Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[KenMair]

Isn’t she dead?

Does that make it alright then? Surely the K family deserve an apology. Forbes still denies accusing MK despite it being filmed on BBC Frontline. Forbes is nothing but a braying coked up fool.

[faithlilly]

Does that make it alright then? Surely the K family deserve an apology. Forbes still denies accusing MK despite it being filmed on BBC Frontline. Forbes is nothing but a braying coked up fool.

Says the poster who deplores unfounded allegations.

[faithlilly]

It is not about how long it takes to wolf a dinner down, it is not about what you want to apply to anything, as you keep making things up for people. It is only about what they claimed. Which was not running about at speed, was it now. It was not arriving home and dinner plated and ready to take outside, it was not about any rush at all, not a snifter of it. More so when they dragged SM into it.

It is not about DF's last gasp, it is only about lying, and it is about why those lies were in place. Nothing to do with a bad memory and everything to do with lying. Granted, It is all a bit hard to digest, helping and aiding, covering up and so forth, so here is something Jigsawman style,  a hypothetical line of reasoning.

'What if, having set off on a certain course of action they believed that by doing certain things it would all work itself out? -  A boy comes home with blood upon him, tells his mother he has just found his girlfriend dead. That he went to meet her in their usual haunt in the woods. He has been seen and knows the girls family are aware she had left to meet with him at this time. What is he going to do, he will surely be blamed. Mother is worried and decides to help dispose of the clothing, to put an alibi in place for that time. It is all they can do, he is going to be blamed anyway.

The brother arrives home and learns of what has happened, his mother is disposing of evidence, she is going to be in trouble. He however is not at all convinced of the younger brothers story. But for his mother he agrees to keep quiet, he does not want involved however in the alibi time and story.

He then tells the police something to try to avoid that time, he places himself home before his brother, the house is empty and rightly so, the brother is still in school. Has himself home a short while and leaves again. (The latter part true)

Three people within 24yrs are all implicated in a cover up. There is no going back so they continue as best they can, winging it, playing it by ear. Not master criminals and doing only that which they can. A mother helping her son and another son helping his mother?

Three days later and they are still sticking to the same tale. This time the brother is interviewed formally, the focus now around that crucial time and he is under pressure, so he says on repeat "I cannot remember" - He arrives home and relates this pressure around dinner, around the alibi time. Already implicated and exposing the other two by default, what to do now, what can they do? Still unaware of phone logs and CCTV, he is pressured into doing the only thing that seems best at this point, to tell the same tale as his mother, the same lies she had told the police -----

This in place it was time to deal with the missing clothing, believing that the strength in an alibi would surely have the police with nothing, the search had yielded nothing and they buy a new coat, foiled at the first hurdle, they were still being watched. Again, this winging it, playing it by ear, and doing the best they could to add strength to a story already in place.

There is a further warrant and again no charges made, they are under the full belief that the police have nothing. It is time to tell their version to the public, to start putting their life back together and they do an interview with the media. It backfires publicly, but they hear of a local person who is being very vocal and they ask them to help. To have something further/someone, to take their story, their version of what took place back into the community, to also have someone, their ears and eyes bring what is happening back to them. This person helps willingly.

Everything is very quiet, it really does seem that it has worked, there is not going to be any arrest, that aid, the cover up has worked, and it feels good, after all he only found the girl like that. Time for that final piece, the passage of time is surely safe now, and a replacement knife is bought.

Then that arrest comes, it had been far from over, that investigation had still being going on massively in the background. Although the Crown had made it clear in the August that they could not use the DNA, it was not going to be useful as evidence, the strengthening of that circumstantial evidence, the crossing of those T's and dotting those i's was still in place. They are all charged and the pressure upon the one with doubts, the elder brother is full on. Was he going to end up doing time for his younger sibling?

The trial, those charges dropped allowing them to testify against the son/brother. A reprieve to tell the truth, and he does. Those nagging doubts, and he is shown photographs and told, "This is what you are being asked to cover for ----" the brother then tells the court he had lied, that the reason for those lies, to fit with more lies, was by coercion of his mother, for his mother. He had neither seen nor heard his brother, no dinner, no mashing tatties, no mother and two sons together in that kitchen - The younger sibling was not home.
'

Except it is about all that I have carefully laid out….the logic behind events. What it isn’t about is trying to fool the reader into believing that Shane came home after his mother when CCTV and internet activity proves that that was not the order in which events happened.

It is about the absence of DNA anywhere in Luke’s home even though your tall tale has him coming home with blood on him.

It’s is about not cherrypicking the parts of Shane’s statements you like and disregarding the rest. He either is a witness of truth or he isn’t….make your mind up.

To finish let’s return again to Shane’s words to Findlay when asked, under oath, whether he could categorically say if at any point that night his brother was not at home.

“ I can't say that."

Shane was not much more than a boy. He’d been arrested, charged, vilified and subjected to the kind of interview techniques that would have broken a harden criminal…yet still he would not throw his brother to the wolves.

That is the truth.

[KenMair]

Says the poster who deplores unfounded allegations.

It still doesn't make it alright. And it's not an unfounded allegation, it's common knowledge way beyond the internet.

[faithlilly]

It still doesn't make it alright. And it's not an unfounded allegation, it's common knowledge way beyond the internet.

I don’t believe gossip has much value.

In the meantime something for you to enjoy.

https://linktr.ee/throughthewallpodcast?fbclid=IwAR1HbEy3qM6EaDOtB6rmfrkPPQpkci-rsGDZpAv0EwAMwBLnHFTlNUzY_wo

No need to thank me.

[Mr Apples]

So now Forbes has changed tact, is now blaming the brother, Moped boys, GD. Pretty much everybody.

I'm now curious to know, since he put late Mark & his Mother through hell for years, is he going to publicly apologize to Mark's mother? For the distress he has put her, and her family, through?

I watched his JE podcast earlier . . . battle of the adult neds, is it not? They both come across as cordial and affable enough, but they are both clearly out of their depth. SF is incapable of formulating a plausible theory -- he, at every turn, segues eratically from one hypothesis to the next, each one a messy conflation of unlikely and improbable scenarios -- and also incapable of articulating and conveying his theories in a convincing or effective manner; he isn't the most eloquent of men and should aim to improve his oracy. I have nothing against the guy, but there is an unprofessionalism that emanates from him and I think any decent lawyer would be highly critical of his methodology

[Rusty]

I watched his JE podcast earlier . . . battle of the adult neds, is it not? They both come across as cordial and affable enough, but they are both clearly out of their depth. SF is incapable of formulating a plausible theory -- he, at every turn, segues eratically from one hypothesis to the next, each one a messy conflation of unlikely and improbable scenarios -- and also incapable of articulating and conveying his theories in a convincing or effective manner; he isn't the most eloquent of men and should aim to improve his oracy. I have nothing against the guy, but there is an unprofessionalism that emanates from him and I think any decent lawyer would be highly critical of his methodology

Well said. I did mention a few weeks ago, with Forbes being pushed at the helm, we can be 100% sure that Luke will spend many more years behind bars. Jack of all trades, Forbes is the gift that keeps on giving, he is a bumbling mess contradicts himself regularly. I genuinely cannot believe Lean let him off the leash using his own name. But she knows it's over, the case is closed. But as long as there is still an audience to grift too, they and their enablers will continue to promote this nonsense. It will eventually bite them in the arse. 

[Mr Apples]

Well said. I did mention a few weeks ago, with Forbes being pushed at the helm, we can be 100% sure that Luke will spend many more years behind bars. Jack of all trades, Forbes is the gift that keeps on giving, he is a bumbling mess contradicts himself regularly. I genuinely cannot believe Lean let him off the leash using his own name. But she knows it's over, the case is closed. But as long as there is still an audience to grift too, they and their enablers will continue to promote this nonsense. It will eventually bite them in the arse.

Spot on, Rusty. A 'bumbling mess' sums him up perfectly. Like I said, I have nothing against the guy at all, but listening to him is embarrassing. It's hard to take him seriously.

[Mr Apples]

SF mentions in his JE podcast that JOSJ confessed at a police station to the killing. Does anyone know anything about this?

[KenMair]

Spot on, Rusty. A 'bumbling mess' sums him up perfectly. Like I said, I have nothing against the guy at all, but listening to him is embarrassing. It's hard to take him seriously.

For someone that spent years in Saughton for armed robbery, his accusatory tone is even harder to take seriously. He seems like he has a serious grudge against the authorities but looks like he is as good as a lawyer/detective as he was an armed robber. Nothing against him but just a bit of a blowhard pointing the finger at everyone but the real killer.

[faithlilly]

“It was Mitchell's consumption of cannabis. As the judge said, cannabis can seriously damage the mental processes of those who habitually take it. And he made a key point when he told Mitchell that cannabis "may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality, which is essential for normal moral judgments".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-337749/Cannabis-caused-14-year-old-kill.html

Of course what we now know is that there was indeed a young man close to Jodi whose normal moral judgement had been badly impaired by the use of cannabis. That that young man had been sectioned only weeks earlier for reeking havoc in a family member’s home and attacking his young sister…that the same young man stabbed his mother when she tried to defend another individual. That cannabis exacerbated that young man’s already fragile psyche causing psychosis and paranoia. And that that young man had been using cannabis in such large quantities on the afternoon of the 30th of June that the visit from his mental health doctor had to be cancelled to conceal that fact.

That young man was not Luke Mitchell.

[Mr Apples]

“It was Mitchell's consumption of cannabis. As the judge said, cannabis can seriously damage the mental processes of those who habitually take it. And he made a key point when he told Mitchell that cannabis "may well have contributed to your being unable to make the distinction between fantasy and reality, which is essential for normal moral judgments".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-337749/Cannabis-caused-14-year-old-kill.html

Of course what we now know is that there was indeed a young man close to Jodi whose normal moral judgement had been badly impaired by the use of cannabis. That that young man had been sectioned only weeks earlier for reeking havoc in a family member’s home and attacking his young sister…that the same young man stabbed his mother when she tried to defend another individual. That cannabis exacerbated that young man’s already fragile psyche causing psychosis and paranoia. And that that young man had been using cannabis in such large quantities on the afternoon of the 30th of June that the visit from his mental health doctor had to be cancelled to conceal that fact.

That young man was not Luke Mitchell.

It's a plausible enough theory, but would an older brother become so extremely impaired and mentally ill that he'd be able to subject his wee sister, his own flesh and blood, to such a prolonged sanguinary fatal attack? Remember, this was a physical assault of unalloyed ferocity and savagery. There didn't seem to be any signs of any disharmony in the Jones household just before Jodi set off to meet LM at 1650; on the contrary, it seemed all was peaceful and calm -- Jodi, Joseph and Judith all sitting together in the living room listening to a Rod Stewart record (but, then again, would Judith have let on if there were any arguments between them at that point?). Besides, it's standard practice and procedure for the police to take DNA samples from the immediate family of the deceased in a murder investigation -- nothing incriminating was found. As for the 5 unidentified  DNA profiles -- 1 of those was JAMF and 2 were from a couple of vagrants living in a cave nearby. As for the remaining 2, well, we'd need to see what the source was (eg, semen, blood, saliva, skin, nail, hair), if they were full profiles or partials and the electropherograms. I suspect they were from semen, so, as Jodi was not sexually assaulted, those remaining 2 profiles got there innocently. Even if they weren't from semen, I strongly suspect they still got there innocently.

[Bullseye]

It's a plausible enough theory, but would an older brother become so extremely impaired and mentally ill that he'd be able to subject his wee sister, his own flesh and blood, to such a prolonged sanguinary fatal attack? Remember, this was a physical assault of unalloyed ferocity and savagery. There didn't seem to be any signs of any disharmony in the Jones household just before Jodi set off to meet LM at 1650; on the contrary, it seemed all was peaceful and calm -- Jodi, Joseph and Judith all sitting together in the living room listening to a Rod Stewart record (but, then again, would Judith have let on if there were any arguments between them at that point?). Besides, it's standard practice and procedure for the police to take DNA samples from the immediate family of the deceased in a murder investigation -- nothing incriminating was found. As for the 5 unidentified  DNA profiles -- 1 of those was JAMF and 2 were from a couple of vagrants living in a cave nearby. As for the remaining 2, well, we'd need to see what the source was (eg, semen, blood, saliva, skin, nail, hair), if they were full profiles or partials and the electropherograms. I suspect they were from semen, so, as Jodi was not sexually assaulted, those remaining 2 profiles got there innocently. Even if they weren't from semen, I strongly suspect they still got there innocently.

Were the vagrants found and dna tested?

As for it being harmonious in the jones house hold, how do we know that? We can only go by what they told us. If the theory was correct and it was the brother that did it, the family is hardly likely to say it was all kicking off when Jodi left, with her brother hot on her heels, are they?

Putting the 2 circumstantial cases against each other the case against the brother seems strong too. Couple of examples

Possible sighting of Luke and Jodi top of path
2 possibly sightings of [Name removed] and being closely followed by her brother wearing a back pack

Luke know to have small/medium knives
[Name removed] bother known to have big large knife carried in a back pack

Luke possibly threatened girl with knife, but not known to be violent
[Name removed] brother known to be violent and attacked [Name removed] in the weeks prior to murder

Luke teacher said something about his possible mental health, can’t remember what but psychology reports said he had no mental health issues
[Name removed] brother had serious mental health issues making him a danger to others if medication not given, he was off his meds at time of murder

Luke found the body
[Name removed] own brother did not even go out to look for her, his grandmother and sister did, they wanted to search the path even though luke had just come that way.


Possible sighting of Luke at foot of path
Missing parka that was not proven existed in the first place other than word of mouth.
Accused of burning cloths but again no evidence
Alibi was making dinner. Confirmed by mother, brother could not remember
Main witness did not identify him in court


[Name removed] brother cannabis known to make him have psychotic episodes, had a huge about the afternoon before the murder.
Appointment with mental health person cancelled that afternoon
Previously stabbed his mother and attacked other members of the family
Alibi was in his room all night, nobody seen him but they knew he was there.

[faithlilly]

It's a plausible enough theory, but would an older brother become so extremely impaired and mentally ill that he'd be able to subject his wee sister, his own flesh and blood, to such a prolonged sanguinary fatal attack? Remember, this was a physical assault of unalloyed ferocity and savagery. There didn't seem to be any signs of any disharmony in the Jones household just before Jodi set off to meet LM at 1650; on the contrary, it seemed all was peaceful and calm -- Jodi, Joseph and Judith all sitting together in the living room listening to a Rod Stewart record (but, then again, would Judith have let on if there were any arguments between them at that point?). Besides, it's standard practice and procedure for the police to take DNA samples from the immediate family of the deceased in a murder investigation -- nothing incriminating was found. As for the 5 unidentified  DNA profiles -- 1 of those was JAMF and 2 were from a couple of vagrants living in a cave nearby. As for the remaining 2, well, we'd need to see what the source was (eg, semen, blood, saliva, skin, nail, hair), if they were full profiles or partials and the electropherograms. I suspect they were from semen, so, as Jodi was not sexually assaulted, those remaining 2 profiles got there innocently. Even if they weren't from semen, I strongly suspect they still got there innocently.

It’s not a theory. It’s simply a number of facts brought together.

As to DNA I’m sure all of the family’s was taken, eventually, if only to rule them out. Any of the family’s DNA could have been on Jodi quite innocently as most of them lived in the same house. It would therefore take us no further forward.

What is more interesting is the witness who positively identified the same individual mentioned above from news footage of Jodi’s funeral. The identified individual had been seen walking behind Jodi down Easthouses road and just minutes before she entered RDP. It is also possible that the witness knew Jodi by sight.

Contrast this with Bryson who could not when asked construct a photo fit that satisfied either her or the police and ultimately failed to identify the youth she saw in court.

[Mr Apples]

Were the vagrants found and dna tested?

As for it being harmonious in the jones house hold, how do we know that? We can only go by what they told us. If the theory was correct and it was the brother that did it, the family is hardly likely to say it was all kicking off when Jodi left, with her brother hot on her heels, are they?

Putting the 2 circumstantial cases against each other the case against the brother seems strong too. Couple of examples

Possible sighting of Luke and Jodi top of path
2 possibly sightings of [Name removed] and being closely followed by her brother wearing a back pack

Luke know to have small/medium knives
[Name removed] bother known to have big large knife carried in a back pack

Luke possibly threatened girl with knife, but not known to be violent
[Name removed] brother known to be violent and attacked [Name removed] in the weeks prior to murder

Luke teacher said something about his possible mental health, can’t remember what but psychology reports said he had no mental health issues
[Name removed] brother had serious mental health issues making him a danger to others if medication not given, he was off his meds at time of murder

Luke found the body
[Name removed] own brother did not even go out to look for her, his grandmother and sister did, they wanted to search the path even though luke had just come that way.


Possible sighting of Luke at foot of path
Missing parka that was not proven existed in the first place other than word of mouth.
Accused of burning cloths but again no evidence
Alibi was making dinner. Confirmed by mother, brother could not remember
Main witness did not identify him in court


[Name removed] brother cannabis known to make him have psychotic episodes, had a huge about the afternoon before the murder.
Appointment with mental health person cancelled that afternoon
Previously stabbed his mother and attacked other members of the family
Alibi was in his room all night, nobody seen him but they knew he was there.

It matters not a jot where he was when his gran & co went out to search for jodi. You know why? His Dna was taken and tested against the crime scene. Nothing incriminating was found. Besides, let's apply some common sense: Josj was obviously in the house (probably sleeping) when Judith found out her daughter was missing at 2251. From 2251 onwards, she would be frantically phoning to see where her daughter was. She gets no joy from the usual suspects. They tell her Jodi is not there. Even more frantic with worry, she phones the police to file a missing persons report -- a last resort. The police are at her door at approx 2315. She has to deal with them as best as she can, trying to calmly explain what has happened. Then, BOOM! At 2330/2335 she receives a call telling her that her daughter's body has been found. So, the poor woman was preoccupied & in hysterics from 2250 - 2335. Why would JOSJ be out searching for his wee sister when he was either in his bed sleeping or comforting his mother between 2251 - 2335? None of the Jones family were expecting that call to say their daughter/sister had been found dead. And certainly not within 40-50 mins of her being reported missing (although, Judith knew something was seriously wrong). The reason why Alice & co were out searching for Jodi first was because Judith called Alice's house right away as Alice was her mother and Jodi's grandmother; Judith thought logically that Jodi would be with immediate family (ie, with Alice or Yvonne) as it was uncharacteristic of her to go missing like this, and needed the support of immediate family too in a moment of trauma and crisis. So, why would her son Joseph be of any significance here when he was upstairs sleeping in a house where Jodi should have been? Are you suggesting JOSJ wasn't in the house between 2250-2335? JOSJ is being conveniently used as a scapegoat here cos of his mental struggles at the time, but, when you consider things in order and logically, it couldn't have been him that done it. LM is as guilty as sin, imo.