Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Parky41]

I wouldn’t call someone like Allan Jamieson an “independent person” - he’s a grifter - lots of these “independent” people who give evidence in these trials are grifters with agenda’s

Which is another fair point, who exactly gets to choose this so called independent person to do any testing, should the samples they choose to test be released? Ping pong - We are not trusting the system to do it correctly, but trust us to organise who we feel is suitable to do it? - Amidst that ever expanding web of deceit?

[Bullseye]

Ok, now let's just have a look at that, shall we? - So, you are saying that should samples tested show LM's DNA, that would be enough to satisfy you that he was indeed the killer? There would be no "There was nothing found that could not be innocently explained away?" That you would then place both SK and LM as being the killers of that young girl, why? Because DNA and its presence is the answer to who your killer would be? - Is that correct? Therefore at this moment in time, because you feel the presence of DNA equates to guilt then SK for you is somehow complicit in this young girls death?

Interestingly though and hedging ones bets here - They are looking carefully to see which samples they may want released for testing, how does that work exactly? That they have certain results there, they can see those which could not belong to LM, as in samples he could have been eliminated from, therefore the enablers get to choose safely which samples to test? - Get my drift? So there is no and never will be this equality thing as Ms Lean suggested recently? No two sides, with just an independent person in the middle to do the testing, but that is not correct at all, IF the people choosing which samples to test are from only one side?

It all depends on what is found if anything. But like you say if anyones is found that does not mean they did anything but does raise further questions. I’m not sure what would satisfy me one way or another tbh other than the independent review that’s never going to happen lol

[faithlilly]

Ok, now let's just have a look at that, shall we? - So, you are saying that should samples tested show LM's DNA, that would be enough to satisfy you that he was indeed the killer? There would be no "There was nothing found that could not be innocently explained away?" That you would then place both SK and LM as being the killers of that young girl, why? Because DNA and its presence is the answer to who your killer would be? - Is that correct? Therefore at this moment in time, because you feel the presence of DNA equates to guilt then SK for you is somehow complicit in this young girls death?

Interestingly though and hedging ones bets here - They are looking carefully to see which samples they may want released for testing, how does that work exactly? That they have certain results there, they can see those which could not belong to LM, as in samples he could have been eliminated from, therefore the enablers get to choose safely which samples to test? - Get my drift? So there is no and never will be this equality thing as Ms Lean suggested recently? No two sides, with just an independent person in the middle to do the testing, but that is not correct at all, IF the people choosing which samples to test are from only one side?

‘Certain results’…please expand? Where did these ‘results’ come from if the samples haven’t been tested?
You’re not making much sense.

[Nicholas]

‘Certain results’…please expand? Where did these ‘results’ come from if the samples haven’t been tested?
You’re not making much sense.

There will be no testing!

The case is closed!

[Nicholas]

Shane believed in his first statement that he had arrived home from work at around 3.30 pm, his usual time

He didn’t!

He was lying!

[faithlilly]

He didn’t!

He was lying!

Why would he lie?

[Chris_Halkides]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23623709/
Georgina Meakin, Allan Jamieson "DNA transfer: review and implications for casework" 2013 Jul;7(4):434-43.  doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.03.013.

This is a good review of the forensic literature.  Now if a certain true crime podcaster charges $10 to turn a comment into a "superchat," that is guilter grift.  The training manual for a certain state crime lab in the U.S. used to refer to defense expert witnesses as defense whores.  This lab was also paid on a per conviction basis.  I'll let someone else do the math.

[Nicholas]

Robber and violent con Scott C Forbes has today stated on Twitter;

Referring to sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s case “I’ve worked on it really for 4yrs”

Is the fantasist and fraudster back tracking knowing the ship is sinking so to speak?

[Nicholas]

Robber and violent con Scott C Forbes has today stated on Twitter;

Referring to sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s case “I’ve worked on it really for 4yrs”

Is the fantasist and fraudster back tracking knowing the ship is sinking so to speak?

His brother Gary has also made an appearance - using his own name

 

Gary Forbes
@garyforbes_gary
Send them to me, Basil, along with a list of the falsehoods in my brother’s book. Time to put up or shut up.
8:21 PM · Dec 23, 2023
https://twitter.com/garyforbes_gary/status/1738656216979476547

[Parky41]

His brother Gary has also made an appearance - using his own name

 

Gary Forbes
@garyforbes_gary
Send them to me, Basil, along with a list of the falsehoods in my brother’s book. Time to put up or shut up.
8:21 PM · Dec 23, 2023
https://twitter.com/garyforbes_gary/status/1738656216979476547

Much quicker route - List what is actually true.

[Nicholas]

Much quicker route - List what is actually true.

 

[Nicholas]

Scott C Forbes
@AuldM
Imagine sprem deposits on a wee girls hand, lips, breasts, stomach, buttock and folk not concerned. The forensic team meeting, they were excited at the find.
7:23 PM · Dec 27, 2023
https://twitter.com/AuldM/status/1740091137787072827

 

Would that be the same “forensic team” who had carried out zero tests due to the fact they have never had access to the forensics

🙄

[Nicholas]

Scott C Forbes
@AuldM
Question: DR Reporter lies about Mark Kane dna, eliminated as he wasn't spoken to until after luke was convicted. They also say cctv images placed him in Dalkieth but no one has seen them, records of themand no one knows a shop that keeps cctv images for over 2years
10:03 PM · Dec 27, 2023
https://twitter.com/AuldM/status/1740131295433552093

What he means is he never saw them

[Mr Apples]

For your delectation:

https://youtu.be/ZPZ_XcvPZPA?feature=shared


Scott F says: "A transcript is what someone says in court. That doesn't mean what they said in court is the same as what they said in their statement." Scott F obviously thinks that the police manipulated witnesses & witnesses' statements to the extent that what they said in court was lies. That Luke was, in other words, fitted up. Same old excuses from LM's supporters. Evidence of LM killing Jodi on cctv could be shown to LM's supporters and they would probably still say he's innocent ("But the cctv footage of LM killing Jodi could have been edited or doctored!" for example. This is the level of denial; they are entrenched in their own ignorance and obtuse reasoning). I've read all the transcripts published so far and, imo, they reinforce considerably that LM is guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Corinne & Shane's testimonies were particularly damning to LM's defence, imo). Forbes & Lean are keeping this campaign going in order to line their own pockets.

[KenMair]

For your delectation:

https://youtu.be/ZPZ_XcvPZPA?feature=shared

I've read all the transcripts published so far and, imo, they reinforce considerably that LM is guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Corinne & Shane's testimonies were particularly damning to LM's defence, imo). Forbes & Lean are keeping this campaign going in order to line their own pockets.

Lord have mercy, that is exceptionally bad. I only skimmed through it but SF seemingly trying to fit every possible scenario to make it not be LM rather than admit that he's wasted 20 years on this. SL, or an alter ego seems to have emerged on Twitter as Joe Blogs again offering every possible scenario apart from the one that was proved in court.