Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Rusty]

How are the 2 any different?

Did you really just type that? I'm not quite sure what world you live in. But in Scotland, we don't convict people based on the waffle of individuals on podcasts.

I can only go by the information we have to hand. This is new information that had come to light for the public (medical records) If it is not true then I’m sure we will hear about that very soon.

You have no information at hand. The information you regurgitate by watching said podcasts. I will ask you again to cite any information away from podcasts and books about the Jones, specifically the brother. These so-called medical records is not new information, it is just, that Lean has been a little more subtle (just a little) in how she has presented it over the years. Forbes on the other hand has gone full tonto. It is all designed to get a reaction. It won't work.

[Rusty]

who will and are doing anything to try and evoke a response from those they are abusing.

 

[faithlilly]

Did you really just type that? I'm not quite sure what world you live in. But in Scotland, we don't convict people based on the waffle of individuals on podcasts.

You have no information at hand. The information you regurgitate by watching said podcasts. I will ask you again to cite any information away from podcasts and books about the Jones, specifically the brother. These so-called medical records is not new information, it is just, that Lean has been a little more subtle (just a little) in how she has presented it over the years. Forbes on the other hand has gone full tonto. It is all designed to get a reaction. It won't work.

It appears it already has.

[Bullseye]

Did you really just type that? I'm not quite sure what world you live in. But in Scotland, we don't convict people based on the waffle of individuals on podcasts.

You have no information at hand. The information you regurgitate by watching said podcasts. I will ask you again to cite any information away from podcasts and books about the Jones, specifically the brother. These so-called medical records is not new information, it is just, that Lean has been a little more subtle (just a little) in how she has presented it over the years. Forbes on the other hand has gone full tonto. It is all designed to get a reaction. It won't work.

I don’t know if you are deliberately missing the point. I’m not talking about what got Luke found guilty, as I have no idea which is why I’m interested in the case. My point is you are happy to believe some people on word of mouth only but others you want evidence to back up their claim.
You tell me what evidence there was that Luke was at the near the path other than someone saying so (AM could not confirm it was Luke in court) or that Luke had a parka before the murder. Was there cctv, were there photos? Is it possible they could be mistaken? But you are happy to accept what they say as fact.  There is such a thing as reasonable doubt and I have it on some of the witness statements and on the content of the medical records if I’m honest. The witnesses may be mistaken but Sandra and Scott you are saying are out right lying, if they are that’s a dangerous move to make. Certainly got the response they might have been looking for it seems.

There is loads of information to hand, it’s not all true that’s for sure. There is a difference between information and fact and that’s been mixed up in this case over the years is so hard to work out the truth from the lies. The information of the medical records is new information to a lot of people following the case and is certainly interesting if nothing else.

[Rusty]

I don’t know if you are deliberately missing the point.

I would say that it is you that is missing the point.

I’m not talking about what got Luke found guilty, as I have no idea which is why I’m interested in the case.

You have been at this for years, not only on this forum, but over on the blue forum, and you are still saying you have no idea what got Luke convicted?

My point is you are happy to believe some people on word of mouth only but others you want evidence to back up their claim.

For the fourth time, evidence was presented in court in front of a jury. I have yet to see, or hear, any reason why that evidence presented was false in any way. The majority of the jury seem to think so too.

You Bullseye are the one claiming things, your sources have failed time and time again to provide evidence to back up what they are saying. In the recent podcast, Forbes tells James he can show him the medical records, if Forbes can show one member of the public medical records he can show us all. But i have my doubts these medical records are what they say they are, there may be some kind of speculative report hidden away in those 36 boxes about the brother, but his full-blown medical history, i doubt very much, i may address this in more detail another time. There is also nothing stopping Luke, his Mother to release their police statements to the public domain.

You tell me what evidence there was that Luke was at the near the path other than someone saying so (AM could not confirm it was Luke in court) or that Luke had a parka before the murder. Was there cctv, were there photos? Is it possible they could be mistaken? But you are happy to accept what they say as fact.

For the fifth time. I don't have to show you anything, this was done in court in front of a jury. It really is very simple to understand.

Sandra and Scott you are saying are out right lying, if they are that’s a dangerous move to make. Certainly got the response they might have been looking for it seems.

It's not the likes of me they want a response from. And if you cannot figure out who exactly they want a response from, then you really are a lost cause.

[Bullseye]

I would say that it is you that is missing the point.


You have been at this for years, not only on this forum, but over on the blue forum, and you are still saying you have no idea what got Luke convicted?


For the fourth time, evidence was presented in court in front of a jury. I have yet to see, or hear, any reason why that evidence presented was false in any way. The majority of the jury seem to think so too.

You Bullseye are the one claiming things, your sources have failed time and time again to provide evidence to back up what they are saying. In the recent podcast, Forbes tells James he can show him the medical records, if Forbes can show one member of the public medical records he can show us all. But i have my doubts these medical records are what they say they are, there may be some kind of speculative report hidden away in those 36 boxes about the brother, but his full-blown medical history, i doubt very much, i may address this in more detail another time. There is also nothing stopping Luke, his Mother to release their police statements to the public domain.


For the fifth time. I don't have to show you anything, this was done in court in front of a jury. It really is very simple to understand.


It's not the likes of me they want a response from. And if you cannot figure out who exactly they want a response from, then you really are a lost cause.

Just because statements were used in a court of law does not mean it’s true. People can make mistakes which is why evidence is used to back it up. It’s up to the jury to decide. Seems others on the jury also had reasonable doubt.

Scott and Sandra say there is evidence to back up there claim (you may be correct and they have nothing ) the witnesses don’t say they have any evidence to back up their claim. Nothing from what I have seen in court either. Only 1 person to confirm he was at top and 2 at bottom. That’s it from what we know.

Yes I still don’t don’t understand why Luke was found guilty. Only reason I can see is the news coverage at the time and his brother not remember if he was home or not.

I’m not saying the evidence was false I’m saying they may have been mistaken and it’s up to the jury to decide.

So you don’t have any evidence that the witnesses seen Luke. You are happy to believe them at their word. And happy to believe the court did not make a mistake. That is your right. I use to believe that too until I started to look for evidence. As you said I’ve been looking into this for years and still waiting for something to convince me. I also want to believe the right person is in jail and I hope to god he is.

And you are right it’s not the likes of you or me they are looking for a response for. Agreed.

[faithlilly]

Just because statements were used in a court of law does not mean it’s true. People can make mistakes which is why evidence is used to back it up. It’s up to the jury to decide. Seems others on the jury also had reasonable doubt.

Scott and Sandra say there is evidence to back up there claim (you may be correct and they have nothing ) the witnesses don’t say they have any evidence to back up their claim. Nothing from what I have seen in court either. Only 1 person to confirm he was at top and 2 at bottom. That’s it from what we know.

Yes I still don’t don’t understand why Luke was found guilty. Only reason I can see is the news coverage at the time and his brother not remember if he was home or not.

I’m not saying the evidence was false I’m saying they may have been mistaken and it’s up to the jury to decide.

So you don’t have any evidence that the witnesses seen Luke. You are happy to believe them at their word. And happy to believe the court did not make a mistake. That is your right. I use to believe that too until I started to look for evidence. As you said I’ve been looking into this for years and still waiting for something to convince me. I also want to believe the right person is in jail and I hope to god he is.

And you are right it’s not the likes of you or me they are looking for a response for. Agreed.

To listen to Rusty and his ilk you would think that a jury has never judged a defendant guilty when they were not….that there has never been a miscarriage of justice. Of course that’s simply nonsense and we have the damaged lives of innocent people strewn throughout judicial history to prove it.

This case contains all the classic elements that are seen in miscarriages of justice….the discredited eye witness identification of a suspect…a blinkered investigation focused on one theory or suspect….mismanagement of forensics…it’s all there. Even a significant number of the jury at the time could see through the paucity of the case presented to them though, unfortunately, not enough.

Thankfully the tide is turning and more and more individuals within the judicial system are speaking up. Will Luke’s conviction ever be overturned….I hope so.

I have said it before….it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they’ve been fooled. Rusty illustrates that perfectly…repeating the same old mantras, cocooned in this echo chamber…unable to comprehend that time has moved on and they are being left behind. They will still stand there with their fingers in their ears even when Luke is, hopefully, free but by then that will be their problem, not ours.

[Venturi Swirl]

To listen to Rusty and his ilk you would think that a jury has never judged a defendant guilty when they were not….that there has never been a miscarriage of justice. Of course that’s simply nonsense and we have the damaged lives of innocent people strewn throughout judicial history to prove it.

This case contains all the classic elements that are seen in miscarriages of justice….the discredited eye witness identification of a suspect…a blinkered investigation focused on one theory or suspect….mismanagement of forensics…it’s all there. Even a significant number of the jury at the time could see through the paucity of the case presented to them though, unfortunately, not enough.

Thankfully the tide is turning and more and more individuals within the judicial system are speaking up. Will Luke’s conviction ever be overturned….I hope so.

I have said it before….it’s easier to fool a person than to convince them that they’ve been fooled. Rusty illustrates that perfectly…repeating the same old mantras, cocooned in this echo chamber…unable to comprehend that time has moved on and they are being left behind. They will still stand there with their fingers in their ears even when Luke is, hopefully, free but by then that will be their problem, not ours.

Such as?  Let's have evidence of this turning tide.

[Rusty]

Just because statements were used in a court of law does not mean it’s true. People can make mistakes which is why evidence is used to back it up. It’s up to the jury to decide. Seems others on the jury also had reasonable doubt.

The very nature of circumstantial evidence that it may be open to more than one interpretation, and that it is precisely the role of the jury to decide which interpretation to adopt. That jury returned a guilty verdict. As much as people try to manipulate the results of that verdict, it matters not one bit. We will never know. And anyone that tries to give results, is a complete and utter fool.

Yes I still don’t don’t understand why Luke was found guilty. Only reason I can see is the news coverage at the time and his brother not remember if he was home or not.

20 pieces of circumstantial evidence were used. That is a huge amount. If you have done your due diligence properly, then you don't need me to tell you. It's all out there anyway.

So you don’t have any evidence that the witnesses seen Luke.

You are asking for photos and CCTV and whatever else, are you forgetting this happened in 2003? i would also love to see such evidence, we may get to once the FOIA gets reformed this year.  I'm not AB, she took the stand, under scrutiny, and she explained what she saw that day, that is how it works. A very brave woman to do so. She most certainly does not deserve the traduce from certain people since, completely unfounded, only because she saw, what they never wanted her too.

I also want to believe the right person is in jail and I hope to god he is.

The right person is in jail. And that person is Luke Mitchell.

[Bullseye]

The very nature of circumstantial evidence that it may be open to more than one interpretation, and that it is precisely the role of the jury to decide which interpretation to adopt. That jury returned a guilty verdict. As much as people try to manipulate the results of that verdict, it matters not one bit. We will never know. And anyone that tries to give results, is a complete and utter fool.


20 pieces of circumstantial evidence were used. That is a huge amount. If you have done your due diligence properly, then you don't need me to tell you. It's all out there anyway.


You are asking for photos and CCTV and whatever else, are you forgetting this happened in 2003? i would also love to see such evidence, we may get to once the FOIA gets reformed this year.  I'm not AB, she took the stand, under scrutiny, and she explained what she saw that day, that is how it works. A very brave woman to do so. She most certainly does not deserve the traduce from certain people since, completely unfounded, only because she saw, what they never wanted her too.

The right person is in jail. And that person is Luke Mitchell.

AB and the other witnesses were indeed very brave to come forward and I totally respect them for doing so but again does not mean they were not mistaken or that we need to believe it was Luke that they saw, as you say it was up to jury to interpret the evidence from the witnesses.

We can at least agree this is a Circumstantial case. It seems the evidence in this case also did not convince some of the jury that seen it all ( well the evidence used in the trial anyway) So if some of them had doubts then the evidence can not have been all that strong. Not enough to convince them all so why should it be enough to convince me?

You may be right and Luke is exactly where he should be, I genuinely hope you are. But what if the other jury members who did not give the guilty verdict were correct? I wish I was as sure as you are and until I am I will continue to look for something to convince me one way or the other.

[Rusty]

We can at least agree this is a Circumstantial case.

Pretty much every criminal case in the land is based on Circumstantial evidence (this also includes scientific evidence) Unless there are direct witnesses to the crime, then how else are prosecutions supposed to get a conviction?

[Bullseye]

Pretty much every criminal case in the land is based on Circumstantial evidence (this also includes scientific evidence) Unless there are direct witnesses to the crime, then how else are prosecutions supposed to get a conviction?

By also finding hard evidence to prove the case including scientific evidence which then backs up the circumstantial evidence.
I’m sure every case has some circumstantial evidence but not every criminal case is the land is based solely on circumstantial evidence like this case.  When it is there has to be room for error. The circumstantial evidence did not convince some members of the jury, what if they were correct? For me and some of the jury there is too much reasonable doubt to convict. But that’s how some miscarriages of justice happen is it not?

[Venturi Swirl]

By also finding hard evidence to prove the case including scientific evidence which then backs up the circumstantial evidence.
I’m sure every case has some circumstantial evidence but not every criminal case is the land is based solely on circumstantial evidence like this case.  When it is there has to be room for error. The circumstantial evidence did not convince some members of the jury, what if they were correct? For me and some of the jury there is too much reasonable doubt to convict. But that’s how some miscarriages of justice happen is it not?

Some members of the jury or at least one member or the jury?

[Bullseye]

Some members of the jury or at least one member or the jury?

Think it’s 15 in Scotland and need 8 for a conviction. So yeah at least 1 at most 7. Don’t think we can find out what it was. Would be interesting to know though.

England its panel of 12 or 11 jurors, 10 must agree. 10 jurors, 9 must agree.

[Venturi Swirl]

Think it’s 15 in Scotland and need 8 for a conviction. So yeah at least 1 at most 7. Don’t think we can find out what it was. Would be interesting to know though.

England its panel of 12 or 11 jurors, 10 must agree. 10 jurors, 9 must agree.

Wouldn't SL know?  If it was as many as 7 I'm surprised she hasn't mentioned it.