bullseye]

I think Scott and James have done a great job getting Luke’s side of the story out there. I’m not sure about all the people being named but for new people looking into the case it certainly helps clarify who is who etc.
i laughed at the use of the word detective but imo it seems in some ways Scott is more of a detective in this case than the police who investigated it.
The circumstantial evidence against her brother that Scott pointed out imo is stronger than the list above against Luke. Certainly enough to have got him convicted if it was him that found himself in the spotlight. Before anyone says it, no I’m not saying I agree it was her brother, just that the case against him is just as strong as Luke’s.

[John]

I think Scott and James have done a great job getting Luke’s side of the story out there. I’m not sure about all the people being named but for new people looking into the case it certainly helps clarify who is who etc.
i laughed at the use of the word detective but imo it seems in some ways Scott is more of a detective in this case than the police who investigated it.
The circumstantial evidence against her brother that Scott pointed out imo is stronger than the list above against Luke. Certainly enough to have got him convicted if it was him that found himself in the spotlight. Before anyone says it, no I’m not saying I agree it was her brother, just that the case against him is just as strong as Luke’s.

Surely you don't think for a moment that Judy and Alice would have stayed silent if Joseph had in fact murdered Jodi?

[John]

Until recently you believed that this was a miscarriage of justice. I have never seen you post what changed your mind. It can’t have been the alibi or the way the Mitchell family acted after the murder….those were public knowledge and you still offered your support. So what was it that changed your mind?

No, like many, I originally thought the murder too terrible to even consider that two 15-year-olds were involved but as the years went on and the facts became known, it became clear that Luke was probably involved.

The evidence in its entirety is pretty conclusive in my view and only points in one direction. That said however, there is always that small margin of error, a merging of unexplained coincidences and events which can come together to change the whole perspective of any investigation. If that occurred here then Luke is one very unlucky guy.

[Bullseye]

Surely you don't think for a moment that Judy and Alice would have stayed silent if Joseph had in fact murdered Jodi?

I would certainly not like to think so, no. But mothers will do all sorts to protect their children. If they believed he was out of his mind and not responsible for what he did due to his mental state then maybe some mothers would do anything to protect that child. Other mothers might do anything to make sure they paid for what they did. Everyone is different and who knows what you would do under those circumstances.

[Mr Apples]

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

I'd written a reply to this thread a few days ago, but, to my frustration, it never made it on to the boards (the joys of using a mobile phone). Anyway, just briefly: I believe that SM's continual reticence post-trial can be apportioned to him knowing his brother did it and that he was involved in the disposal of incriminating evidence on the night of June 30th, 2003 (why was he in Oxgangs, a suburb that was 7 miles away from his then home in Newbattle, that night getting petrol? And why was Corinne's maroon Vauxhall Frontera car at the Newbattle entrance to RDP on the night of June 30th, 2003? Was Shane driving it as CM was drinking alcohol that night ?). Then there is the farcical attempt of trying to concoct an alibi which CM dragged Shane into; SM literally changed his story regarding his brother's whereabouts on 30.06.03 3 three times in the space of a couple of days -- one of his accounts in July '03 was a direct result of being coached by CM as to what to say to police -- and then reverted back to his safe default "I don't know" stance when the going got tough on 14.04.04 under police questioning. But, for me, SM's testimony in court tells you all you need to know regarding his brother's guilt. When asked by AD Turnbull, after being shown the horrific pictures of that murdered girl at the locus, if he'd masturbated whilst viewing online pornography between 1653-1716 and if he'd seen his brother in the house when he went downstairs after the internet session, SM admitted he had masturbated and replied verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother." Even before this, when the AD asked him who he thought was in the house when he went on the internet, SM replied verbatim: "No one at the time." And there are other bits of his testimony in the public domain --  for example him admitting that his mother was the reason that he changed his statement on the 07.07.03 to say he saw LM in the kitchen "mashing tatties", and SM also said he could not hear any music being played by LM like he normally would at dinner time in the house (between 1600-1800). So, there it is, unequivocally, an admission from SM that his wee brother was not in the house between 1650 - 1716 on 30.06.03. How anyone can infer differently is baffling. To say he saw him mashing tatties in the kitchen at 1716 when he went downstairs after looking on the internet, to say, under oath, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother" (meaning at 1716) is very incriminating as it's completely admitting he did not see his brother in the house and that Luke was elsewhere. Combine this with the other mountain of incriminating circumstantial evidence and it's no wonder he was jailed; there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against LM, imo. Actually, I'm extremely surprised that AD Turnbull never came right out and asked SM under cross-examination if he really did see his brother mashing tatties in the kitchen, though I suspect he would have said he couldn't remember. And, btw, SM only said his brother "could have been there" so as not to fully drop his wee brother and mother in the proverbial shit.

As regards LM being terrified in court of saying the wrong thing . . . really?!!?! So, the police made him say he was masturbatng and he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother when he went downstairs?? Do me a favour! Look, if your wee brother was in the house and you saw him, you'd simply say so. It's as simple as that. The fact that there was so much of a furore about wether or not SM saw LM in the house that afternoon is, imo, indicative of the Mitchells' lies and guilt. You either saw your wee brother or you didn't -- no in between. The fact that the Mitchells made a big deal of wether or not LM was home during the1650 - 1716 window is very telling; caught up in their own mess & lies. Quite simply, two people could not have failed to see each other in that 2-storey house that day if they were in the house at the same time. Simple as that. SM did not have a chronic memory problem, either; he was lying about his memory because his mother dragged him into a false alibi of LM being in the kitchen "mashing tatties" and he knew the police had sussed this out. The fact that some people on here think that the police intimidated Shane to the extent he would make false admissions that would help secure his brother's conviction for murder & say his own brother wasn't in the kitchen, is absolutely astounding. The police have actually to be commended for getting SM to tell the truth. They even got him to admit in court that he was masturbating -- something he really could have gotten away with not admitting; he could have just said he was looking at the images.

[John]

That is an excellent post Mr Apples and sums up the failed alibi rather succinctly.  If Luke had been at home making dinner, Shane would definitely have known about it for sure. All he had to say was, yes sir, my brother was with me at home.

BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THAT and the rest is history!

[Bullseye]

That is an excellent post Mr Apples and sums up the failed alibi rather succinctly.  If Luke had been at home making dinner, Shane would definitely have known about it for sure. All he had to say was, yes sir, my brother was with me at home.

BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THAT and the rest is history!

Without Shane’s testimony in court that he could not remember if Luke was home or not. Do you think Luke would have been found guilty on the rest of the evidence? Personally I don’t, that was what swayed some of the jury I think. If he had said Luke was not home I think the decision could have been unanimous and if he said He thinks Luke was at home then the spit might have been enough to get Luke off. Unfortunately he could not remember.

[Mr Apples]

Quite a bit to be going on with but there is much more. His alibi was completely blown apart which on its own was extremely significant. The conduct of his family afterwards was very telling, not the actions of a loving family who knew their son and brother was innocent.

Scott Forbes has brought nothing to light which could in any way render the original conviction unsafe. Notice that all he can come up with is to blame others including the now deceased Mark Kane. He didn't dare do that though when Mark was alive. The blaming of others is something that Sandra Lean relied on in her attempts to overturn Mitchell's conviction but that too fell by the wayside.

Both Lean and Forbes have now written books about the convinction of Luke Mitchell, effectively making money out of Jodi's death, a really sad pathetic state of affairs. Neither have added anying new to this case and to be frank, I'm not in the least surprised.

Mark Kane told us all before his death of how Forbes pressurised him to go to the police, to try and sell his story to the press so that they could share the proceeds of their deceit. There's a pattern here!

Mitchell is as guilty today despite all the bull that has been claimed over the years. The only mystery as far as I am concerned is why he did it?  Was it his weed saturated brain or was he simply an out of control nasty piece of work or possibly even both?

I believe that MK's dna was tested (circa 2008) against the crime scene samples and nothing incriminating was found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7259126.stm

[faithlilly]

No, like many, I originally thought the murder too terrible to even consider that two 15-year-olds were involved but as the years went on and the facts became known, it became clear that Luke was probably involved.

The evidence in its entirety is pretty conclusive in my view and only points in one direction. That said however, there is always that small margin of error, a merging of unexplained coincidences and events which can come together to change the whole perspective of any investigation. If that occurred here then Luke is one very unlucky guy.

I’ve read your posts written over many years…you knew the ‘facts’ and still supported Luke. What particular facts changed your mind?

[Mr Apples]

That is an excellent post Mr Apples and sums up the failed alibi rather succinctly.  If Luke had been at home making dinner, Shane would definitely have known about it for sure. All he had to say was, yes sir, my brother was with me at home.

BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THAT and the rest is history!

John, I heard recently that photographic evidence and cctv evidence of LM wearing the army parka before the murder was shown in court. The photographic evidence was of LM with Jodi and friends at a concert in May 2003 and another pic was supplied by Kimberley Thompson (LM wearing the parka in February 2003). The cctv evidence was supplied by St David's High School. Also, LM's dad Philip Mitchell allegedly gave a statement that his son owned that parka before the murder. Philip was allegedly at the concert with them in May 2003 and he was wearing the exact same jacket as his son! You heard anything about this, John?

[KenMair]

John, I heard recently that photographic evidence and cctv evidence of LM wearing the army parka before the murder was shown in court. The photographic evidence was of LM with Jodi and friends at a concert in May 2003 and another pic was supplied by Kimberley Thompson (LM wearing the parka in February 2003). The cctv evidence was supplied by St David's High School. Also, LM's dad Philip Mitchell allegedly gave a statement that his son owned that parka before the murder. Philip was allegedly at the concert with them in May 2003 and he was wearing the exact same jacket as his son! You heard anything about this, John?

Mr Apples - I believe there was footage of him with the parka hood up described as looking like a monk from schoolteachers. I think the concert in May 2003 was Ramage Inc, local metal type band and I'd heard PM had the same parka.

The pro LM supporters are out out in force after Det. Forbes latest revelations. "Go Scott!"

[faithlilly]

I would certainly not like to think so, no. But mothers will do all sorts to protect their children. If they believed he was out of his mind and not responsible for what he did due to his mental state then maybe some mothers would do anything to protect that child. Other mothers might do anything to make sure they paid for what they did. Everyone is different and who knows what you would do under those circumstances.

It’s odd that people like John can accept that Luke’s mother would protect her son after he had committed a brutal murder but not Joseph’s.