UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on August 19, 2012, 09:28:45 PM

Title: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 09:28:45 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his past.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Claudia on August 19, 2012, 09:33:39 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his past.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.
How did you get in touch with him john?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 09:34:43 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his past.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.
How did you get in touch with him john?

I didn't, he got in touch with the confidential hotline number and asked for me to contact him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: ActualMat on August 19, 2012, 09:50:18 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his past.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.

Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on August 19, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his criminal record.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.

Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.

Scott Forbes threatened me with legal action over the case because as a prospective lawyer he didn't want his name all over the internet.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 19, 2018, 01:46:28 PM
Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.


Scott Forbes threatened me with legal action over the case because as a prospective lawyer he didn't want his name all over the internet.

Is this the same Scott Forbes mentioned in MOJO's 2010 annual report alongside Paul McLaughlin?
https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf  &  https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-Miscarriages-of-Justice-Organisation-Report-on-the-Consultation-Mental-Health-Strategy-in-Scotland-.pdf
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 02:23:00 PM
is this who corrine mitchell claims to have confessed and been positive sighten in her interview on james english show? after she mentioned her and sandras threory of [Name removed] and [Name removed]
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 01:45:57 PM
Scott Forbes likes the tweet but doesn’t have the courage to retweet? https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1150349113688547328

May 15, 2007
”The Sandra Lean below has been actively concerned with the Luke Mitchell case since before his conviction.
Her book is very concerned about what passes for circumstantial evidence. In it she deals with the Luke Mitchell case.
I understand her to also have been working cooperatively with the Frontline production team.

A lot of ongoing analysis of the prosecution has continued. This has indicated general weaknesses in its circumstantial argument.
Significant data not led at trial now is known.
Chances of successful legal appeal are very much hampered by the grounds of appeal being allowed.

Overturning of the conviction may well have to be pressed by argument and publicity out-with the legal process.

The 'psychology' which became part of the prosecution, at trial and in public domain, remains of concern.

"No Smoke - The Shocking Truth About British Justice (Paperback)
by Lady Sandra Lean (Author)
Price: £11.99 (Amazon)

Synopsis
A life-long fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind," led Sandra Lean, at the age of 32, through the doors of Napier University in Edinburgh. A single parent of two young children, she studied Psychology and Sociology to Honours Degree level. A Masters' Degree in Forensic Psychology seemed like the most obvious next step, until a local, high-profile murder hit the headlines. Behind the scenes, Sandra Lean began sifting through the facts, only to discover that all was not as it seemed. What she found led her to other, similar cases, and more patient, methodical sifting, in an investigation that was to last almost four years. The result was a shocking, but true, discovery. Innocent people are being locked up in our prisons, convicted of the most horrific crimes, on a regular basis. These are not one-off, tragic mistakes, but rather, a routine, everyday occurrence. For every high-profile miscarriage of justice that we hear about, there are dozens more that never make the news. No Smoke examines just some of these cases, highlighting the very human tragedy of wrongful conviction, and pointing out the unthinkable: this could happen to any one of us."

http://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=11
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 02:22:10 PM
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
History, Philosophy and Law. B.A(Hons), LL.B, LP.
Edinburgh, ScotlandJoined July 2017
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Tripenthat
 
@danycoll1986
 and
@SandraLean5
200 yards from cop station, but they couldn't find him to talk to him, despite a person taking him to the police station#set#up[/b]
https://mobile.twitter.com/scf65forbes/status/1112964762344869888

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
·
Apr 1
Replying to
@SandraLean5
At least they paid attention. Now hopefully, the other concerns about the case can get put out there for them to consider
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1112809020551847936
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 02:31:13 PM
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
History, Philosophy and Law. B.A(Hons), LL.B, LP.
Edinburgh, ScotlandJoined July 2017
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Tripenthat
 
@danycoll1986
 and
@SandraLean5
200 yards from cop station, but they couldn't find him to talk to him, despite a person taking him to the police station#set#up[/b]
https://mobile.twitter.com/scf65forbes/status/1112964762344869888

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
·
Apr 1
Replying to
@SandraLean5
At least they paid attention. Now hopefully, the other concerns about the case can get put out there for them to consider
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1112809020551847936

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn Scott Forbes has posted under a pseudonym.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 02:35:20 PM
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn Scott Forbes has posted under a pseudonym.

This is from 2012 re Sean Toal  Https://m.facebook.com/miscarriagesofjusticeorganisation/posts/278110862291749/
Apparently Scott Forbes was a speaker from MOJO?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 02:43:40 PM
Court move by Mitchell team rejected after Crown attacks 'fishing inquiry'

The Crown have told judges that Mr Forbes' claims have been investigated and dismissed. “To suggest that the known material points to a compelling circumstantial case against a known individual is quite untenable,” said Mr Beckett.

“He continued: “They should have known that since October 2006 when they were given information by Scott Forbes but, if they were unable to work it out for themselves, they should have known that since January 24 when I gave certain information to your lordships.

https://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/news/court-move-by-mitchell-team-rejected-after-crown-attacks-fishing-inquiry-1-181277
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 03:00:50 PM
Court move by Mitchell team rejected after Crown attacks 'fishing inquiry'

The Crown have told judges that Mr Forbes' claims have been investigated and dismissed. “To suggest that the known material points to a compelling circumstantial case against a known individual is quite untenable,” said Mr Beckett.

“He continued: “They should have known that since October 2006 when they were given information by Scott Forbes but, if they were unable to work it out for themselves, they should have known that since January 24 when I gave certain information to your lordships.

https://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.uk/news/court-move-by-mitchell-team-rejected-after-crown-attacks-fishing-inquiry-1-181277

Sounds to me Scott Forbes can’t let this go because he’s convinced himself of something for so long it’s distorted his cognitions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 04:44:55 PM
Scott Forbes likes the tweet but doesn’t have the courage to retweet? https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1150349113688547328

The lawyers have a sworn statement from another man, Scott Forbes of Edinburgh, which makes claims that Mr Kane was interested in pictures of mutilated women and that he had unexplained injuries at the time of Jodi's murder.

The Crown have told judges that Mr Forbes' claims have been investigated and dismissed. “To suggest that the known material points to a compelling circumstantial case against a known individual is quite untenable,” said Mr Beckett.

He continued: “They should have known that since October 2006 when they were given information by Scott Forbes but, if they were unable to work it out for themselves, they should have known that since January 24 when I gave certain information to your lordships.”

Jane Farquarson, junior counsel for Mitchell, now 19, was forced to concede that there was some doubt about whether this ground of appeal should be pursued.

But, she said, more checks were needed.

They had heard of “extensive and troubling graffiti” which Mr Kane was supposed to have scratched or etched round the college with a knife.

“Each time we get a little more information it takes us down various paths.”

That was why the lawyers wanted help to contact Mr Kane's fellow students and probation supervisors about his drinking and drug use and his access to internet websites.

Appeal judges have still to issue a decision on the claims they have already heard that Mitchell suffered a miscarriage of justice.

They have also given Mr Findlay a March 21 deadline to put together a convincing argument that they should hear new evidence.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 04:50:26 PM
Sounds to me Scott Forbes can’t let this go because he’s convinced himself of something for so long it’s distorted his cognitions.

“But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.
Mr Forbes had alleged that Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College at the time of Jodi's murder, had written an essay on "killing a girl in the woods".
He also claimed that a teacher at the college could confirm this.
Mr Beckett said: "When this came to light the Crown had police take a statement from the lecturer which confirmed Kane wrote no such essay at all."
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 14, 2019, 10:57:35 PM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:07:30 PM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon

And “Liked” by Holyrood boxing gym lol

What a moron!

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:14:22 PM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon

Didn’t Corrine Mitchell say in her podcast they’d sacked all the lawyers?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:28:18 PM
Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.

Luke Mitchell’s criminal record prior to the murder has never been disclosed publicly

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 14, 2019, 11:39:25 PM
Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.



https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1116280228568080385


Scott Forbes

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @jamesenglish0
No many bank robbers turned lawyer that made it to supreme court. And laughed all the way 🤣🤣

11:02 AM - 11 Apr 2019


Bank robbery lol
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: WakeyWakey on July 14, 2019, 11:42:06 PM
i have hard time believin he can be a lawyer tbh. paralegal maybe.

look at his timeline.man is insane
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 11:48:47 PM
i have hard time believin he can be a lawyer tbh. paralegal maybe.

look at his timeline.man is insane

Agreed!

But he would have had access to all the case files?

Could explain why he was so nervous around the time and contacted the forum on the confidential hotline number etc
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on July 15, 2019, 12:07:54 AM
Agreed!

Agreed!

But he would have had access to all the case files?

Could explain why he was so nervous around the time and contacted the forum on the confidential hotline number etc

If, working alongside Ms Lean, in support of Luke, does this spell the desperation to have 'odd' characters on board.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 09:04:43 AM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
·
17h
Replying to
@smartnotstupid
Need more money to gaurd him as he struts about getting his photo taken. He is Emperor’s New Clothes
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Angelo222 on July 15, 2019, 10:11:32 AM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon

He was certainly part of the Glasgow legal firm which represented Mitchell.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Angelo222 on July 15, 2019, 10:55:50 AM
Luke Mitchell’s criminal record prior to the murder has never been disclosed publicly

Child criminal records are sealed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 01:13:34 PM
Child criminal records are sealed.

[55] Most of the publicity had occurred in the immediate aftermath of the death of the deceased. It was a matter of concession that, by around September 2003, the intensity of the coverage had very largely died down. In that connection reference was made to pages 70 to 71 of the transcript of proceedings of 6 October 2004. In addition, it had been accepted that the publicity in itself was not of what could be called an improper nature. For example, it did not involve the revelation of previous convictions.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2019, 01:39:04 PM
And as clear as the identity of “the emperor” over on blue

The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye klæder) is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them.

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
·
17h
Replying to
@smartnotstupid
Need more money to gaurd him as he struts about getting his photo taken. He is Emperor’s New Clothes

Coincidence maybe?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 03, 2019, 03:29:53 PM

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@PeterTatchell
Your a pervert with a very unhealthy interest in sex with children#🤮
12:54 PM · Aug 3, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1157620758425886720


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@ripx4nutmeg
 and
@GlasgowMake
All due respect #pride has permitted peadophile’s to march with them for years. 
@PeterTatchell
 was one of their advocates
4:22 PM · Aug 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1156948271513972736

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell wrote to the Chief Constable of Essex on 5 April 2017, requesting that he provide all the undisclosed evidence to Jeremy Bamber's solicitor. Below is his letter and the reply from Essex police - a tacit admission that they have withheld evidence and a reiteration of their refusal to voluntarily disclose it.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/peter-tatchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 03, 2019, 10:25:03 PM
Claim to have been lukes lawyer at som point

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048

 
@Scf65Forbes
Follow Follow @Scf65Forbes
More
Replying to @scottymc1986 @DarrenH9 @bertoise
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.

If he a lawyer, am a brain surgeon


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@RachelBroady
Keep in mind @peterthatchel is a peadophile who has for years advocated that children come to no harm when they are sexual abused
6:06 PM · Aug 3, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1157699323183767553
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: WakeyWakey on February 22, 2021, 12:02:19 PM
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1362845413938761728?s=19

Has sandra lean ever disclosed how she knows scott forbes?

Seems like something that should been disclosed, given he was the source of the mk allegations, was found to have fabricated these for a story etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/zXJ5GnD.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/gkj6Ggm.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/2vw1H27.png)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 22, 2021, 01:14:52 PM
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1362845413938761728?s=19

Has sandra lean ever disclosed how she knows scott forbes?

Seems like something that should been disclosed, given he was the source of the mk allegations, was found to have fabricated these for a story etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/zXJ5GnD.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/gkj6Ggm.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/2vw1H27.png)

Sandra Lean needs to explain this
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 22, 2021, 03:41:02 PM
The Crown have told judges that Mr Forbes' claims have been investigated and dismissed

And Luke Mitchell, Sandra Lean or Corrine Mitchell have never explained why

Nor did journalist Samantha Poling or anyone else involved with the BBC frontline doc - which also promoted Scott Forbes lies about MK
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 22, 2021, 11:08:58 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1112808172081774595


Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Apr 1, 2019
Mystery Man? I can name him right now, if you'd like. The condom was "within 20 yards," not "50 yards away" - want the facts? Ask me!

danny
@danyboy198631
Apr 1, 2019
What ever became of the mark Kane lead?

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Apr 1, 2019
Still working on it

danny
@danyboy198631
Replying to
@SandraLean5
Know a boy who knows a guy that stayed in uni halls with him, said he came back that night really shaken up and scratch marks all over him
10:40 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@danyboy198631
 and
@SandraLean5
Could you PM me or Sandra Lean to tell the name of the person in halls with him? I was at same colledge so will know him. Mark is now dead sadly.

danny
@danyboy198631
Apr 2, 2019
Done[

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Apr 2, 2019
I was calling out the Scottish Sun for calling him "Mystery Man" - they know who he is and always have done, but chose to run a story that made it look like he was someone unknown.
/color]


Scott Forbes & Sandra Lean have questions to answer
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 23, 2021, 07:01:12 PM
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1362845413938761728?s=19

Has sandra lean ever disclosed how she knows scott forbes?

Seems like something that should been disclosed, given he was the source of the mk allegations, was found to have fabricated these for a story etc.

I take it you are aware Corrine Mitchell told James English it was ‘a few nights after the murder’ when Scott Forbes allegedly saw MK ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 24, 2021, 10:43:27 PM
How much was Scott Forbes paid by Firecracker Films?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 24, 2021, 10:45:15 PM
Why has Luke Mitchell’s previous ‘lawyer’ (cough) Scott Forbes never mentioned the ‘brown handled’ knife until now?

https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1113550373946626048
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 24, 2021, 11:39:01 PM
Is Luke Mitchell innocent and is the real killer of Jodi Jones dead? - by Helen Fear for Entertainment Daily
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/tv/is-luke-mitchell-innocent-and-is-the-real-killer-of-jodi-jones-dead/

 
Helen Fear didn’t even bother to see how to spell Jodi’s name correctly before going to print  *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on February 25, 2021, 07:06:42 AM
Is Luke Mitchell innocent and is the real killer of Jodi Jones dead? - by Helen Fear for Entertainment Daily
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/tv/is-luke-mitchell-innocent-and-is-the-real-killer-of-jodi-jones-dead/ (https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/tv/is-luke-mitchell-innocent-and-is-the-real-killer-of-jodi-jones-dead/)
 
Helen Fear didn’t even bother to see how to spell Jodi’s name correctly before going to print  *&^^&

https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3 (https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on February 25, 2021, 08:18:59 AM
https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3 (https://www.my5.tv/murder-in-a-small-town-295ba2fb-90ef-4b1a-9465-10617f789c03/season-1/episode-1-3166c182-1c2c-44da-a61b-b436056018a3)
They've deleted it unfortunately and unforgivably, but a repeat of Episode 1 is scheduled to be shown next Sunday...

https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town-2/ (https://www.channel5.com/show/murder-in-a-small-town-2/)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 25, 2021, 11:33:40 AM
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b......s grind you down.

I recall this

He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages’



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 28, 2021, 11:46:33 PM
Scott Forbes is not credible

Nothing he says can be trusted

He appears to be making up all kinds of rubbish about many people
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2021, 05:20:47 PM
Has anyone made a formal complaint/or reported the allegations being made by killer Luke Mitchell’s alleged previous lawyer Scott Forbes and of his leaking of sensitive and highly confidential information into the public domain

Same applies to Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 03, 2021, 05:42:05 PM
Has anyone made a formal complaint/or reported the allegations being made by killer Luke Mitchell’s alleged previous lawyer Scott Forbes and of his leaking of sensitive and highly confidential information into the public domain

Same applies to Sandra Lean

You have a phone don’t you?

Off you go then...don’t let the grass grow !
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2021, 05:55:12 PM
You have a phone don’t you?

Off you go then...don’t let the grass grow !

Isn’t it done online now as opposed a phone?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 03, 2021, 06:14:15 PM
Isn’t it done online now as opposed a phone?

Doesn’t your phone have 4g ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2021, 06:22:37 PM
Doesn’t your phone have 4g ?

 @)(++(*

You weren’t specific about the type of phone - so by phone I assumed you meant ring them
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 03, 2021, 06:30:41 PM
@)(++(*

You weren’t specific about the type of phone - so by phone I assumed you meant ring them

You know what assumption does?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2021, 06:41:25 PM
You know what assumption does?

On the first day of school, the children brought gifts for their teacher. The supermarket manager's daughter brought the teacher a basket of assorted fruit.

The florist's son brought the teacher a bouquet of flowers.

The candy-store owner's daughter gave the teacher a pretty box of candy.

Then the liquor-store owner's son brought up a big, heavy box.

The teacher lifted it up and noticed that it was leaking a little bit... She touched a drop of the liquid with her finger and tasted it.

"Is it wine?" she guessed.

"No," the boy replied.

She tasted another drop and asked, "Champagne ?"

"No," said the little boy........... "It's a puppy!"....
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2021, 06:43:05 PM
You know what assumption does?

Quote
“People say I make too many assumptions.

I mean, they don't say it, but I know they're thinking it...”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Admin on March 04, 2021, 01:01:11 PM
A very warm welcome to all the new members who have joined up in the last few days.

When any topic receives national exposure this forum inevitably sees a sudden rise in new membership. Although welcome in the most part, it brings with it the usual disputes and aggressions.

This is an established justice forum which prides itself on being non partisan and in allowing views from all shades of opinion to be heard. The overriding requisite however in all discussions is mutual respect.

We have already removed one member today for constantly breaching the rules so please, consider carefully what you post and review your comments before pushing that post button.

Happy Posting.  Admin

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 11, 2021, 10:25:07 PM
You know what assumption does?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 11, 2021, 10:31:10 PM
Someone said exactly that in a reply to me recently on a different site. Curiosity is important and curiosity doesn't murder anyone. People do. It seems a bizarre thing to say where questions are supposedly welcomed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 13, 2021, 06:09:55 PM
If SF is a qualified lawyer, why hasn't be been representing LM in recent times?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 12:06:54 PM
If SF is a qualified lawyer, why hasn't be been representing LM in recent times?

According to a supporter named Rosemary there are two Scott Forbes. One has been in prison since 2019 so it may be difficult to ask one of them. Not sure if that was before or after the documentary. However his doppelganger is regularly on Twitter but I don't know if he's taking questions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 14, 2021, 12:14:22 PM
According to a supporter named Rosemary there are two Scott Forbes. One has been in prison since 2019 so it may be difficult to ask one of them. Not sure if that was before or after the documentary. However his doppelganger is regularly on Twitter but I don't know if he's taking questions.

Aye, really unfair and terrible if the SF we know is tarred with the brush of the other maniac, so it's important to point that out.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 12:27:02 PM
Aye, really unfair and terrible if the SF we know is tarred with the brush of the other maniac, so it's important to point that out.

Absolutely. I should have pointed that out.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 14, 2021, 05:05:07 PM
According to a supporter named Rosemary there are two Scott Forbes. One has been in prison since 2019 so it may be difficult to ask one of them. Not sure if that was before or after the documentary. However his doppelganger is regularly on Twitter but I don't know if he's taking questions.

There recently seems to be. The Scott Forbes in this report certainly isn’t the Scott Forbes in the documentary.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/former-serviceman-who-raped-schoolgirl-jailed-9-years-646744
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 14, 2021, 05:39:14 PM
Aye, really unfair and terrible if the SF we know is tarred with the brush of the other maniac, so it's important to point that out.

I’m not sure I understand this. Do you want an innocent man to be mistaken for a paedophile? Why? Simply because he’s an associate of Dr Lean?

Surely it was right to point out that they weren’t the same person? I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 05:42:40 PM
There recently seems to be. The Scott Forbes in this report certainly isn’t the Scott Forbes in the documentary.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/former-serviceman-who-raped-schoolgirl-jailed-9-years-646744

Yeah not to mention when the name is Googled there's a picture of him. Obviously not the guy in the documentary. I haven't come across anything saying he is the same person though. I can't be looking in the right place.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 14, 2021, 05:45:23 PM
I’m not sure I understand this. Do you want an innocent man to be mistaken for a paedophile? Why? Simply because he’s an associate of Dr Lean?

Surely it was right to point out that they weren’t the same person? I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick here entirely.

I'm quite clearly saying that SF who appeared on the documentary and was apparently part of LM's legal team at one point, shouldn't be confused with the other guy.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 14, 2021, 06:23:50 PM
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick here entirely.

I'm quite clearly saying that SF who appeared on the documentary and was apparently part of LM's legal team at one point, shouldn't be confused with the other guy.

Thank you for clarifying.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 07:26:24 PM
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick here entirely.

I'm quite clearly saying that SF who appeared on the documentary and was apparently part of LM's legal team at one point, shouldn't be confused with the other guy.
I understand the Scott Forbes in prison and the one who worked for Luke's defence aren't the same person but I'm still confused by this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 14, 2021, 07:33:57 PM
As far as I know, the SF who is in prison for horrific crimes has never had anything to do with the LM/[Name removed] case.

In the debate in those links, SF says he supported LM's case - at one point SL says it's a different SF.

Not sure why she said that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 14, 2021, 07:36:07 PM
That was crazy the other day in her Q & A when SL started calling people out for questioning her.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 07:38:13 PM
That was crazy the other day in her Q & A when SL started calling people out for questioning her.
It's not on YouTube. Do you know where it is please?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 14, 2021, 07:52:42 PM
It's not on YouTube. Do you know where it is please?

It'll be on SL's Facebook page.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 14, 2021, 07:53:12 PM
It's not on YouTube. Do you know where it is please?
Found it. Thanks anyway
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 22, 2021, 09:54:12 AM
“But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.
Mr Forbes had alleged that Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College at the time of Jodi's murder, had written an essay on "killing a girl in the woods".
Jodi Jones
The body of Jodi Jones was found on a footpath near her home
He also claimed that a teacher at the college could confirm this.
Mr Beckett said: "When this came to light the Crown had police take a statement from the lecturer which confirmed Kane wrote no such essay at all."
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mums-fury-jodi-jones-documentary-24327016?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 22, 2021, 09:47:04 PM
That was crazy the other day in her Q & A when SL started calling people out for questioning her.

She didn't like being questioned did she? She lost her temper
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:50:28 AM
In response to the Edinburgh live article Scott Forbes claims via twitter ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@EdinburghLive_
There is 5other 'pals' of Mark Kane, and staff at a college all gave statements, concerned by his behaviour, were they sharing the £50k to....if it wasn't serious it would be funny. Only person to leetch of the case was police helper Jame Hamilton
10:24 AM · Jun 22, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407268351165059072

The above was ‘liked’ by

prisonnews @supportforallUK & Gerald Otley @OtleyGerald
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 12:56:14 PM
In response to the Edinburgh live article Scott Forbes claims via twitter ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@EdinburghLive_
There is 5other 'pals' of Mark Kane, and staff at a college all gave statements, concerned by his behaviour, were they sharing the £50k to....if it wasn't serious it would be funny. Only person to leetch of the case was police helper Jame Hamilton
10:24 AM · Jun 22, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407268351165059072

The above was ‘liked’ by

prisonnews @supportforallUK & Gerald Otley @OtleyGerald
Maybe there are six witnesses to do with the college who gave statements but the other five don't seem to be involved in the 50K mess.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 01:30:46 PM
In response to the Edinburgh live article Scott Forbes claims via twitter ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@EdinburghLive_
There is 5other 'pals' of Mark Kane, and staff at a college all gave statements, concerned by his behaviour, were they sharing the £50k to....if it wasn't serious it would be funny. Only person to leetch of the case was police helper Jame Hamilton
10:24 AM · Jun 22, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407268351165059072

The above was ‘liked’ by

prisonnews @supportforallUK & Gerald Otley @OtleyGerald
Scott Forbes is not registered with The Law Society of Scotland. Is he a lawyer or isn't he?  I'm beginning to think there's a reason for all of these silly,  deceptive distractions.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 01:41:14 PM
In response to the Edinburgh live article Scott Forbes claims via twitter ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@EdinburghLive_
There is 5other 'pals' of Mark Kane, and staff at a college all gave statements, concerned by his behaviour, were they sharing the £50k to....if it wasn't serious it would be funny. Only person to leetch of the case was police helper Jame Hamilton
10:24 AM · Jun 22, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407268351165059072

The above was ‘liked’ by

prisonnews @supportforallUK & Gerald Otley @OtleyGerald

Just out of interest where was the 50k meant to have been coming from. Who would pay that amount seriously?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 03:45:40 PM
In response to the Edinburgh live article Scott Forbes claims via twitter ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@EdinburghLive_
There is 5other 'pals' of Mark Kane, and staff at a college all gave statements, concerned by his behaviour, were they sharing the £50k to....if it wasn't serious it would be funny. Only person to leetch of the case was police helper Jame Hamilton
10:24 AM · Jun 22, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://mobile.twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407268351165059072

The above was ‘liked’ by

prisonnews @supportforallUK & Gerald Otley @OtleyGerald

Who are these 5 ‘pals’ ?

In a screenshot of a page from Sandra Leans 2nd book it states,

Two other witness statements supported Mr Forbes’ claims that Mr Kane had facial injuries, gave conflicting accounts about how they came about and was acting strangely the day after the murder.


Were the above two individuals aware of Scott Forbes claims?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 04:17:23 PM
Who are these 5 ‘pals’ ?

In a screenshot of a page from Sandra Leans 2nd book it states,

Two other witness statements supported Mr Forbes’ claims that Mr Kane had facial injuries, gave conflicting accounts about how they came about and was acting strangely the day after the murder.


Were the above two individuals aware of Scott Forbes claims?
I'm interested in when these pals gave their statements.
All these tweets by SF about mutilation, bulging eyeballs and torture aimed  at MK. He makes claims about injuries MK would inflict on himself being similar to poor Jodi's injuries. MK living close to the murder scene at the time and concerns about MK's behaviour and yet he doesn't approach CM until the end of 2006.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 07:28:20 PM
I'm interested in when these pals gave their statements.
All these tweets by SF about mutilation, bulging eyeballs and torture aimed  at MK. He makes claims about injuries MK would inflict on himself being similar to poor Jodi's injuries. MK living close to the murder scene at the time and concerns about MK's behaviour and yet he doesn't approach CM until the end of 2006.

Scott Forbes is yet another bare faced liar

There’s nothing stopping him from publishing his police witness statements in full either

Let’s see EXACTLY what he told police and when so we can compare that to what he’s stated since
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 23, 2021, 07:48:14 PM
Scott Forbes is yet another bare faced liar

There’s nothing stopping him from publishing his police witness statements in full either

Let’s see EXACTLY what he told police and when so we can compare that to what he’s stated since

And this is by far the most important area that is becoming clearer - now that Ms Lean and Ms Mitchell  have gotten to a place they have long since sought after. - Those missing statements, directly from them. Every part of them. And as you rightly point out again Nicholas. What of SF's own statements from those early days?

A campaign, which in reality has only just kickstarted since these new comers have jumped on board (dwindling dramatically). Any campaign should be built upon the people it is for. Straight from them with full disclosure of those statements and interviews. For it is not about these others, these innocent people. It is about the testimony they gave, that was shown to be false.

It should never have been around Ms Leans take on anything? - Her consistent answers for them. Those excuses around every corner. We do not need to hear, why she thought Luke Mitchell may have thought or did - it should be clear and precise.  Truth does not change. It should not need altered to fit anything!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 08:39:49 PM
And this is by far the most important area that is becoming clearer - now that Ms Lean and Ms Mitchell  have gotten to a place they have long since sought after. - Those missing statements, directly from them. Every part of them. And as you rightly point out again Nicholas. What of SF's own statements from those early days?

A campaign, which in reality has only just kickstarted since these new comers have jumped on board (dwindling dramatically). Any campaign should be built upon the people it is for. Straight from them with full disclosure of those statements and interviews. For it is not about these others, these innocent people. It is about the testimony they gave, that was shown to be false.

It should never have been around Ms Leans take on anything? - Her consistent answers for them. Those excuses around every corner. We do not need to hear, why she thought Luke Mitchell may have thought or did - it should be clear and precise.  Truth does not change. It should not need altered to fit anything!

Ofcom had apparently received complaints about the channel 5 TV show

Does anyone know what the results of their investigations were?

How much was Scott Forbes paid to appear on the show and say what he did?

What did his original police witness statements say EXACTLY?

Why does he claim to have been a lawyer - Luke Mitchell’s lawyer for 5-6 years - if he wasn’t a lawyer?

Is he a fantasist as well as a bare faced liar?

It seems quite a few other people have recognised in him what many of us have ⬇️

Michelle Mackenzie
No that was mk.. Who by the way i believe to be innocent... His friend could be lying for all we know about him showing up covered in scratches. He seemed publicity hungry during that documentary. He already lied about mk producing an essay about killing a girl in the woods the college confirmed that. No other reports went in about mk being seen with scratches. If he had a drug habit thats probbaly why he was untraceable.. People with habits shut themselves away for days. I wouldnt read too much into what his friend has said. Hes not here to defend himself xxxxv

Burtista Jbella
‘Michelle Mackenzie SF has been writing lot on Twitter sayin that [Name removed] stabbed his own mother and he used to be Luke’s lawyer ect ect

Michelle Mackensie
Burtista Jbella i watched the documentary where he discussed mk and i just felt he was playing with the detectives. I really feel for MK being accused of something and not being able to stand up for himself.. Xx[

Michelle Mackensie
Mk is definitely innocent even one of the victims family told SF he is a liar on twitter x [color]
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 08:48:50 PM
There are even calls for Scott Forbes to take a lie detector test

Which isn’t required

All he needs to do is publish his police witness statements in full to the WWW so the public can judge for themselves what he did and didn’t tell police about Mark Kane initially

I guarantee his story has grown arms and legs over the years
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 08:51:42 PM
Ofcom had apparently received complaints about the channel 5 TV show

Does anyone know what the results of their investigations were?

How much was Scott Forbes paid?

What did his original police witness statements say EXACTLY?

Why does he claim to have been a lawyer - Luke Mitchell’s lawyer for 5-6 years - if he wasn’t a lawyer?

Is he a fantasist as well as a bare faced liar?

It seems quite a few other people have recognised in him what many of us have ⬇️

Michelle Mackenzie
No that was mk.. Who by the way i believe to be innocent... His friend could be lying for all we know about him showing up covered in scratches. He seemed publicity hungry during that documentary. He already lied about mk producing an essay about killing a girl in the woods the college confirmed that. No other reports went in about mk being seen with scratches. If he had a drug habit thats probbaly why he was untraceable.. People with habits shut themselves away for days. I wouldnt read too much into what his friend has said. Hes not here to defend himself xxxxv

Burtista Jbella
‘Michelle Mackenzie SF has been writing lot on Twitter sayin that [Name removed] stabbed his own mother and he used to be Luke’s lawyer ect ect

Michelle Mackensie
Burtista Jbella i watched the documentary where he discussed mk and i just felt he was playing with the detectives. I really feel for MK being accused of something and not being able to stand up for himself.. Xx[

Michelle Mackensie
Mk is definitely innocent even one of the victims family told SF he is a liar on twitter x [color]

Scott Forbes wasn't paid ANYTHING. He has never asked for payment either
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:17:25 PM
Scott Forbes wasn't paid ANYTHING. He has never asked for payment either


Thing is Scott Forbes is a bare faced liar

so unless we have this in writing from Firecracker films or whoever was responsible for the payroll at the time nothings certain
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:19:59 PM
Scott Forbes wasn't paid ANYTHING. He has never asked for payment either

Do you know anything about the alleged compensation payment Scott Forbes received from the newspaper?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:21:39 PM

Thing is Scott Forbes is a bare faced liar

so unless we have this in writing from Firecracker films or whoever was responsible for the payroll at the time nothings certain

No a lot of things aren't certain but one thing definitely is, he didn't get paid. Even the 50K that keeps being mentioned was actually confirmed not to be true by a post on this forum. It clearly states no amount of money was mentioned

Its a bit like chinese whispers. A story was started and repeated as true when there is no proof that 50k was ever involved for anyone either.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Scott Forbes wasn't paid ANYTHING. He has never asked for payment either

And what do you know about Scott Forbes violent nature ?

He apparently assaulted Mark Kane ⬇️

Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:24:34 PM
No a lot of things aren't certain but one thing definitely is, he didn't get paid.

As I said - we would need that in writing to know for certain
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:25:16 PM
No a lot of things aren't certain but one thing definitely is, he didn't get paid. Even the 50K that keeps being mentioned was actually confirmed not to be true by a post on this forum.

Oh the extortion story is true ⬇️

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears
A MAN claiming to have evidence that could clear Luke Mitchell of the murder of Jodi Jones wanted to sell his story for £50,000, judges heard yesterday. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845

Mr Forbes had alleged that Mr Kane, a student at Newbattle Abbey College at the time of Jodi's murder, had written an essay on "killing a girl in the woods". He claimed that a teacher could confirm this.
Mr Beckett said: "The Crown had police take a statement from the lecturer which confirmed Kane wrote no such essay at all."
Mr Beckett said that Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12458908.man-named-appeal-tried-sell-story-newspapers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:30:10 PM
And what do you know about Scott Forbes violent nature ?

He apparently assaulted Mark Kane ⬇️

Did you speak to him directly?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:30:52 PM
As I said - we would need that in writing to know for certain

Has anyone said he did get paid? ive seen nothing that says he has?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:33:30 PM
Scott Forbes says he did receive a 5 figure sum that was then donated to a registered charity. This was in 2007 This was done and would also ensure that NO ONE could accuse him of making any money from misery and the death of a young girl
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:33:58 PM
Did you speak to him directly?

Nothing Scott Forbes says can be trusted therefore there is no point in speaking to him directly - he’ll lie
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:35:13 PM
Scott Forbes says he did receive a 5 figure sum that was then donate to a registered charity. This was in 2007

Again paperwork would need to be supplied in order to clarify this for certain

Mark Kane said Scott Forbes used the money to go on holiday ⬇️

And if he got a 5 figure sum then he again lied to Mark Kane

Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:37:20 PM
Nothing Scott Forbes says can be trusted therefore there is no point in speaking to him directly - he’ll lie

I meant the post apparently made by Mark Kane.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:40:14 PM
Again paperwork would need to be supplied in order to clarify this for certain

Mark Kane said Scott Forbes used the money to go on holiday ⬇️

And if he got a 5 figure sum then he again lied to Mark Kane

Sadly no holiday. Not sure why we would believe what Mark Kane said on here anyway. But if we are to believe him, he said no amount was mentioned. Didn't relate the 5k figure to anything Mark Kane said.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:41:26 PM
Sadly no holiday

How would you know whether or not Scott Forbes went on holiday with money from any compensation payout?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:44:30 PM
How would you know whether or not Scott Forbes went on holiday with money from any compensation payout?

Why wouldn't I know? how would you know that he did?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 09:49:12 PM
Again paperwork would need to be supplied in order to clarify this for certain

Mark Kane said Scott Forbes used the money to go on holiday ⬇️

And if he got a 5 figure sum then he again lied to Mark Kane

Do you know the other antics of Mark Kane because im sure he wouldn't add them to any post he was making on here while painting others in a bad light? I'm sure his poor Nana would have wanted things to be different too.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:58:30 PM
Do you know the other antics of Mark Kane because im sure he wouldn't add them to any post he was making on here

What can you tell us about the violent and abusive Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 09:59:31 PM
I'm sure his poor Nana would have wanted things to be different too.

Norma is his mother not his ‘nana’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:00:30 PM
What can you tell us about the violent and abusive Scott Forbes?
[/quote

The statement shared was from Mark Kane and no proof what HE was saying was true.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:02:29 PM
Norma is his mother not his ‘nana’

I never mentioned his Mother.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:02:56 PM
Has anyone said he did get paid? ive seen nothing that says he has?

Scott Forbes claimed to be Luke Mitchell’s lawyer for 5 years

Yet here ⬇️ he’s referred to as a ‘prospective lawyer’ ?

Did SF have a criminal record? Was it anything serious? LM also had a history though, didn't he? Threatening girls.


Scott Forbes threatened me with legal action over the case because as a prospective lawyer he didn't want his name all over the internet.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:04:14 PM
I never mentioned his Mother.

I didn’t say you did

This is what you stated ⬇️

Do you know the other antics of Mark Kane because im sure he wouldn't add them to any post he was making on here while painting others in a bad light? I'm sure his poor Nana would have wanted things to be different too.

Who’s ‘poor nana’ ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:04:24 PM
What can you tell us about the violent and abusive Scott Forbes?

Everything..
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:06:18 PM
Everything..

He also comes across like a mysognistic moron
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:17:25 PM
He also comes across like a mysognistic moron

have you met him?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:30:59 PM
have you met him?

No thank goodness

Have you seen some of the nonsense he’s come out with over the years?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:31:59 PM
have you met him?

You still haven’t explained who ‘poor nana’ is ? ⬇️

Do you know the other antics of Mark Kane because im sure he wouldn't add them to any post he was making on here while painting others in a bad light? I'm sure his poor Nana would have wanted things to be different too.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 23, 2021, 10:33:16 PM
He also comes across like a mysognistic moron

As well as a blagger/conman, he most certainly is not someone you can trust.

Let's see your statements, Scott. Prove that you're telling the truth. Na thought so.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:33:49 PM
You still haven’t explained who ‘poor nana’ is ? ⬇️

His poor Nana would be.... his Nana?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 10:34:21 PM
Sadly no holiday. Not sure why we would believe what Mark Kane said on here anyway. But if we are to believe him, he said no amount was mentioned. Didn't relate the 5k figure to anything Mark Kane said.

How do you know whether or not SF went on holiday? And how do you know what he did with his 5 figure sum please?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:35:23 PM
How do you know whether or not SF went on holiday? And how do you know what he did with his 5 figure sum please?

Because he didn't. The money was donated and it is nothing to do with Mark Kane and the 50k
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:41:54 PM
His poor Nana would be.... his Nana?

The recent news article doesn’t mention his ‘nana’ ?! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12120.msg655006#msg655006


Why have you chosen to ghost Mark Kane’s mother?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:44:24 PM
The recent news article doesn’t mention his ‘nana’ ?! http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12120.msg655006#msg655006

I made no mention of the timescale where anyone came to any harm.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:49:47 PM
The money was donated

What money?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:51:08 PM
And how do you know what he did with his 5 figure sum please?

What 5 figure sum?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:52:09 PM

Let's see your statements, Scott. Prove that you're telling the truth. Na thought so.

Scott Forbes won’t publish his police witness statements because they’ll show what a conman and blagger he is and how his story has grown arms and legs over the years

He looks and sounds like a complete fantasist

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 10:54:02 PM
The money was donated and it is nothing to do with Mark Kane and the 50k

Where did the money come from to be donated?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:54:55 PM
What 5 figure sum?

it was all registered and above board . he has proof that this took place.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 10:57:59 PM
Scott Forbes won’t publish his police witness statements because they’ll show what a conman and blagger he is and how his story has grown arms and legs over the years

He looks and sounds like a complete fantasist

The Police statements etc are logged. We cant demand to see what we want when we want.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:01:20 PM
it was all registered and about board .

What are you on about?

What money?

And where did it come from?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:03:02 PM
The Police statements etc are logged. We cant demand to see what we want when we want.

Scott Forbes can get copies of all of his police witness statements directly from the police
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:05:55 PM
Scott Forbes can get copies of all of his police witness statements directly from the police

He can do what ever he chooses but that doesn't mean he has to share them does it? He knows what he said and did and also when this took place.

The comments on here prove some people have decided what happened despite not knowing. Would you entertain those kind of people with documents they have no right or reason to see?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 11:12:22 PM
Because he didn't. The money was donated and it is nothing to do with Mark Kane and the 50k

I'll ask you again. How do you KNOW?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:12:35 PM
Because he didn't. The money was donated and it is nothing to do with Mark Kane and the 50k

What money ?

Where did it come from?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:14:11 PM
He can do what ever he chooses but that doesn't mean he has to share them does it? He knows what he said and did and also when this took place.

I don’t think he does

‘cos if he did his story would have remained the same

It clearly hasn’t !
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:14:46 PM
Scott Forbes won’t publish his police witness statements because they’ll show what a conman and blagger he is and how his story has grown arms and legs over the years

He looks and sounds like a complete fantasist

He spoke with. Luke's lawyer at the court in 2005
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:15:52 PM
I don’t think he does

‘cos if he did his story would have re aimed the same

It clearly hasn’t !

Sandra Lean will have a copy. You don't know what it said and probably never will
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:19:58 PM
Scott Forbes won’t publish his police witness statements because they’ll show what a conman and blagger he is and how his story has grown arms and legs over the years

He looks and sounds like a complete fantasist

The Police statements etc are logged. We cant demand to see what we want when we want.

Sandra Lean will have a copy. You don't know what it said and probably never will

Then Scott Forbes can ask Sandra Lean for copies of his police witness statements and he can publish them to the WWW
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:20:52 PM
Why should he?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:21:23 PM
Sandra Lean will have a copy. You don't know what it said and probably never will

Did Scott Forbes only make one police witness statement?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:24:14 PM
Scott Forbes won’t publish his police witness statements because they’ll show what a conman and blagger he is and how his story has grown arms and legs over the years

He looks and sounds like a complete fantasist

He spoke with. Luke's lawyer at the court in 2005

And ?

What’s your point?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:24:56 PM
If she ever became a person of respect, I would happily share it. Its all a matter of record. The damages paid to Me, were for slander, and nothing to do with others.....I've not made or asked for 1p in the luke Mitchell case! Despite years of work 👍

Your answer from Scott.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:26:20 PM
If she ever became a person of respect, I would happily share it. Its all a matter of record. The damages paid to Me, were for slander

‘Slander’ by whom?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:26:53 PM
If she ever became a person of respect, I would happily share it.

And who’s ‘she’ ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:27:35 PM
If she ever became a person of respect. I would happily share it

And what’s ‘a person of respect’ ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 11:29:31 PM
‘Slander’ by whom?

A newspaper I think. Nothing to do with the 50K story though.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:30:31 PM
That would be you
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:30:56 PM
A newspaper I think. Nothing to do with the 50K story though.

What ‘newspaper’ ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 11:33:51 PM
He spoke with. Luke's lawyer at the court in 2005

2005? And yet he didn't approach Corinne at her caravan place until 2006?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2021, 11:35:58 PM
So who was sending death threats to Mark Kane?


Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal recordwho would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.


Was he referring to Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:38:51 PM
A newspaper I think. Nothing to do with the 50K story though.


There never was 50k
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 23, 2021, 11:43:10 PM
The bit at the bottom of my last post saying, THERE NEVER WAS 50K, certainly wasn't written by me and seems to have been added on by a snake 👍
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 23, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
No snake just a tired mistake . There never was 50k doesn't matter where it's written. Good night.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 12:09:22 AM
2005? And yet he didn't approach Corinne at her caravan place until 2006?

Who was the lawyer Scott Forbes spoke to in 2005

And why didn’t he approach Corinne at her place of work until 2006?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 12:17:22 AM
What ‘newspaper’ ?

It's a while ago now but I think SF got less than 2K from Daily Record when he was mistakenly named as a  murder suspect. I don't have a cite so I get it if my post is taken down but I'm 99% sure.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 12:23:51 AM
Who was the lawyer Scott Forbes spoke to in 2005

And why didn’t he approach Corinne at her place of work until 226?

First I've heard of SF having anything to do with a legal side in 2005. I know he approached CM in 2006 and Dr. Lean just happened to be there. Dr. Lean says she didn't know SF until the day in 2006 when SF approached CM at her caravan place. Startling coincidence. Again.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: WakeyWakey on June 24, 2021, 01:24:32 AM
It's a while ago now but I think SF got less than 2K from Daily Record when he was mistakenly named as a  murder suspect. I don't have a cite so I get it if my post is taken down but I'm 99% sure.

SF himself claimed it was a 5 figure sum:
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366812285201772545
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 04:56:48 AM
SF himself claimed it was a 5 figure sum:
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366812285201772545

That's the first I've heard of a five figure sum. I've always believed it was just over 1K until now.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 05:15:55 AM
Who was the lawyer Scott Forbes spoke to in 2005

And why didn’t he approach Corinne at her place of work until 226?

I have no idea why SF kept all of his information to himself until 2006. The reason Dr. Lean gives is that SF tried to contact the police and Luke's legal team beforehand but no one listened so he was forced to go directly to CM's place of work. Dr. Lean happened to be there at the time. Dr. Lean says that's the first time she met SF.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 06:39:58 AM
So who was sending death threats to Mark Kane?



Was he referring to Scott Forbes?

Yes.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 06:45:57 AM
Sadly no holiday. Not sure why we would believe what Mark Kane said on here anyway. But if we are to believe him, he said no amount was mentioned. Didn't relate the 5k figure to anything Mark Kane said.

5K or a 5 figure sum?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:45:29 AM
5K or a 5 figure sum?

There was no 50k figure. The amount donated was a 5 figure sum as I said.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:46:03 AM
And what’s ‘a person of respect’ ?

Not my words i can only imagine
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:46:50 AM
A newspaper I think. Nothing to do with the 50K story though.

I do keep having to say this but share it again just so you are sure.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:49:41 AM
So who was sending death threats to Mark Kane?



Was he referring to Scott Forbes?

its written within a post on here but do you have proof that Scott Forbes did this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:50:41 AM
It's a while ago now but I think SF got less than 2K from Daily Record when he was mistakenly named as a  murder suspect. I don't have a cite so I get it if my post is taken down but I'm 99% sure.

It wasn't connected to the Daily Record.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:52:26 AM
SF himself claimed it was a 5 figure sum:
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366812285201772545

Thank you. It was definitely a 5 figure sum not 50K
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 07:56:55 AM
I have no idea why SF kept all of his information to himself until 2006. The reason Dr. Lean gives is that SF tried to contact the police and Luke's legal team beforehand but no one listened so he was forced to go directly to CM's place of work. Dr. Lean happened to be there at the time. Dr. Lean says that's the first time she met SF.

I have seen you post about the first you have heard of things. Sorry but just because you haven't heard does not mean they did or didn't happen

Scott Forbes spoke to Luke's Lawyer at the court door in 2005, He then spoke with Alistair Burnet, an honest lawyer! There  is a sworn affidavit which I have already mentioned that Sandra Lean WILL have a copy of. That said, there is no need for Scott Forbes to ask for a copy and share with anyone.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:05:31 AM
There never was 50k

No because it seems no one would give into Scott Forbes demands




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:07:18 AM
There was no 50k figure. The amount donated was a 5 figure sum as I said.

50k IS a 5 figure sum 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:07:43 AM
And what’s ‘a person of respect’ ?

Not my words i can only imagine

They were your words ⬇️

If she ever became a person of respect, I would happily share it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:09:00 AM
Yes.

It most certainly reads that way

So Scott Forbes was going round to Mark Kane’s mothers and threatening her too?

What a cowardly thing to do - threatening women -  not that I’m surprised by this

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:09:20 AM
50k IS a 5 figure sum 🙄
Of course it is...but NOT the 50K or any arrangement presumed to be attached to it.  You dont know the total of the sum but its not 50K no matter how many times you write it
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:09:57 AM
They were your words ⬇️

Not my words as i stated last night! that too is very clear
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:10:37 AM
Of course it is...but NOT the 50K or any arrangement presumed to be attached to it.  You dont know the total of the sum but its not 50K no matter how many times you write it

No THE 50k wasn’t paid out because no one would entertain Scott Forbes demands
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:10:50 AM
No because it seems no one would give into Scott Forbes demands

 @)(++(* please provide proof of this
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:11:55 AM
It most certainly reads that way

So Scott Forbes was going round to Mark Kane’s mothers and threatening her too?

What a cowardly thing to do - threatening women -  not that I’m surprised by this

A post on here makes it fact does it? Oh the irony
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:12:01 AM
Of course it is...but NOT the 50K or any arrangement presumed to be attached to it. You dont know the total of the sum but its not 50K no matter how many times you write it

I’ve never claimed it was 50k ?!?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:14:13 AM
I’ve never claimed it was 50k ?!?

please read what i actually wrote. The 50k is being attached to both Mark Kane and Scott Forbes. I never said there was an amount of 50k either. The 5 figure sum (unknown so no misunderstanding) is NOT connected to Mark Kane.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 09:17:16 AM
No THE 50k wasn’t paid out because no one would entertain Scott Forbes demands

thought you never said it was 50k?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 09:20:43 AM
I find Scott Forbes really creepy

He started ‘following’ me on twitter last night then appears to have ‘unfollowed’ me and ‘blocked’ me ?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 10:19:32 AM
Was it Scott Forbes who allegedly gave Sandra Lean access to Luke Mitchell’s legal case papers at a law office or was this story made up?

Did Graham Mann solicitors represent Luke Mitchell and did Scott Forbes have access to their offices?

Or was it Graham Mann’s offices who gave Sandra Lean access?

As a trainee lawyer, back in 2010/11 he worked for MOJO 3 days a week and was apparently instrumental in investigating two case https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf

MOJO secured a 2 year supervised traineeship for Scott Forbes with Graham Mann solicitors.

Around the same time securing a paid placement for Paul McLaughlin (who was mentioned in the news article here https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/)

In their annual report MOJO stated:

“Paul and Scott have been a huge asset to the Organisation and in taking the
Projects aims and objectives forward.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 10:25:46 AM
That was totally made up. Sandra Lean had access before Scott Forbes became involved in a legal capacity
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 10:30:22 AM
That was totally made up. Sandra Lean had access before Scott Forbes became involved in a legal capacity

Are you saying Sandra Lean made that up?

or it wasn’t Scott Forbes who gave her access to Luke Mitchell’s case files around this time via Graham Mann’s law offices?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 24, 2021, 10:34:08 AM
MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files!

There is your answer. Anything else either ask Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean directly.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 24, 2021, 11:00:59 AM
A post on here makes it fact does it? Oh the irony

What’s that old line attributed to Goebbels “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”,
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:59:53 AM
A post on here makes it fact does it? Oh the irony

‘Irony’ appears completely lost on Scott Forbes
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 12:44:09 PM
That was totally made up. Sandra Lean had access before Scott Forbes became involved in a legal capacity

What year are you claiming Sandra Lean has ‘access’ to Luke Mitchell’s case papers?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 01:10:20 PM
Scott Forbes is not registered with The Law Society of Scotland. Is he a lawyer or isn't he?  I'm beginning to think there's a reason for all of these silly,  deceptive distractions.

Has Scott Forbes ever proven he was a lawyer?

Did he ever qualify as one?

He would have certificates if he did or acknowledgement from the uni

What length of time was he at Stirling university ?

Anyone know?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 01:44:31 PM
‘Irony’ appears completely lost on Scott Forbes

⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Brian_M_Egan
@janehamilton22
 and 2 others
What absolute bell end! Taking about due diligence when you have no concept of what it means. Scott Forbes story is corrobetated by several other witnesses. SF never attempted to sell any story, that's damaging and a lie!
3:58 PM · Feb 27, 2021·Twitter for Android

wendz
@wendzedin
Mar 2
Replying to
@Scf65Forbes
@Brian_M_Egan
 and 3 others
I’m confused, why are you talking in the third person?

Brian Egan
@Brian_M_Egan
Feb 27
Replying to
@Scf65Forbes
@janehamilton22
 and 2 others
did you forget to sign into alt account here scott?

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Feb 27
Replying to
@Brian_M_Egan
@janehamilton22
 and 2 others
one follower, a troll that hangs about prison, married a convicted murderer(heinous crime)12 yrs in jail pleading innocence, 2yr with her, 'confessed' to crime he had denied for years, then killed himself. You and her are dangerous clowns living of the back of people suffering
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1365692753879986177



Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
@janehamilton22
 and
@EmiliaFox
Classic Self projection...your that sad/lonely you hung about prison looking for a husband, months later married a rapist/murderer, who after yrs of claiming innocence 'confessed' to you before killing himself rather than live with you! Sandra Lean has professionalism/integrityThumbs up
12:30 AM · Jun 24, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407843660180381699


⬇️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg655313#msg655313
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 24, 2021, 03:13:15 PM
No wonder he was never taken seriously by those that matter.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 03:15:16 PM
No wonder he was never taken seriously by those that matter.

Of course not

Scott Forbes claims,

“Sandra Lean has professional integrity”   

There’s absolutely nothing ‘professional’ or ‘integral’ about promoting the innocence fraud of killers like Simon Hall!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 24, 2021, 03:57:18 PM
Of course not

Scott Forbes claims,

“Sandra Lean has professional integrity”   

There’s absolutely nothing ‘professional’ or ‘integral’ about promoting the innocence fraud of killers like Simon Hall!

I honestly don't get it. For these people to be believed and taken seriously, they attack and abuse the very people that could maybe help them, politicians/journalists. SF is especially busy doing this. Talk about professional integrity, why would anyone that could possibly help, want to associate themselves with the vile comments that seems to come out of that particular twitter account. Do they think that their behaviour goes unnoticed?

They have no new evidence whatsoever. Recycling the same stuff over and over has clearly not worked. Making vast claims about this, that and the next thing on twitter won't work. Passing the case around, to lollypop, sunshine and what ever witch crafty, glass ball looking, ouija board antics won't work. The only hope of getting an independent review, is getting the very people they abuse and troll on side. I don't get it.

Or maybe I do get it. This is not about LM or Jodi. The case is closed. This is about innocence fraud, self-promotion, attention and creating online drama.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 24, 2021, 04:31:23 PM
I honestly don't get it. For these people to be believed and taken seriously, they attack and abuse the very people that could maybe help them, politicians/journalists. SF is especially busy doing this. Talk about professional integrity, why would anyone that could possibly help, want to associate themselves with the vile comments that seems to come out of that particular twitter account. Do they think that their behaviour goes unnoticed?

They have no new evidence whatsoever. Recycling the same stuff over and over has clearly not worked. Making vast claims about this, that and the next thing on twitter won't work. Passing the case around, to lollypop, sunshine and what ever witch crafty, glass ball looking, ouija board antics won't work. The only hope of getting an independent review, is getting the very people they abuse and troll on side. I don't get it.

Or maybe I do get it. This is not about LM or Jodi. The case is closed. This is about innocence fraud, self-promotion, attention and creating online drama.

Thankfully the law holds itself above petty squabbles between journalists and academics, trolls and campaigners. If there is new evidence of a high enough calibre for the law to look again at the case that is what will happen. I doubt however that an independent review will be granted but it is entirely possible that the case will be sent back to the court of appeal.

This case isn’t closed until it’s closed and while questions still remain to be answered I can’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on June 24, 2021, 06:29:58 PM
Thankfully the law holds itself above petty squabbles between journalists and academics, trolls and campaigners. If there is new evidence of a high enough calibre for the law to look again at the case that is what will happen. I doubt however that an independent review will be granted but it is entirely possible that the case will be sent back to the court of appeal.

This case isn’t closed until it’s closed and while questions still remain to be answered I can’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.
This case is closed and has been closed for years, what are you on about?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 06:49:23 PM
This case is closed and has been closed for years, what are you on about?

They are probably getting the ‘case’ and campaign confused
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 06:51:21 PM
⬇️
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Feb 27
Replying to
@Brian_M_Egan
@janehamilton22
 and 2 others
one follower, a troll that hangs about prison, married a convicted murderer(heinous crime)12 yrs in jail pleading innocence, 2yr with her, 'confessed' to crime he had denied for years, then killed himself. You and her are dangerous clowns living of the back of people suffering
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1365692753879986177

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
@janehamilton22
 and
@EmiliaFox
Classic Self projection...your that sad/lonely you hung about prison looking for a husband, months later married a rapist/murderer, who after yrs of claiming innocence 'confessed' to you before killing himself rather than live with you! Sandra Lean has professionalism/integrityThumbs up
12:30 AM · Jun 24, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407843660180381699
⬇️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg655313#msg655313

Seems Scott Forbes is referring to Simon Hall ⬆️ who - like Luke Mitchell - Sandra Lean has also claimed is innocent ⬇️

What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?



1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial

We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them  all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.

Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent  man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s  decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”


Conviction Upheld
This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from  that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 07:01:47 PM
Below are some of the comments made on one of Sandra Leans YouTube videos https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc
It seems some have been deleted as the comments don’t seem to flow ?


Sandra Lean:
‘Oh, dear, B. you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?

What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages  and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.

The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about confident ignorance - thanks for demonstrating it for people.

I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.

BR:
‘All that you say about Jodi's family is the cheapest shots of all. You make money & have yourself on the screen & they all suffer even deeper & have to stay in the house & can't watch anything on the screen. Think of all the people that you made furious, as you said to me in your reply above.

The first book was withdrawn because it was full of mistakes & lies.
You still talk about Mark Kane & he has since died. Is his name in your book?

For some people what they don't know they lie about & what they do know they lie about, and make up, at the same time.


Sandra Lean:
If I didn't have books to sell, would I still be here? I was still here, doing this, when I worked in an office. I was still here when I was teaching. I was still here, unpaid, facing all the hate and threats throughout the early years. Those people who think I do this for money are laughable, but it's an easy (and cheap) shot.

The first book was withdrawn to correct one typo where the wrong name was printed in error and to be updated because some of the people whose cases were featured have since died. But for some people, what they don't know, they'll just make up.

SN:
‘Sandra you said a few weeks back you were making a video of the route that luke was accused of taking to get back home.across a river i think ? Is this still happening

BR:
‘This was premeditated & from his other nefarious activities before he was already criminally aware of how careful he had to be. Think about what you would do if you wanted no blood on you. That, after all, is what he had to worry about. The other DNA was on the Tshirt & was her sisters. The DNA was her boyfriends & they were in a relationship. Luke's DNA was on Jodi's bra but as they were in a sexual relationship, the defence & the prosecution agreed not to include that at trial. The fact that Jodi was knocked out first by a severe blow to her head is never talked about or in a certain book. There was no fight either. Luke staged many things at the crime scene to throw police off. The cuts were before & after death. The blood on the wall was from throat wound & killer was behind her. The clothes were shredded & then her hands were tied behind her back with strips of her trousers. Being unconscious everything was easy after that. The cyclist was another very important witness as to what he heard as he approached that v in the wall after 5pm. What he heard was a human sound & he stopped. He later described it as a strangling noise. This is the main reason why they could pin the time down of her death that happened not long after. The neighbours smelt the burning in Corrine's back yard & at 2am. Corrine lied saying she didn't burn anything. His jacket & knives disappeared. He was seen with Jodie at the east end of the path & they were described & their clothes too & Mrs Bryson noticed a bulge in his jacket. 50 minutes later he was seen in same jacket by himself at the west end of the path by 2 women who said he was up to no good. He was seen walking away up the road by others. His brother testified that he wasn't home & that his mother had coerced him to write a statement giving Luke a false alibi. He retracted that & told the truth  in court. Just a couple of facts to ponder.

Sandra Lean:
‘You're still making things up. Jodi had severe defensive injuries to her arms, her hands were badly bruised and the best that pathologist could suggest was that she was POSSIBLY strangled into semi- consciousness or unconsciousness. That's strangled, not hit over the head. Unconscious people can't fight back or defend themselves. You're really not doing yourself any favours here - Sunburst75 isn't me.

Sandra Lean:
‘I’ve invited them all to get the police involved - check the IDs of everyone posting to see which one is me. That would spoil their little game though - not only would it prove categorically that none of the other posters here is me ... it would identify which of them are posting as multiple personalities!!!I haven't followed the Ross Willox case in any detail - saw one news article about it, but that's all

BR:
‘That was a spot of blood on that Tshirt that Jodi had borrowed from her sister & blood is hard to get out if not treated beforehand. It was Luke's dna on Jodi's bra.

BR:
‘Stop lying about the DNA sandra, Now you say 'bodily fluids'. lol. It was a Spot of Blood that hadn't washed off properly. It was LUKE'S DNA on Jodi's Bra. Carry Did Not Reply To You About That. lol.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 07:51:02 PM
Below are some of the comments made on one of Sandra Leans YouTube videos https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc
It seems some have been deleted as the comments don’t seem to flow ?


In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”



She appears to label anyone who has a differing view to her or who calls out her nonsense a ‘troll’

What possible ‘stuff’ can be ‘going on’ because someone has an opposing view or differing opinion

Will this come to anything or is this yet another of Sandra Leans empty, bs comments to add to all of her other numerous  empty statements she’s made over the years that also went no where ?

I’ll be keeping my eye on this - especially given the fact she’s referred to me as a troll - as has Scott Forbes 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 10:29:34 PM
I honestly don't get it. For these people to be believed and taken seriously, they attack and abuse the very people that could maybe help them, politicians/journalists. SF is especially busy doing this. Talk about professional integrity, why would anyone that could possibly help, want to associate themselves with the vile comments that seems to come out of that particular twitter account. Do they think that their behaviour goes unnoticed?

They are abusers and abusers abuse

And they appear to have an empathy deficit

I don’t know if it’s because they have some sort of brain damage/wiring issues or maybe they were abused as children?

Something appears to be most definitely off kilter

And Scott Forbes is a highly overt abusive individual

It’s also possible they have [ censored word]ocial (sociopathic, psychopathic) or narcissistic personality disorder?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 10:36:27 PM
They have no new evidence whatsoever. Recycling the same stuff over and over has clearly not worked. Making vast claims about this, that and the next thing on twitter won't work. Passing the case around, to lollypop, sunshine and what ever witch crafty, glass ball looking, ouija board antics won't work.The only hope of getting an independent review, is getting the very people they abuse and troll on side. I don't get it.

It’s not going to happen - especially with the calibre of individuals Sandra Lean appears to attract

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 10:38:32 PM
Or maybe I do get it. This is not about LM or Jodi. The case is closed. This is about innocence fraud, self-promotion, attention and creating online drama.

This is exactly what it is all about

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 10:53:04 PM
It’s not going to happen - especially with the calibre of individuals Sandra Lean appears to attract
They are all so stupid that they will all be exposed. No one has to even do much work. Please allow me to give you just one of many examples? It's all in the public domain.
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc

About 5.29 into the video, SL addresses Janine did it's question. She doesn't call him Janine did it though.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 11:02:41 PM
They are all so stupid that they will all be exposed. No one has to even do much work. Please allow me to give you just one of many examples? It's all in the public domain.
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc

About 5.29 into the video, SL addresses Janine did it's question. She doesn't call him Janine did it though.
That means that Scottish Bike Squad AKA The Seer AKA Janine did it is responsible for so many YouTube bullying comments and videos that this has to be addressed. Online bullying is a crime and even sarcasm and innuendo is not a veil. I'm not talking about spats online. I'm talking about two mothers who have lost their children amidst this rubbish yet only one mother seems to matter. The wrong one. As I said,  this is only one criminal of many and they did it to themselves in the public domain. Justice for Jodi Jones and her family and for Mark Kane and his mother and let the online criminals take what's coming.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:04:57 PM
They are all so stupid that they will all be exposed. No one has to even do much work. Please allow me to give you just one of many examples? It's all in the public domain.
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc

About 5.29 into the video, SL addresses Janine did it's question. She doesn't call him Janine did it though.

 @)(++(*

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:14:05 PM
That means that Scottish Bike Squad AKA The Seer AKA Janine did it

Aka Mark McKeown

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:15:26 PM
That means that Scottish Bike Squad AKA The Seer AKA Janine did it is responsible for so many YouTube bullying comments and videos that this has to be addressed. Online bullying is a crime and even sarcasm and innuendo is not a veil. I'm not talking about spats online. I'm talking about two mothers who have lost their children amidst this rubbish yet only one mother seems to matter. The wrong one. As I said,  this is only one criminal of many and they did it to themselves in the public domain. Justice for Jodi Jones and her family and for Mark Kane and his mother and let the online criminals take what's coming.

And I guarantee you Sandra Lean wasn’t referring to this troll - Mark Mckeown - here ⬇️

In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:20:10 PM
Aka Mark McKeown

 *&^^&

There you go ⬆️ ⬆️

Lauren Maurie:
“I’d like to know who “janine did it” is in the comments?that name is coming out with some serious stuff on YouTube!”


⬇️ ⬇️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655457#msg655457


Fiona Scott:
“We all know who Janinedidit is lol”

Fiona Scott:
KG His misses is from Thailand and they were on holiday. He lives near Glasgow. He likes to tell everyone he’s rich and a gangster. He isn’t lol

KG:
Fiona Scott what an idiot

Fiona Scott:
KG I know lol 🙈

Fiona Scott:
‘AE janinedidit has no connection to the family and everything He has said is just his theory. There is nothing in what he says that can help Luke legally in the slightest. Wild goose chase A. He’s wasting folks time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 11:42:33 PM
There you go ⬆️ ⬆️

Lauren Maurie:
“I’d like to know who “janine did it” is in the comments?that name is coming out with some serious stuff on YouTube!”


⬇️ ⬇️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655457#msg655457


Fiona Scott:
“We all know who Janinedidit is lol”

Fiona Scott:
KG His misses is from Thailand and they were on holiday. He lives near Glasgow. He likes to tell everyone he’s rich and a gangster. He isn’t lol

KG:
Fiona Scott what an idiot

Fiona Scott:
KG I know lol 🙈

Fiona Scott:
‘AE janinedidit has no connection to the family and everything He has said is just his theory. There is nothing in what he says that can help Luke legally in the slightest. Wild goose chase A. He’s wasting folks time.

https://youtu.be/0PJK97VGnKc
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 11:46:58 PM
And I guarantee you Sandra Lean wasn’t referring to this troll - Mark Mckeown - here ⬇️



Online defamation is a crime. It's time to end the suffering of Jodi's family and the suffering of everyone else who has been dragged into this and made to suffer. Real justice for Jodi.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 24, 2021, 11:50:31 PM
https://youtu.be/0PJK97VGnKc

Is this the same bloke

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1347871323423469569

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1377240185658806272

@stookiebhoy ?

And is that the same guitar he referred to in his Thai video https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1393861992180506624 ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?a&v=3FiLt0ixnxA&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 24, 2021, 11:58:50 PM
Is this the same bloke

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1347871323423469569

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1377240185658806272

@stookiebhoy ?

And is that the same guitar he referred to in his Thai video https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1393861992180506624 ?
Thanks for that. I'd never have seen that if you hadn't shown me. He looks so "normal" too. I guess we know that means nothing 👍
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:02:44 AM
Thanks for that. I'd never have seen that if you hadn't shown me. He looks so "normal" too. I guess we know that means nothing 👍

No he’s definitely used a filter on his profile pic https://mobile.twitter.com/stookiebhoy
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 12:03:57 AM
And I guarantee you Sandra Lean wasn’t referring to this troll - Mark Mckeown - here ⬇️


Sandra wrote a poem for her most prolific troll. I will see if I can find it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:05:33 AM
Online defamation is a crime.

I’m sure there will be lots of journalists possibly interested in exposing an online troll like he appears to be

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:06:43 AM

Sandra wrote a poem for her most prolific troll. I will see if I can find it.

The poem you refer to was for me - I’m not a troll ⬇️


Sandra Lean - 9th Feb 2021
I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear

It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”

Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame

So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.

Sandra Lean
I'd never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition DW. How they have the time and energy is beyond me!

DW: I h had people that I have been on good terms with suddenly start accusing me of things that I hadn't said or done, some people had been telling stories about me by getting a fact that was true and making up the rest so it sounded believable (sic)

Sandra Lean
‘Oh, yes, that's so impossible to deal with - had it so many times. One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there's no way to counter that - I don't even bother trying. The ones who pretend to be "friends" are the lowest of all.


These ⬆️ are Sandra Lean’s projections

Sandra Lean is no professional!

And my identity on twitter is not a secret

I know the identity of "HiddenInjustice" - she's trolled me for years and has often lifted screenshots from my pages. I wrote her a little poem, but she's never screenshotted that:

I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear
It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”
Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame
So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.


she's trolled me for years’

Do get over yourself Sandra. I only unblocked your Facebook account after someone contacted me asking ‘what you were on’ given your posts about COVID.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:26:41 AM
They are all so stupid that they will all be exposed. No one has to even do much work. Please allow me to give you just one of many examples? It's all in the public domain.
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc

About 5.29 into the video, SL addresses Janine did it's question. She doesn't call him Janine did it though.

I hadn’t seen Mark McKewown’s comment aka ‘janinedidit’ about JuJ’s until just now

“As a parent there’s no way I’d wait that length of time”

What a complete and utter abusive and cowardly moron he is
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 12:33:54 AM
MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files!

There is your answer. Anything else either ask Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean directly.

MOJO did not secure "my" position?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:35:01 AM
In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”

And let’s hope the police are brought in to investigate @stookiebhoy ⬇️

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1347871323423469569

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1377240185658806272

And is that the same guitar he referred to in his Thai video https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1393861992180506624 ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?a&v=3FiLt0ixnxA&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 12:37:31 AM
The poem you refer to was for me - I’m not a troll ⬇️

Why has she gone to the trouble of writing you a poem?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:39:58 AM
MOJO did not secure "my" position?

Russell Findlay may be interested in this ⬇️

Quote
MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.

Did MOJO lie in their annual report? https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf


‘As a trainee lawyer, back in 2010/11 he worked for MOJO 3 days a week and was apparently instrumental in investigating two case https://mojoscotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Annual-Report-2010-112.pdf

MOJO secured a 2 year supervised traineeship for Scott Forbes with Graham Mann solicitors.

Around the same time securing a paid placement for Paul McLaughlin (who was mentioned in the news article here https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/)

In their annual report MOJO stated:

Paul and Scott have been a huge asset to the Organisation and in taking the
Projects aims and objectives forward.”


From the same MOJO annual report:

Restructuring of the Governance of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation
This year 2010-11 we will begin the process of restructuring the governance of our company. This was to ensure the long running stability of our work, and the security and continuity for our clients.

One of our main aims in the restructuring of our board of directors is to ensure long-term cohesion, which it was lacking with only 2 directors Paddy Hill, Tara Babel and John McManus as Company Secretary. It was felt for the long-term continuity that the increase in the number of directors would benefit the stability of our organisation. Therefore we are hoping to have 7 directors by the end of 2011. They will be

Patrick Hill
Gerard Conlon
Paul Blackburn
Michael O’Brien
John McManus
Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat MSP)
Iain Stephen (Consultant Clinical Psychologist)
Dr Paul Miller (Clinical Psychologist)


Is this the same Iain/Ian Stephen’s Corrine Mitchell referred to in her recent podcast with James English? Or is this another Iain/Ian Stephen?

Forensic psychologist Ian Stephen, who advised on the television crime dramas Cracker and Prime Suspect, said that was in itself a clue.
He said: "The fact he kept attending school and insisted on trying to maintain as much normality as possible - and his mother insisted on this as well and made a big issue of it - seemed to me almost like a confession of guilt in some way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4188339.stm

Ian Stephen, another forensic psychologist, who was a consultant to the TV programme Cracker, says: "Children who kill like this are few and far between but they tend to be reasonably intelligent children. Mitchell, by all accounts, was considered an intelligent boy. People like that are usually loners who are isolated or different from their peer groups. Often there are unusual circumstances in their family life. There is very clear evidence for all of this in this case."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12401131.why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:46:04 AM
Why has she gone to the trouble of writing you a poem?

‘Why has she gone to the trouble of writing’ books on actual factual killers?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 12:48:29 AM
Recognition?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:51:29 AM
Recognition?

Oh she’s recognised alright - as a charlatan and promoter of innocence fraud

And a bare faced liar
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 12:52:05 AM
I hadn’t seen Mark McKewown’s comment aka ‘janinedidit’ about JuJ’s until just now

“As a parent there’s no way I’d wait that length of time”

What a complete and utter abusive and cowardly moron he is
That's mild for Janine did it. Let me show you a couple that aren't too bad by his standards but a little worse maybe?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 01:03:55 AM
Oh she’s recognised alright - as a charlatan and promoter of innocence fraud

And a bare faced liar

She is ghostly quiet right now. Are the house of cards about to fall?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 01:05:58 AM
That's mild for Janine did it. Let me show you a couple that aren't too bad by his standards but a little worse maybe?
This one is of Janine did it accusing someone of being Stephen Kelly but there are many, many more and much worse.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:08:40 AM
This one is of Janine did it accusing someone of being Stephen Kelly but there are many, many more and much worse.

Is Mark McKewown really the ‘nonce’ he accuses others of being ? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655501#msg655501

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339714127963377664

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/252812720032858112
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 01:09:34 AM
This one is of Janine did it accusing someone of being Stephen Kelly but there are many, many more and much worse.
The threads are disappearing slowly but surely online but that doesn't matter. Online storage and all that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 01:10:20 AM
He had his own group. It disappeared from Facebook quite quickly though.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:14:54 AM
Is Mark McKewown really the ‘nonce’ he accuses others of being ? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655501#msg655501

Is it Mark McKewown who ‘knocks f**k out of’ his wife?

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1353170466110894080
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:17:59 AM
The ‘real enemy’ https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1340253670458470400

And accusing people of being a ‘troll’ https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339975725366063105
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:22:58 AM
Is Mark McKewown really the ‘nonce’ he accuses others of being ? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655501#msg655501

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/734757704275775489

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1345397574249967619

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1341772112797818881
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 01:29:12 AM
The ‘real enemy’ https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1340253670458470400

And accusing people of being a ‘troll’ https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339975725366063105

There are many fake names he uses on YouTube.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:36:44 AM
There are many fake names he uses on YouTube.

Then it’s possible he has many other twitter accounts also

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1393865735164858368
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:39:07 AM
There are many fake names he uses on YouTube.

He’s a ‘musician and writer’ apparently https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1347896342102896642

And claims to be ‘intelligent’ https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339978944087515136
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 25, 2021, 01:43:01 AM
Amongst his full time job trolling.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:44:24 AM
Amongst his full time job trolling.

He’s a weasel

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339978502116937729

And he seems to attempt to project his character flaws onto anyone he comes into contact with https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339976136416227332

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/922270789721870336

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/775003535922651142

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/228745029223608321
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 01:56:01 AM
He’s a weasel

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339978502116937729

And he seems to attempt to project his character flaws onto anyone he comes into contact with https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339976136416227332

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/922270789721870336

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/775003535922651142

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/228745029223608321
Is it just me or does this guy talk about sex offenders more than your average person??
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 02:04:15 AM
Is it just me or does this guy talk about sex offenders more than your average person??

It’s not just you

There’s something amiss

“I was and am the proverbial mistake... the black sheep.”

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1396753788392906754

He calls himself Mark M Ryan here ⬆️
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 02:34:19 AM
No he’s definitely used a filter on his profile pic https://mobile.twitter.com/stookiebhoy

He also seems to have managed to remove part of his ear during his photo editing

Is this also him https://www.entertainersworldwide.com/guitar-singers/mark-ryan-68587 ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 10:22:09 AM
He also seems to have managed to remove part of his ear during his photo editing

Is this also him https://www.entertainersworldwide.com/guitar-singers/mark-ryan-68587 ?

That's him all right.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:24:58 AM
That's him all right.

Yes I thought it was
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:54:07 AM
Yes I thought it was

I did wonder if this was also one of his accounts

https://twitter.com/thekublakhan/status/1404214261207949312 ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 11:00:19 AM
I did wonder if this was also one of his accounts

https://twitter.com/thekublakhan/status/1404214261207949312 ?
[/quote

Kublakhan?? 😁 very probably.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:01:49 AM
It’s not just you

There’s something amiss

“I was and am the proverbial mistake... the black sheep.”

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1396753788392906754

He calls himself Mark M Ryan here ⬆️

⬇️ Mark McKeown

black sheep

it looks like I’m alone again
a dog without a bone again
it seems to be
i just can’t conform to you
that’s not what I’m here to do
you see I’m me

just me

everything i ever tried
to make you proud to get inside
was all a waste
cos i could never live up to
expectations all for you
and out of place

I’m a black sheep
always have been
since the day that i was born
just a black sheep
go and leave me here
cos i just dont belong

should have just gave me away
you never wanted this mistake
and that’s the truth
took a while to understand
i was never in your plans
i’m bad for you

I’m a black sheep
always have been
since the day that i was born
just a black sheep
go and leave me here
cos I just dont belong

I’m a black sheep
always have been
since the day that i was born
just a black sheep
get away from me
don’t look the road i’m on
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:29:14 AM

Sandra wrote a poem for her most prolific troll. I will see if I can find it.

The poem you refer to was for me - I’m not a troll ⬇️

Sandra Lean - 9th Feb 2021
I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear

It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”

Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame

So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.

Sandra Lean
I'd never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition DW. How they have the time and energy is beyond me!

DW: I h had people that I have been on good terms with suddenly start accusing me of things that I hadn't said or done, some people had been telling stories about me by getting a fact that was true and making up the rest so it sounded believable (sic)

Sandra Lean
‘Oh, yes, that's so impossible to deal with - had it so many times. One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there's no way to counter that - I don't even bother trying. The ones who pretend to be "friends" are the lowest of all.


These ⬆️ are Sandra Lean’s projections

And my identity on twitter is not a secret

I know the identity of "HiddenInjustice" - she's trolled me for years and has often lifted screenshots from my pages. I wrote her a little poem, but she's never screenshotted that:

I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear
It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”
Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame
So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.


she's trolled me for years’

Do get over yourself Sandra. I only unblocked your Facebook account after someone contacted me asking ‘what you were on’ given your posts about COVID.


Sandra Lean has been accusing innocent people of wrong doing for years

Those of us who got to know her have come to expect this type of behaviour from her

You would think as a so called ‘researcher’ she’d have figured out who the real trolls are by now 🙄

Or does she know who they really are but is choosing to play along and accuse innocent people of wrong doing

Why change a habit of an ‘18 year’ lifetime hey  *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 11:33:25 AM
It’s not just you

There’s something amiss

“I was and am the proverbial mistake... the black sheep.”

https://twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1396753788392906754

He calls himself Mark M Ryan here ⬆️

Radiohead must be s******g themselves  8@??)(
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:43:25 AM


Sandra Lean has been accusing innocent people of wrong doing for years

Those of us who got to know have come to expect this type of behaviour from her

You would think as a so called ‘researcher’ she’d have figured out who the real trolls are by now 🙄

Or does she know who they really are but is choosing to play along and accuse innocent people of wrong doing

Why change a habit of an ‘18 year’ lifetime hey  *&^^&

One of the things Sandra Lean’s poem about me displays - is the fact her ‘investigatory skills’ appear completely non existent

And my identity on twitter is not a secret

I know the identity of "HiddenInjustice" - she's trolled me for years and has often lifted screenshots from my pages. I wrote her a little poem, but she's never screenshotted that:

I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear
It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”
Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame
So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.


Do get over yourself Sandra. I only unblocked your Facebook account after someone contacted me asking ‘what you were on’ given your posts about COVID.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:52:21 AM
At around 30:37 of Sandra Leans latest video (13th June 2021)

In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”



She appears to label anyone who has a differing view to her or who calls out her nonsense a ‘troll’

What possible ‘stuff’ can be ‘going on’ because someone has an opposing view or differing opinion

Will this come to anything or is this yet another of Sandra Leans empty, bs comments to add to all of her other numerous  empty statements she’s made over the years that also went no where ?

NEVER FEED THE TROLLS ‘ states Sandra Lean in her poem  *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 11:57:33 AM
I didn't realise the poem was dedicated to you. I'll read it properly.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:08:34 PM
I didn't realise the poem was dedicated to you. I'll read it properly.

Yep

On the 11th June 2021 Laura Hammersley posted a screenshot of one or two (?) of my tweets via LM’s ‘official’ Facebook page and stated,

I’m not on Twitter a lot but I noticed this Hidden inJustice account appears to be particularly anti Luke 🙄 almost obsessed. Apparently we are all Luke’s ‘followers’ as opposed to people with an open mind and an interest in the whole story. The account also shares Jane Hamilton’s tweets, says it all..

Sandra Lean commented on the post with the following ⬇️  (In blue) 🙄 she appears completely deluded

And my identity on twitter is not a secret

I know the identity of "HiddenInjustice" - she's trolled me for years and has often lifted screenshots from my pages. I wrote her a little poem, but she's never screenshotted that:

I have a little troll
I’ve had her now for years
She skulks around the net
Peddling lies and hate and fear
It’s really just as well
I’m not the jealous kind
She has so many targets
I can hardly call her “mine.”
Turns lies to truth and truth to lies
She really has no shame
She’s the eternal victim, though
She never is to blame
So I’ll just stick to the advice
Given to me so long ago
Hold your head up, tell your truth
And NEVER FEED THE TROLLS.


Do get over yourself Sandra. I only unblocked your Facebook account after someone contacted me asking ‘what you were on’ given your posts about COVID.

And Scott Forbes appears to have foolishly followed Sandra Leans lead - again 🙄 and refers to me as a ‘professional troll’

Since when does posting on an internet forum and having a twitter account ‘tweeting’ an opinion make someone a troll?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:32:35 PM
Yep

On the 11th June 2021 Laura Hammersley posted a screenshot of one or two (?) of my tweets via LM’s ‘official’ Facebook page and stated,

I should add - someone else notified me of this - that’s how I became aware of Sandra Leans defamation of me on the LM ‘official’ Facebook page
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 12:33:13 PM
At around 30:37 of Sandra Leans latest video (13th June 2021)

“NEVER FEED THE TROLLS ‘ states Sandra Lean  *&^^&

She refers to the worst  trolls who are trolling on her behalf and on behalf of the "official" group as Luke Supporters.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:34:11 PM
She refers to the worst  trolls who are trolling on her behalf and on behalf of the "official" group as Luke Supporters.
She does

And she appears completely and utterly deluded as I said

And the more nonsense like this she comes out with (publicly) the more foolish she comes across

Can only imagine what she says behind the scenes 🙄

For me - Sandra Lean has zero integrity
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 12:52:56 PM
She does

And she appears completely and utterly deluded as I said

And the more nonsense like this she comes out with (publicly) the more foolish she comes across

Can only imagine what she says behind the scenes 🙄

For me - Sandra Lean has zero integrity

Iona Young for the Scottish Sun picked up on Sandra Leans claims re ‘trolls’ ⬇️


’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.
“I will always call out wrongful accusations, I don’t care where they are or who posted them.
“I spoke to Luke on Tuesday or Wednesday, he was upset. He doesn't know the extent of social media like we do. He
does not have access to it.
“His wish was that we would all get round the table and sort it out so we were all working together.
"It was really hard to tell him. It's being tried and hasn't worked."
The live clip attracted more than 500 comments from viewers.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/


It will be interesting to see where Sandra Lean’s continued - public - false claims end up
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:00:18 PM
Iona Young for the Scottish Sun picked up on Sandra Leans claims re trolls ⬇️


’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.
I will always call out wrongful accusations, I don’t care where they are or who posted them.
“I spoke to Luke on Tuesday or Wednesday, he was upset. He doesn't know the extent of social media like we do. He
does not have access to it.
“His wish was that we would all get round the table and sort it out so we were all working together.
"It was really hard to tell him. It's being tried and hasn't worked."
The live clip attracted more than 500 comments from viewers.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/

Yet more lies 🙄

And such a hypocrite  *&^^&

She’s had ample time to call out Mark McKeown aka Mark Ryan aka ‘janinedidit’ Etc etc ⬇️

And right under her very nose  ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655457#msg655457  *&^^&

Maybe she should have called in the ‘Scots squad’ aka John Sallen’s and Michael Neill 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 25, 2021, 01:26:26 PM
Iona Young for the Scottish Sun picked up on Sandra Leans claims re ‘trolls’ ⬇️


’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.
“I will always call out wrongful accusations, I don’t care where they are or who posted them.
“I spoke to Luke on Tuesday or Wednesday, he was upset. He doesn't know the extent of social media like we do. He
does not have access to it.
“His wish was that we would all get round the table and sort it out so we were all working together.
"It was really hard to tell him. It's being tried and hasn't worked."
The live clip attracted more than 500 comments from viewers.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/


It will be interesting to see where Sandra Lean’s continued - public - false claims end up

I'm sorry but this does not wash in the slightest. Ms Lean forgets does she not? Those early days of forums being trolled in different guises. Those hypothetical lines of reasoning and theories over these others? And of Gordo of late and "we" of the brother being sent after Jodi. - It is the book to blame for these so called followers, being heavily into this who done it?

It is Bullshit.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:31:35 PM
I'm sorry but this does not wash in the slightest. Ms Lean forgets does she not? Those early days of forums being trolled in different guises. Those hypothetical lines of reasoning and theories over these others? And of Gordo of late and "we" of the brother being sent after Jodi. - It is the book to blame for these so called followers, being heavily into this who done it?

It is Bullshit.

Without a doubt

JIGSAWMAN - first exposed it seems by Wullie Beck back in 2010 (or earlier ?) ⬇️ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s260.html

William (Wullie) Beck
If it helps readers Jigsawman is Sandra Lean, Wonder if she recalls how many people she told this to.

It was also clearly ‘bullshit’ when she attempted to cast doubt on Simon Halls guilt when I asked her if she planned to revise or withdraw ‘No Smoke’ early 2017 ⬇️

Sandra Leans book ‘No Smoke’ should be revised or withdrawn’
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382408.html#msg382408

Acknowledging Simon Hall’s guilt would call into question her ‘work’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:45:00 PM
I'm sorry but this does not wash in the slightest. Ms Lean forgets does she not? Those early days of forums being trolled in different guises. Those hypothetical lines of reasoning and theories over these others? And of Gordo of late and "we" of the brother being sent after Jodi. - It is the book to blame for these so called followers, being heavily into this who done it?

It is Bullshit.

Not all of Sandra Lean’s ‘followers’ will be into the ‘who done it’ - some will no doubt be personality disordered individuals - on the anti social side or ‘cluster B’ types
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on June 25, 2021, 01:45:11 PM
Iona Young for the Scottish Sun picked up on Sandra Leans claims re ‘trolls’ ⬇️


’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.
“I will always call out wrongful accusations, I don’t care where they are or who posted them.
“I spoke to Luke on Tuesday or Wednesday, he was upset. He doesn't know the extent of social media like we do. He
does not have access to it.
“His wish was that we would all get round the table and sort it out so we were all working together.
"It was really hard to tell him. It's being tried and hasn't worked."
The live clip attracted more than 500 comments from viewers.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/


It will be interesting to see where Sandra Lean’s continued - public - false claims end up

I must say that is funny. The defunct Wrongly Accused Person Organisation forum in which Sandra Lean was an admin had more fake accounts that genuine ones.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:46:29 PM
I must say that is funny. The defunct Wrongly Accused Person Organisation forum in which Sandra Lean was an admin had more fake accounts that genuine ones.

Sandra Lean is a total shameless fraud

How many ‘troll’ accounts did her ex partner - scammer and spammer Billy Middleton have?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 01:53:42 PM
’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.

Of course, they're not trolls. They're Luke Supporters and she didn't call out any of them, for the most part, for accusing people of being others until someone got SF mixed up with a rapist by the same name. And guess what? It was a "Luke Supporter."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 01:57:11 PM
’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.

Of course, they're not trolls. They're Luke Supporters and she didn't call out any of them, for the most part, for accusing people of being others until someone got SF mixed up with a rapist by the same name. And guess what? It was a "Luke Supporter."

Yep  - each time she opens her mouth on her videos she seems to continue to make a complete and utter fool of herself  *&^^&

I’m surprised no one has yet taken legal action against her - maybe it’s in the pipeline  8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 02:13:41 PM
’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.

Of course, they're not trolls. They're Luke Supporters and she didn't call out any of them, for the most part, for accusing people of being others until someone got SF mixed up with a rapist by the same name. And guess what? It was a "Luke Supporter."

I recall a time when Sandra Lean claimed ‘lithium’ from the blue forum was Stephen K 🙄 that was being looked into also apparently 🙄

Many of the innocent Jones/Walker family members appear to have been accused of being ‘trolls’ too

And Sandra says nothing

Which suggests to me this is what she wants her followers to think
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 02:14:16 PM
Yep each time she open her mouth on her videos she seems to continue to make a complete and utter fool of herself  *&^^&

I’m surprised no one has yet taken legal action against her - maybe it’s in the pipeline  8((()*/
I'm certainly not someone who feels the need to maintain a dignified silence. I have the utmost respect for so many people who have maintained their silence in the memory of Jodi Jones, something her mother says Jodi would have wanted. How dare these idiots peddle their rubbish in the name of justice?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 02:23:00 PM
I recall a time when Sandra Lean claimed ‘lithium’ from the blue forum was Stephen K

I have also been accused of being SK. Not only  that, I've been accused of being complicit in poor Jodi's murder as SK. I'm not SK. I have proof of others being accused of being SK. I have seen others being accused of being Janine Jones and of murdering  her own sister. I have proof of the same person accusing  SK of having an affair with Jodi Jones.. Of course, that wouldn't have been an affair, that would have been a crime. They are the worst of the worst. Scott Forbes being confused with a rapist by the same name though is intolerable to Dr. Lean.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 02:41:58 PM
I have also been accused of being SK. Not only  that, I've been accused of being complicit in poor Jodi's murder as SK. I'm not SK. I have proof of others being accused of being SK. I have seen others being accused of being Janine Jones and of murdering  her own sister. I have proof of the same person accusing  SK of having an affair with Jodi Jones.. Of course, that wouldn't have been an affair, that would have been a crime. They are the worst of the worst. Scott Forbes being confused with a rapist by the same name though is intolerable to Dr. Lean.
Scott Forbes the convicted bank robber

Sandra Lean badly lets herself down and shows her true character when she behaves like this doesn’t she  *&^^&

She reminds me in lots of ways of a psycho’

‘They know the words but not the music’

I wonder if anyone else who has come to know her thinks this?

And killer Simon Hall’s paraphilia’s are a matter of public record yet look at how she still chooses to attempt to portray him as the victim - similar to how she chooses to do with killer Luke Mitchell and many other quite clear actual factual killers, rapists & dangerous individuals *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 03:49:39 PM
I have also been accused of being SK. Not only  that, I've been accused of being complicit in poor Jodi's murder as SK. I'm not SK. I have proof of others being accused of being SK. I have seen others being accused of being Janine Jones and of murdering  her own sister. I have proof of the same person accusing  SK of having an affair with Jodi Jones.. Of course, that wouldn't have been an affair, that would have been a crime. They are the worst of the worst. Scott Forbes being confused with a rapist by the same name though is intolerable to Dr. Lean.

And on the 21st March 2021 someone asked on the ‘official’ Facebook page whether one of the ‘moped boys has died’

Underneath this a person called Angie Hazard falsely claimed Mark Kane “..was charged with stabbing his girlfriend then he took his own life”

Sandra Lean also commented on the post but didn’t bother to correct the above like she did over the Scott Forbes mix up

Instead she wrote:
Jill Thomson Scott and Mark Kane didn't go to Esk Valley College, they were at Newbattle College. Scott didn't move to Leith "the next day" - Mark Kane visited Scott's flat in Leith the next day. We need to keep this stuff factual and accurate - this is how people ended up believing all the nonsense about Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 04:25:44 PM
And on the 21st March 2021 someone asked on the ‘official’ Facebook page whether one of the ‘moped boys has died’

Underneath this a person called Angie Hazard falsely claimed Mark Kane “..was charged with stabbing his girlfriend then he took his own life”

Sandra Lean also commented on the post but didn’t bother to correct the above like she did over the Scott Forbes mix up

Instead she wrote:
Jill Thomson Scott and Mark Kane didn't go to Esk Valley College, they were at Newbattle College. Scott didn't move to Leith "the next day" - Mark Kane visited Scott's flat in Leith the next day. We need to keep this stuff factual and accurate - this is how people ended up believing all the nonsense about Luke.

Maybe someone should tell CM that SF said it was the next day. On the James English podcast CM says it was days later or a few days later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 05:23:31 PM
Maybe someone should tell CM that SF said it was the next day. On the James English podcast CM says it was days later or a few days later.

Yes I recall Corinne saying something like this

Thing is we’ve no real idea when he Mark went to Scott Forbes ‘flat in Leith’

As we’ve seen - Sandra Lean is a bare faced liar as is Scott Forbes

The actual factual truth could be ‘days later’ or ‘a few days later’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 05:26:47 PM
Iona Young for the Scottish Sun picked up on Sandra Leans claims re ‘trolls’ ⬇️


’Dr Lean revealed she has also been targeted by trolls on Facebook.
She said: “I’ve been doing everything I possibly could for years now. It became apparent there is no will to negotiate.
“The other thing I found almost impossible was Luke supporters wrongly accusing other people.
“I will always call out wrongful accusations, I don’t care where they are or who posted them.
“I spoke to Luke on Tuesday or Wednesday, he was upset. He doesn't know the extent of social media like we do. He
does not have access to it.
“His wish was that we would all get round the table and sort it out so we were all working together.
"It was really hard to tell him. It's being tried and hasn't worked."
The live clip attracted more than 500 comments from viewers.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/


It will be interesting to see where Sandra Lean’s continued - public - false claims end up

Are these people on Facebook ‘trolls’ or are they critics of Sandra Lean - like I am - and like many others are?

Sandra  quite clearly has problems differentiating between the two

And seemingly cannot spot the real trolls ie: Mark McKewown - even when they are right under her own nose

 ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg655457#msg655457
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 05:51:59 PM
Yes I recall Corinne saying something like this

Thing is we’ve no real idea when he Mark went to Scott Forbes ‘flat in Leith’

As we’ve seen - Sandra Lean is a bare faced liar as is Scott Forbes

The actual factual truth could be ‘days later’ or ‘a few days later’

Well we're not allowed to see Mark Kane's statement despite him sadly being no longer with us so it could be that he didn't go there at all.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 05:59:00 PM
Well we're not allowed to see Mark Kane's statement despite him sadly being no longer with us so it could be that he didn't go there at all.

I agree

I’ve witnessed how Scott Forbes has a propensity to make things up

I’ve see no reason to not trust the Crown on this
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 06:22:36 PM
He also seems to have managed to remove part of his ear during his photo editing

Is this also him https://www.entertainersworldwide.com/guitar-singers/mark-ryan-68587 ?

As well as a prolific troll - is Mark McKeown also Romani like Sandra Lean?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
https://youtu.be/0PJK97VGnKc

The idiot can be seen wearing his Celtic shirt at around 8:35

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 06:42:03 PM
As well as a prolific troll - is Mark McKeown also Romani like Sandra Lean?

I loathe cover bands and yes that's him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 07:44:59 PM
The idiot can be seen wearing his Celtic shirt at around 8:35

Some people have a mad idea that the internet makes them less visible rather than more visible.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:16:58 PM
Some people have a mad idea that the internet makes them less visible rather than more visible.

I’ve just now had a brief look on the jibber jabber youtube video after seeing someone mention it elsewhere

Mark McKowen aka ‘janinedidit’
‘The knives who owned and carried on a daily basis?
Are you talking about these fictitious knives that John [Name removed] claimed he saw him with? John [Name removed] the drug dealer who we know carried a knife with him everywhere for cutting his drugs amongst other endeavours? Is aht what you're talking about?
So you have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever of Luke ever carrying knives outwith the penknife his mother bought for him to go camping with and which was handed to his lawyer (This was a 2 inch penknife that we know could not have been the murder weapon, A as it was too small, and B as it was forensically tested)...except the say-so of a known criminal who is one of the key suspects to the crime, yet you are happy to believe this bullshit instead of using your own god given brains and researching the FACTS of the case? Seriously? My God some people really are stupid.
Do yourself a massive favour and do some research that doesn't involve a tabloid newspaper or a biased media. If you knew half the facts of this case that you think you know, you would very quickly understand that Luke Mitchell could not possibly have committed this crime.
And people keep asking why if the killer hasn't been caught have they not murdered again? Not all killers are serial killers... and this one wasn't a serial killer either. This killer had a reason for killing Jodi, and that was that Jodi had betrayed them...in fact some might say it was the ultimate betrayal. Luke Mitchell on the other hand had NO motive for killing her, and crucially no opportunity to either. The real killer had both motive and opportunity. And they will be outed for the crime very soon...in fact they know as we speak that we are onto them...I know this for a 100% fact because I've had personal interaction with them. So stop commenting on stuff you clearly have no clue about, you're just making yourself look very stupid.


Does anyone know if he’s been to prison?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:22:29 PM
Some people have a mad idea that the internet makes them less visible rather than more visible.

Wonder what name appears on his birth certificate ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 25, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
I’ve just now had a brief look on the jibber jabber youtube video after seeing someone mention it elsewhere

Mark McKowen aka ‘janinedidit’
‘The knives who owned and carried on a daily basis?
Are you talking about these fictitious knives that John [Name removed] claimed he saw him with? John [Name removed] the drug dealer who we know carried a knife with him everywhere for cutting his drugs amongst other endeavours? Is aht what you're talking about?
So you have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever of Luke ever carrying knives outwith the penknife his mother bought for him to go camping with and which was handed to his lawyer (This was a 2 inch penknife that we know could not have been the murder weapon, A as it was too small, and B as it was forensically tested)...except the say-so of a known criminal who is one of the key suspects to the crime, yet you are happy to believe this bullshit instead of using your own god given brains and researching the FACTS of the case? Seriously? My God some people really are stupid.
Do yourself a massive favour and do some research that doesn't involve a tabloid newspaper or a biased media. If you knew half the facts of this case that you think you know, you would very quickly understand that Luke Mitchell could not possibly have committed this crime.
And people keep asking why if the killer hasn't been caught have they not murdered again? Not all killers are serial killers... and this one wasn't a serial killer either. This killer had a reason for killing Jodi, and that was that Jodi had betrayed them...in fact some might say it was the ultimate betrayal. Luke Mitchell on the other hand had NO motive for killing her, and crucially no opportunity to either. The real killer had both motive and opportunity. And they will be outed for the crime very soon...in fact they know as we speak that we are onto them...I know this for a 100% fact because I've had personal interaction with them. So stop commenting on stuff you clearly have no clue about, you're just making yourself look very stupid.


Does anyone know if he’s been to prison?

Which one of them?  *%87.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:43:27 PM
Which one of them?  *%87.

I strongly suspect we are dealing with a psychopath here Parky ⬇️

Janinedidit
‘Yet again you get my comments removed… do you honestly think that will stop the truth? Not a chance hen… you’re up to your eyeballs in it and there’s no way out… you and all the rest of your psycho family
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pOTKX_t_OHI
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 10:44:53 PM
Wonder what name appears on his birth certificate ?
Mckeown I think. I think his real name is Mckeown. Mark M. Ryan is surely his stage name. Like, Seal or Dizzee Rascal, only not as appealing.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 10:49:02 PM
Mckeown I think. I think his real name is Mckeown. Mark M. Ryan is surely his stage name. Like, Seal or Dizzee Rascal, only not as appealing.

He claims ⬇️

Mark McKeown
@stookiebhoy
Replying to
@garythegooner66
 and
@BoycottsBat
PS - Both of my parents are also head teachers, my brother is a professor of psychology, and I have several other close family members in the teaching profession, so you've picked the right subject Smiling face with open mouth and cold sweat For me that is...The wrong one for you as you clearly have no clue
3:46 PM · Dec 23, 2020·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1341772112797818881


Do we think he’s a pathological liar ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 25, 2021, 10:51:03 PM
He claims ⬇️

Mark McKeown
@stookiebhoy
Replying to
@garythegooner66
 and
@BoycottsBat
PS - Both of my parents are also head teachers, my brother is a professor of psychology, and I have several other close family members in the teaching profession, so you've picked the right subject Smiling face with open mouth and cold sweat For me that is...The wrong one for you as you clearly have no clue
3:46 PM · Dec 23, 2020·Twitter Web App

Something just a little too obvious in it all - I'm not so sure it is this Mark guy? A guy who is insane enough to make up multiple accounts one after the other, can just as easily clone someone. Something to divert attention away from his real identity. Whoever they are I hope they are caught up with?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 11:01:08 PM
Something just a little too obvious in it all - I'm not so sure it is this Mark guy? A guy who is insane enough to make up multiple accounts one after the other, can just as easily clone someone. Something to divert attention away from his real identity. Whoever they are I hope they are caught up with?
If I'm wrong, Parky, I'm sure the relevant authorities will find out why I'm wrong but thank you and I sincerely mean that. Once this is reported it's not up to me to investigate but it will be investigated and that's the bit that matters because people need to be held to account here. I don't think I'm wrong, of course I don't but I don't discount the possibility. This will be reported and if I'm wrong then I expect THEM to get it right because the online crime is there for all to see and it will be for them to take up if I'm wrong. Someone is accountable.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:06:13 PM
Something just a little too obvious in it all - I'm not so sure it is this Mark guy? A guy who is insane enough to make up multiple accounts one after the other, can just as easily clone someone. Something to divert attention away from his real identity. Whoever they are I hope they are caught up with?

I am

Mark McKeown
@stookiebhoy
Dec 18, 2020
Locked up for your own safety...You're living in a fantasy. I mean what kind of moron goes around claiming to be the nephew of a man he clearly knows f..k all about

Mark McKeown
@stookiebhoy
Replying to
@Michael47125777
 and
@NicolaSturgeon
I've just gone through your twitter feed...every single post and retweet is a right wing unionist fascist post!!! You're a wee troll son, and the fact you don't know who I am or where I came from tells me my initial assessment of you was bang on. What a complete moron Smiling face with open mouth and cold sweat
https://mobile.twitter.com/stookiebhoy/status/1339983458421133313
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:09:44 PM
If I'm wrong, Parky, I'm sure the relevant authorities will find out why I'm wrong but thank you and I sincerely mean that. Once this is reported it's not up to me to investigate but it will be investigated and that's the bit that matters because people need to be held to account here. I don't think I'm wrong, of course I don't but I don't discount the possibility. This will be reported and if I'm wrong then I expect THEM to get it right because the online crime is there for all to see and it will be for them to take up if I'm wrong. Someone is accountable.

I don’t think you are wrong either
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 25, 2021, 11:11:14 PM
If I'm wrong, Parky, I'm sure the relevant authorities will find out why I'm wrong but thank you and I sincerely mean that. Once this is reported it's not up to me to investigate but it will be investigated and that's the bit that matters because people need to be held to account here. I don't think I'm wrong, of course I don't but I don't discount the possibility. This will be reported and if I'm wrong then I expect THEM to get it right because the online crime is there for all to see and it will be for them to take up if I'm wrong. Someone is accountable.

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 25, 2021, 11:52:20 PM
Something just a little too obvious in it all - I'm not so sure it is this Mark guy? A guy who is insane enough to make up multiple accounts one after the other, can just as easily clone someone. Something to divert attention away from his real identity. Whoever they are I hope they are caught up with?

Parky, there is more than one. I'm looking to report four.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 12:09:26 AM
I strongly suspect we are dealing with a psychopath here Parky ⬇️

Janinedidit
‘Yet again you get my comments removed… do you honestly think that will stop the truth? Not a chance hen… you’re up to your eyeballs in it and there’s no way out… you and all the rest of your psycho family
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pOTKX_t_OHI

This bloke is sick  *&^^&

His comments about JaJ are absolutely appalling 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 12:11:06 AM

Parky, there is more than one. I'm looking to report four.

He’s disgusting!

Why haven’t jibber jabber removed his comments from their YouTube account?

Can’t they block him?

Do they approve of what he’s posted? Is that why it’s been left up?

It’s awful!

And people are giving him the ‘thumbs up’?!? Who are these people?

And the comments about JuJ’s  *&^^&

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 07:40:00 AM
I don’t think you are wrong either

Fiona Scott
MT MMcK🤣 thinks no one knows. How bad is it you put your wife on camera and hide yourself. Shame on Him. We need proof and this guy doesn’t have it.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 09:03:43 PM
This thread seems to have gone off topic but  there are records of Mark k being in police station the night SF  said he took MK there. Records of phone calls to police Re Mark K on night of the murder....police failed to follow it up....

Who isn't disturbed by this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 26, 2021, 09:24:08 PM
This thread seems to have gone off topic but  there are records of Mark k being in police station the night SF  said he took MK there. Records of phone calls to police Re Mark K on night of the murder....police failed to follow it up....

Who isn't disturbed by this?

Is that right?

You are right, I do find it disturbing. I find it disturbing that people make claims about deceased individuals, without providing any evidence to back up what they are claiming.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 09:26:41 PM
Is that right?

You are right, I do find it disturbing. I find it disturbing that people make claims about deceased individuals, without providing any evidence to back up what they are claiming.

It's disturbing... Look at it from the other side . What if failures like this open up cases to appeal when they are guilty. It works both ways

Every possible lead should be investigated
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 26, 2021, 09:38:31 PM
It's disturbing... Look at it from the other side . What if failures like this open up cases to appeal when they are guilty. It works both ways

Every possible lead should be investigated

The only thing I need to look at, is the evidence to the claim you are making. Are you going to provide it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 09:45:27 PM
The only thing I need to look at, is the evidence to the claim you are making. Are you going to provide it?

Would you actually believe anything even if it was provided
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 09:46:46 PM
The Police have all the logs of everything mentioned. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:07:28 PM
You have turned into a right snore.

My favourite phase for your types >>>10 a penny.

Next.


Not quite sure why you think it's your right to see them
.call me what you want  I'm really not concerned. Maybe ask yourself why you are so desperate to see something that isn't your business
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:12:07 PM
police statement 2005 at Stirling Uni. Affidavit 2005  in offices in Geo Forth Bridges Office with an Solicitor Advocate. All recorded.....all before he met Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:14:47 PM
Records of phone calls to police Re Mark K on night of the murder....

Do you mean on the 1st of July ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:16:29 PM
This thread seems to have gone off topic but  there are records of Mark k being in police station the night SF  said he took MK there. Records of phone calls to police Re Mark K on night of the murder....police failed to follow it up....

Who isn't disturbed by this?

Did ‘police fail to follow it up ‘ or has Sandra Lean not seen the documentation where it was followed up and NFA’d for whatever reason?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:16:49 PM
Do you mean on the 1st of July ?

No
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:20:06 PM
Did ‘police fail to follow it up ‘ or has Sandra Lean not seen the documentation where it was followed up and NFA’d for whatever reason?

Never followed up! SF called police again 2005 and interviewed, because police hadn't followed it up: fact
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 26, 2021, 10:20:38 PM

Not quite sure why you think it's your right to see them
.call me what you want  I'm really not concerned. Maybe ask yourself why you are so desperate to see something that isn't your business

Your grammar goes all wonky. Is that because you're feeling the pressure? I know someone else that talks in nugnug riddles.
Anyway, I'm only going to tell you this one more time. Before you are on ignore.
You are the one coming on a public forum, making all kinds of claims, there are many like you, they come and go. They provide no evidence, no links, no nothing.
Then for some reason, when they get challenged on these claims, it is somehow none of anybody's business. Mind-boggling.
Now you can join, the Sandra apologist on the ignore list.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:20:49 PM
No

Who was phoning the police on the night of the 30th June about MK and what was said?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:22:30 PM
Never followed up! SF called police again 2005 and interviewed, because police hadn't followed it up: fact

On what date and at what time did Scott Forbes first phone the police and what did he allegedly say to them?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:24:51 PM
Your grammar goes all wonky. Is that because you're feeling the pressure? I know someone else that talks in nugnug riddles.
Anyway, I'm only going to tell you this one more time. Before you are on ignore.
You are the one coming on a public forum, making all kinds of claims, there are many like you, they come and go. They provide no evidence, no links, no nothing.
Then for some reason, when they get challenged on these claims, it is somehow none of anybody's business. Mind-boggling.
Now you can join, the Sandra apologist on the ignore list.

Please put me on ignore. No idea what nugnug riddles are but you clearly do. I'm not feeling anything and have nothing to fear. None of this changes the fact that you don't have any right to demand to see anything. Am I ignored yet. I do hope so  &^&*%
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 26, 2021, 10:30:23 PM
On what date and at what time did Scott Forbes first phone the police and what did he allegedly say to them?

Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College, where Mark K stayed at the time. Other calls from SF about cave were knives could be hidden again highlighting MK. No follow up
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:55:21 PM
Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College, where Mark K stayed at the time. Other calls from SF about cave were knives could be hidden again highlighting MK. No follow up

On what date and at what times?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 26, 2021, 10:58:07 PM
Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College, where Mark K stayed at the time. Other calls from SF about cave were knives could be hidden again highlighting MK. No follow up

When a murder occurs the police will usually receive telephone calls from the public - or informants as they are referred to - about people they consider to be acting suspiciously or whatever

When Barry George murdered Jill Dando Julia Moorehouse phoned the police minutes after she’d spoken to George. He was apparently talking to her about police helicopters and acting suspiciously not long after Miss Dando’s body was found

Her ‘intelligence’ wasn’t filtered down for almost a year it seems
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 26, 2021, 11:05:32 PM

Not quite sure why you think it's your right to see them
.call me what you want  I'm really not concerned. Maybe ask yourself why you are so desperate to see something that isn't your business

It's our right to see what we're asked to believe.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 12:11:33 AM
Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College.

From?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 27, 2021, 12:39:00 AM
Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College, where Mark K stayed at the time. Other calls from SF about cave were knives could be hidden again highlighting MK. No follow up

How do you know this? Is it in the public domain somewhere?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 12:50:48 AM
This thread seems to have gone off topic but  there are records of Mark k being in police station the night SF  said he took MK there. Records of phone calls to police Re Mark K on night of the murder....police failed to follow it up....

Who isn't disturbed by this?
I'm not disturbed by phone calls. Why are you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:03:30 AM
When a murder occurs the police will usually receive telephone calls from the public - or informants as they are referred to - about people they consider to be acting suspiciously or whatever

When Barry George murdered Jill Dando Julia Moorehouse phoned the police minutes after she’d spoken to George. He was apparently talking to her about police helicopters and acting suspiciously not long after Miss Dando’s body was found

Her ‘intelligence’ wasn’t filtered down for almost a year it seems


So what? What's your point about recorded calls? Were these calls recorded before or after LMs conviction? WHY didn't the police follow them up if what you say is true? Where's your evidence? I know!! It's none of our business and it's not in the public domain! So we're to believe you with nothing but blind faith? That may tick your box but it doesn't satisfy me.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:10:41 AM
Police received calls (recorded) about student living in Newbattle Abbey College, where Mark K stayed at the time. Other calls from SF about cave were knives could be hidden again highlighting MK. No follow up

I meant to ask you before, were these logged calls also recorded? Because if they weren't,  they could have been about a stolen wheelie bin.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:14:37 AM


So what? What's your point about recorded calls? Were these calls recorded before or after LMs conviction? WHY didn't the police follow them up if what you say is true? Where's your evidence? I know!! It's none of our business and it's not in the public domain! So we're to believe you with nothing but blind faith? That may tick your box but it doesn't satisfy me.
Apologies. Still trying to work this. That was for Dexter.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:19:23 AM
When a murder occurs the police will usually receive telephone calls from the public - or informants as they are referred to - about people they consider to be acting suspiciously or whatever

When Barry George murdered Jill Dando Julia Moorehouse phoned the police minutes after she’d spoken to George. He was apparently talking to her about police helicopters and acting suspiciously not long after Miss Dando’s body was found

Her ‘intelligence’ wasn’t filtered down for almost a year it seems
I just can't get this right. Apologies again.  All above meant for Dexter.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 09:04:06 AM
It's our right to see what we're asked to believe.

So you think you have a right to access legal documents that its not legal to share? Would you do this in any other case?

No one asked you in particular to believe anything. You got on board for your own reasons
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 09:15:18 AM


So what? What's your point about recorded calls? Were these calls recorded before or after LMs conviction? WHY didn't the police follow them up if what you say is true? Where's your evidence? I know!! It's none of our business and it's not in the public domain! So we're to believe you with nothing but blind faith? That may tick your box but it doesn't satisfy me.

I would have to have some serious powers to get hold of the Police log just because you fancy a look at it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 27, 2021, 10:24:17 AM
There had obviously been some form of checking up on information received about MK as CCTV footage was recovered - this was not years later but in the months after the murder? He gave his movements for that evening which checked out. He had been on Newbattle Road as he stated going to the off licence but it was later in the evening. The CCTV footage confirmed this. The appeal lodged for this so called new information? Which we are told was given to DF whilst the trial was ongoing?  Really? So MK was already known to the police around the time of the murder, checked out and CCTV obtained. Also the defence team were spoken to at this time as well? Are we saying here that the defence kept this under wraps specifically to use as a means of appeal further down the line? - In short nothing really undisclosed, was there?

Quote
He spoke with. Luke's lawyer at the court in 2005

And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: mrswah on June 27, 2021, 10:29:33 AM
There had obviously been some form of checking up on information received about MK as CCTV footage was recovered - this was not years later but in the months after the murder? He gave his movements for that evening which checked out. He had been on Newbattle Road as he stated going to the off licence but it was later in the evening. The CCTV footage confirmed this. The appeal lodged for this so called new information? Which we are told was given to DF whilst the trial was ongoing?  Really? So MK was already known to the police around the time of the murder, checked out and CCTV obtained. Also the defence team were spoken to at this time as well? Are we saying here that the defence kept this under wraps specifically to use as a means of appeal further down the line? - In short nothing really undisclosed, was there?

And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?



As far as I'm aware , you can't be employed as a lawyer if you have a criminal past.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 10:33:17 AM


As far as I'm aware , you can't be employed as a lawyer if you have a criminal past.

Taken from Unlocks website.

Law firms may not be averse to employing people with convictions and may only carry out basic criminal record checks. Initially however, individuals would need to meet the requirements of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to become qualified. Its important to know whether your criminal record will prove problematic before you embark on a course of study.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 10:39:46 AM
There had obviously been some form of checking up on information received about MK as CCTV footage was recovered - this was not years later but in the months after the murder? He gave his movements for that evening which checked out. He had been on Newbattle Road as he stated going to the off licence but it was later in the evening. The CCTV footage confirmed this. The appeal lodged for this so called new information? Which we are told was given to DF whilst the trial was ongoing?  Really? So MK was already known to the police around the time of the murder, checked out and CCTV obtained. Also the defence team were spoken to at this time as well? Are we saying here that the defence kept this under wraps specifically to use as a means of appeal further down the line? - In short nothing really undisclosed, was there?

And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

If the defence had evidence available to them for a trial and chose not to use it they can't then use it as part of any appeal.

Undisclosed documents that the defence had no access to could be used. This has happened in so many miscarriage of justice cases.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 10:40:46 AM
And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

Why has Sandra Lean suggested - during one of her live videos - people speak to Luke Mitchell about Scott Forbes ?

What difference would it make speaking to luke?

Scott Forbes doesn’t appear to have ever been a lawyer - he’s been referred to as a ‘trainee’ and ‘volunteer’

Has Scott Forbes acted as some kind of ‘Mackenzie friend’ - is this what this is all about?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 10:46:03 AM
There had obviously been some form of checking up on information received about MK as CCTV footage was recovered - this was not years later but in the months after the murder? He gave his movements for that evening which checked out. He had been on Newbattle Road as he stated going to the off licence but it was later in the evening. The CCTV footage confirmed this.

MK was clearly traced and eliminated in those early days/weeks/months


I’d like to know from Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes why MK allegedly acting strangely or suspiciously on the day following the murder is of relevance ?

Many murderers don’t appear any different following their crimes

If MK had been drinking and doing drugs to the extent it’s claimed wouldn’t he have been hung over or on a ‘come down’ the following day ?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 10:49:18 AM
And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

Scott Forbes cannot be trusted - it’s very clear he makes things up ⬇️

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Mark Kane told me: "make matters worse, I wrote essay about killing a women in the woods". 3yr later police asked lecturer who could not recall essay.police then advice crown Kane said if he admitted to murder he would get £50k from press, kane statement
The hard facts that prove Luke Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones in cold blood
Many - including senior police officers and Jodi’s family - are angry that the TV documentary failed to point out key facts.
dailyrecord.co.uk
8:07 AM · Mar 2, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366661412270075904

He did it back then and he still does it now - his stories change like the wind - there’s no consistency

The moron recently claimed I’m an ‘ambulance chaser’ - that’s some projection  *&^^& silly man!

He projects a great deal

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:02:29 AM
And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

Scott Forbes appears to me to be an extremely abusive and aggressive individual

I can imagine him behaving like this towards MK way back when

MK seems to have had some quite complex self harming issues

There has been reference not only to drinking and drugs but also to physical injuries he may have caused to his body

If this was the case the guy clearly needed help and support which I very much doubt Scott Forbes provided him
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:09:31 AM
There had obviously been some form of checking up on information received about MK as CCTV footage was recovered - this was not years later but in the months after the murder? He gave his movements for that evening which checked out. He had been on Newbattle Road as he stated going to the off licence but it was later in the evening. The CCTV footage confirmed this. The appeal lodged for this so called new information? Which we are told was given to DF whilst the trial was ongoing?  Really? So MK was already known to the police around the time of the murder, checked out and CCTV obtained. Also the defence team were spoken to at this time as well? Are we saying here that the defence kept this under wraps specifically to use as a means of appeal further down the line? - In short nothing really undisclosed, was there?

And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

 MK on CCTV was much later at night. At time of murder he was in Newbattle woods full of drugs. If police looked at the CCTV why did they never interview him?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:11:05 AM
Look how he’s put quotation marks around his own words  *&^^& in an attempt to pass them off as MK’s


Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Mark Kane told me: "make matters worse, I wrote essay about killing a women in the woods". 3yr later police asked lecturer who could not recall essay.police then advice crown Kane said if he admitted to murder he would get £50k from press, kane statement
The hard facts that prove Luke Mitchell murdered Jodi Jones in cold blood
Many - including senior police officers and Jodi’s family - are angry that the TV documentary failed to point out key facts.
dailyrecord.co.uk
8:07 AM · Mar 2, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366661412270075904
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:13:46 AM
And of course SF was completely found out for being a scammer was he not? - trying to sell stories, lying about the essay. And the nonsense of being a fully qualified lawyer by 2010. Anyone can study to become a lawyer. Not so easy to be employed as one when there is a lengthy criminal past behind them?

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Thetrut54051138
I'm in her article, Mark Kane was going to admit the murder  get £50k and share it. This is what police told crown 2008. I took Mark K to police 2days after murder after myself and others had concerns. Police interviewed him 2006, 3yr later#fact
4:18 PM · Mar 2, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1366785075522723847
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:19:29 AM
Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@Bruadar_xx
The man Mark Kane, I took to the police myself the day after he visited my flat. Police took details then ignored him, despite them looking for 'agitated man who would leave local area' which he had did. He was disturbed boy, torturing animals in the most horrendous fashion
9:06 PM · Mar 1, 2021·Twitter for Android


Unless Scott Forbes witnessed and reported it at the time - this alleged ‘torturing animals’ I don’t believe him
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:20:36 AM
So facts MK: in woods on drugs, scratches on face, history of self and animal abuse. In police station(recorded) 2days after murder, police take details and never speak to him in 2005, nearly 2years after the murder and luke had been charged! SF called police day after  murder and told them of People at New Battle College. Took MK to police, all recorded. Discovered MK not spoken to, so called police again 2005, gave statements, affidavit same time
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:25:02 AM
In police station(recorded) 2days after murder, police take details and never speak to him

Of course they spoke to him

Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:28:54 AM
So facts MK: in woods

What because Scott Forbes said he was ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:30:07 AM
So facts MK: in woods on drugs, scratches on face,

What’s the relevance of these alleged ‘scratches’ anyway given [Name removed]’s didn’t scratch her killer
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:31:04 AM

Police checked CCTV at office licence because MK had been brought to their attention by more than SF! They interviewed his friends who told police MK had told them he had been interviewed/released by police(lies).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:31:36 AM
So facts MK: in woods on drugs, scratches on face, history of self and animal abuse.

Where’s the evidence for this - because Scott Forbes says so?

Maybe it’s Forbes who abused animals?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:32:29 AM
 Hard evidence will be available in days ahead that Proves MK was taken to police by SF two days after murder.

It establishes that Dobie and his team, did Not carry out an investigation
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:33:55 AM
Police checked CCTV at office licence

I suspect the police checked CCTV of many places near to the crime scene as part of their investigation and traced and eliminated those who were recorded on the CCTV
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:35:03 AM
Hard evidence will be available in days ahead that Proves MK was taken to police by SF two days after murder.

We know he took MK to police station
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 11:35:38 AM
It establishes that Dobie and his team, did Not carry out an investigation

No it doesn’t
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:38:17 AM
No it doesn’t


It doesn't because as my post says it's going to happen not that it's happened already.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:40:24 AM
So now(facts) we have a luke m look alike, in Newbattle woods at time of the murder, scratches on face, has a history of violence, torture of animals, self, drug abuse etc. More than 2people brought him to police attention, taking him to police and police didn't bother to interview him....Craig D messed up the investigation
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 11:42:06 AM
if the forum receives hard evidence that Mark k was in Dalkeith police Station days after the murder, will the forum apologise to SF and highlight MK lies?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on June 27, 2021, 12:05:18 PM
So now(facts) we have a luke m look alike, in Newbattle woods at time of the murder, scratches on face, has a history of violence, torture of animals, self, drug abuse etc. More than 2people brought him to police attention, taking him to police and police didn't bother to interview him....Craig Dobbie messed up the investigation

It's all nonsense - these worthless bleats over time. Of something about to happen. It has already been used for an appeal and knocked back. It will never warrant any other form of appeal. You keep bleating on about police incompetence? - What you are effectively saying is that is was every legal team that were in fact incompetent? For they knew all about MK from the time of the murder. SF is nothing more than a blaw bag - this has been shown time and time again. They make a dam fine pair do they not? Himself and Ms Lean? All this bleating of things happening around every bloody corner over time.

What happened to the new legal team in 2018 with the fresh appeal and new evidence that Ms Lean claimed in the Herald? Of that lengthy submission to the SCCRC which everything around MK played a substantial part of? - knocked back.

And pray tell? - who is doing this new one now? of these things about to happen? Is it Luke and CM's side - or SL and SF's side? Or every piggy in the middle? For there seems to be a lot of porkies around yet again.

You know absolutely nothing of what went into the investigation. Ms Lean knows very little to the actual extent of the investigation which she found out the hard way when the SCCRC sent her packing with her tail between her legs - her list of suspects, lookalikes and mad theories are not legal. Neither are yours.

Newbattle woods - wow! They are huge, they cover a massive area. He was living in the bloody middle of them? Pretty sure MK and just about every other student were in the woods around that time. MK was not on Newbattle Road wearing any parka jacket at the gate.  - that is fact, no amount of twisting is suddenly going to have twins together there at the same time. it is old it is boring. It is disrespectful to MK, his memory and his family. And above all else. It does not change the evidence against Luke Mitchell in the slightest, not a snifter of it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 12:18:31 PM
It's all nonsense - these worthless bleats over time. Of something about to happen. It has already been used for an appeal and knocked back. It will never warrant any other form of appeal. You keep bleating on about police incompetence? - What you are effectively saying is that is was every legal team that were in fact incompetent? For they knew all about MK from the time of the murder. SF is nothing more than a blaw bag - this has been shown time and time again. They make a dam fine pair do they not? Himself and Ms Lean? All this bleating of things happening around every bloody corner over time.

What happened to the new legal team in 2018 with the fresh appeal and new evidence that Ms Lean claimed in the Herald? Of that lengthy submission to the SCCRC which everything around MK played a substantial part of? - knocked back.

And pray tell? - who is doing this new one now? of these things about to happen? Is it Luke and CM's side - or SL and SF's side? Or every piggy in the middle? For there seems to be a lot of porkies around yet again.

You know absolutely nothing of what went into the investigation. Ms Lean knows very little to the actual extent of the investigation which she found out the hard way when the SCCRC sent her packing with her tail between her legs - her list of suspects, lookalikes and mad theories are not legal. Neither are yours.

Newbattle woods - wow! They are huge, they cover a massive area. He was living in the bloody middle of them? Pretty sure MK and just about every other student were in the woods around that time. MK was not on Newbattle Road wearing any parka jacket at the gate.  - that is fact, no amount of twisting is suddenly going to have twins together there at the same time. it is old it is boring. It is disrespectful to MK, his memory and his family. And above all else. It does not change the evidence against Luke Mitchell in the slightest, not a snifter of it.

Wait and see  then . If SF is lying all will be revealed and I'm sure discussed in great detail on here.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 12:31:06 PM
It's all nonsense - these worthless bleats over time. Of something about to happen. It has already been used for an appeal and knocked back. It will never warrant any other form of appeal. You keep bleating on about police incompetence? - What you are effectively saying is that is was every legal team that were in fact incompetent? For they knew all about MK from the time of the murder. SF is nothing more than a blaw bag - this has been shown time and time again. They make a dam fine pair do they not? Himself and Ms Lean? All this bleating of things happening around every bloody corner over time.

What happened to the new legal team in 2018 with the fresh appeal and new evidence that Ms Lean claimed in the Herald? Of that lengthy submission to the SCCRC which everything around MK played a substantial part of? - knocked back.

And pray tell? - who is doing this new one now? of these things about to happen? Is it Luke and CM's side - or SL and SF's side? Or every piggy in the middle? For there seems to be a lot of porkies around yet again.

You know absolutely nothing of what went into the investigation. Ms Lean knows very little to the actual extent of the investigation which she found out the hard way when the SCCRC sent her packing with her tail between her legs - her list of suspects, lookalikes and mad theories are not legal. Neither are yours.

Newbattle woods - wow! They are huge, they cover a massive area. He was living in the bloody middle of them? Pretty sure MK and just about every other student were in the woods around that time. MK was not on Newbattle Road wearing any parka jacket at the gate.  - that is fact, no amount of twisting is suddenly going to have twins together there at the same time. it is old it is boring. It is disrespectful to MK, his memory and his family. And above all else. It does not change the evidence against Luke Mitchell in the slightest, not a snifter of it.

I’ve said before - Scott Forbes reminds me of a witness from mass murderer and child killer David Morris’s case (Louise Pugh from around 22:10 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r30APIoE3XQ ) she went on TV too and her recollections also grew arms and legs over the years
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 12:32:58 PM
Police checked CCTV at office licence because MK had been brought to their attention by more than SF!

By whom?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 12:35:30 PM
By whom?

By police viewing the CCTV footage maybe?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 12:45:51 PM
By police viewing the CCTV footage maybe?

Or by acquaintances of SF?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 12:47:41 PM
Or by acquaintances of SF?

Sandra Lean or Scott Forbes haven’t disclosed the names of the others - though I suspect you’re correct

They’ll no doubt be some connection and of having heard Forbes story third hand or from an acquaintance of an acquaintance 



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 12:50:43 PM
Or by acquaintances of SF?

We don’t hear of the types of drugs and level of drug use of Scott Forbes by Sandra Lean - why is that?

What did these drugs do to his mind at the time?

Does Sandra mention Scott’s Forbes drug use and the effects of’ in her books?

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@bigandymccoll
I've not a proplem with anyone taking drugs, that's their choice, but not at Westminster while I'm paying her wages and drug bill.
10:18 AM · Jun 24, 2021·Twitter for Android

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@bigandymccoll
I'd be a hypocrite to condem others for taking drugs. But at work in such an important job is scandalous.
10:34 AM · Jun 24, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1407995582858334208

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@IngrameThomas
I'm 40+ in criminal justice and a desperate person will do anything, drugs, rent, food for bairns, they have to be desperate to do that...and I'm not excusing it. But far worse a person with plenty robs the poor eh
8:28 PM · May 9, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1391475124768067584

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@JackieASH1962
 and
@ga11acher
I work with gangsters, bankrobbers, drug dealers, and I state: The criminals i work with (generally speaking) have more morals, principles and more talented/intelligent than most of those at Holyrood
Murell's just chored £600k and not a blush. Nicola killed 3000+ not a blush
9:02 PM · May 4, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1389671851593449487

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Mar 5
Replying to
@Fergie_Kate
@HelenYates52
 and 3 others
Morning after M,police appeal to public, said the suspect  been in a fight, would be agitated and look to leave local area. Man turns up in Leith, scratches on face, been in woods on cocktail of drugs, known to torture animals,etc. Taken to police who wait 3years to question him
10:39 AM · Mar 5, 2021·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1367786944613081088

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@PomPomQuadSquad
No I couldn't get any, so got whiskey instead. Pissed, full of drugs, I'm never that much out of reality that I'll accept a man's a women
9:53 PM · Jan 26, 2021·Twitter for Android

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@FraserNelson
Stay of the drugs, they are scrambling your brain
10:03 AM · Apr 19, 2020·Twitter for Android

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@ISaidAye
@TheScotsman
 and 2 others
No hate here. Only love and concern for a social grouping being dehumanised, homelessness, drug death etc etc, that you totally dismiss as you priorities your white privileged male ideology. That speaks volumes about your character.
9:05 PM · Aug 20, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 12:59:48 PM
Question: how close is JH to CB as she is close to Tom W who is close to CB and JH peddled all the lies about Luke?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:15:11 PM
Police checked CCTV at office licence because MK had been brought to their attention by more than SF! They interviewed his friends who told police MK had told them he had been interviewed/released by police(lies).

Dr. Lean once told me that MK going to the police station a few days after Jodi's murder was not only in MK's own statement made years later but his trip to the station was logged.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:26:02 PM
Scott Forbes appears to me to be an extremely abusive and aggressive individual

I can imagine him behaving like this towards MK way back when

MK seems to have had some quite complex self harming issues

There has been reference not only to drinking and drugs but also to physical injuries he may have caused to his body

If this was the case the guy clearly needed help and support which I very much doubt Scott Forbes provided him

Despite everything, did MK have any previous convictions for mentally or physically harming another human being? Did MK have any convictions for a serious offence like bank robbery?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 01:27:59 PM
Despite everything, did MK have any previous convictions for mentally or physically harming another human being? Did MK have any convictions for a serious offence like bank robbery?

Or how about ‘allegations’ of threatening females with knives?

Did he have a pre history of abusing females?

Romances developing quickly into serious relationships ?

Was he a coercive controller?

Was he manipulative ?

Was he referred to a school psychologist because of his aggressive nature when he was 11/12 years of age?

https://www.womensaid.ie/assets/files/pdf/jane_monckton_smith_powerpoint_2018_compatibility_mode.pdf
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 01:33:07 PM
Despite everything, did MK have any previous convictions for mentally or physically harming another human being? Did MK have any convictions for a serious offence like bank robbery?

Mark K ostracised from family for beating his old disabled granny. Aged 15, at 13 he was jagging smack, addict by 14 bullying his mum daily, robbing her. Tortured animals in the most horrific fashion, carried big blade daily, was into the occult. In area of the murder and cops didn't even interview him...what does that tell you
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 01:37:18 PM
at 13 he was jagging smack, addict

Was Scott Forbes a ‘smack’ user/addict?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 01:38:15 PM
what does that tell you

MK was ruled out by DNA
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 01:42:46 PM
danny
@danyboy198631
Replying to
@SandraLean5
What ever became of the mark Kane lead?
10:35 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Replying to
@danyboy198631
Still working on it
10:37 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter Web Client

danny
@danyboy198631
Replying to
@SandraLean5
Know a boy who knows a guy that stayed in uni halls with him, said he came back that night really shaken up and scratch marks all over him
10:40 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Talking Tripe
@Tripenthat
Replying to
@danyboy198631
 and
@SandraLean5
I was there too.
6:49 AM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter for Android

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@danyboy198631
 and
@SandraLean5
Could you PM me or Sandra Lean to tell the name of the person in halls with him? I was at same colledge so will know him. Mark is now dead sadly.
7:32 AM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter for Android

danny
@danyboy198631
Replying to
@Scf65Forbes
 and
@SandraLean5
Done
12:33 PM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1112831357561065472
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 01:46:22 PM
It's common knowledge that MK was a recovering heroin addict.

Noticeable that at the end of a week which began with a story in a national newspaper, we now see the emergence of a white knight, and MK is suddenly prime suspect again.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 01:51:33 PM
MK was ruled out by DNA

That comment was in regards to the Police investigation not the guilt or innocence of MK.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 01:54:54 PM
That comment was in regards to the Police investigation not the guilt or innocence of MK.

SL has said MK was brought into this due to a possible mix up with identification not because she believed him to be a murderer.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 01:55:06 PM
Mark K when giving a statement to this forum,hating on SF and Sandra, he said no figure was ever mentioned. How is it only police and JH who peddle that
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 01:59:11 PM
Why does Sandra Lean tell her followers/LM supporters to ‘ask luke’ if Scott Forbes was his lawyer for 5 years - when she could clear it up once and for all with the truth
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 01:59:45 PM
SL has said MK was brought into this due to a possible mix up with identification not because she believed him to be a murderer.

That has no relation to what I have posted .
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 02:02:48 PM
SL has said MK was brought into this due to a possible mix up with identification not because she believed him to be a murderer.

What did the CCTV footage show MK wearing that night in the off licence?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 02:04:46 PM
Mark K ostracised from family for beating his old disabled granny. Aged 15, at 13 he was jagging smack, addict by 14 bullying his mum daily, robbing her. Tortured animals in the most horrific fashion, carried big blade daily, was into the occult. In area of the murder and cops didn't even interview him...what does that tell you

MK was not ostracized by his family as a teenager. MK lived at home with his mother until he went to Newbattle Abbey College. Where's your proof of anything you have said?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 02:05:32 PM
So now(facts) we have a luke m look alike

MK did not and does not look like Luke Mitchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 02:07:57 PM
MK was not ostracized by his family as a teenager. MK lived at home with his mother until he went to Newbattle Abbey College. Where's your proof of anything you have said?

That is incorrect.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 02:10:11 PM
That is incorrect.

I can assure you MK lived at home until he went to college.  Your information is wrong. Where is your proof for everything you have said about MK?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 02:17:40 PM
at 13 he was jagging smack, addict by 14

Mitchell's lawyer Donald Findlay QC said cannabis addict Kane "ticked all the same boxes" as Mitchell.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 02:20:51 PM
2019
danny
@danyboy198631
Replying to
@SandraLean5
What ever became of the mark Kane lead?
10:35 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Replying to
@danyboy198631
Still working on it
10:37 PM · Apr 1, 2019·Twitter Web Client

https://twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1112831357561065472

2008
‘Judges heard that the man, named in court as Mark Kane, was said to have been near the woods where Jodi was murdered, as well as having unexplained injuries to his face around the time of her death.

But defence investigations into the allegations were described as a "work in progress" by the end of the appeal hearing.[/b]
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/12794921.lawyers-suffer-setback-in-jodi-murder-appeal/


The false MK allegations were a ‘work in progress’ back in 2008 and we’re still seemingly a work on progress in 2019 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 02:21:17 PM
So, MK was ostracized by his family, yet his mother is publicly defending him in the press this week?

Ok.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 02:24:33 PM
So, MK was ostracized by his family, yet his mother is publicly defending him in the press this week?

Ok.
There was never a time before college that MK didn't live at home.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 02:25:12 PM
So, MK was ostracized by his family, yet his mother is publicly defending him in the press this week?

Ok.

That's now. A long time has passed. Have you never fallen out with a family member. I know I have
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 02:28:14 PM
I have seen you post about the first you have heard of things. Sorry but just because you haven't heard does not mean they did or didn't happen

Scott Forbes spoke to Luke's Lawyer at the court door in 2005, He then spoke with Alistair Burnet, an honest lawyer! There  is a sworn affidavit which I have already mentioned that Sandra Lean WILL have a copy of. That said, there is no need for Scott Forbes to ask for a copy and share with anyone.

2008

Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.

But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 02:36:41 PM
2008

Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.

But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm

I'm waiting the hard evidence that will be with us in the days ahead. Then it will be clear who is telling the true and who is misleading others
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 02:40:39 PM
That's now. A long time has passed.

MK's mum has clearly forgiven MK for the things he did while the smack had a hold of him.

When Dr Lean was pointing the finger at RG, did she think MK was guilty?

Do the folk who now point the finger at a female think MK is guilty?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 02:51:35 PM
MK's mum has clearly forgiven MK for the things he did while the smack had a hold of him.

When Dr Lean was pointing the finger at RG, did she think MK was guilty?

Do the folk who now point the finger at a female think MK is guilty?

It's good that she has. Everyone needs peace in their life. People change and thats good too.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 03:57:02 PM
I'm waiting the hard evidence that will be with us in the days ahead. Then it will be clear who is telling the true and who is misleading others

I suspect Sandra Lean will scupper that today

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on June 27, 2021, 04:15:13 PM
This place is turning into the old WAP forum.

Funny thing is, our resident Mod is letting this nonsense roll.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 04:20:47 PM
I suspect Sa

ndra Lean will scupper that today

It's nothing to do with Sandra Lean.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 04:26:33 PM
Well, not any more it isn't.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 05:08:26 PM
It's nothing to do with Sandra Lean.

No doesn’t look like it is
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 06:07:55 PM
Mark K ostracised from family for beating his old disabled granny. Aged 15, at 13 he was jagging smack, addict by 14 bullying his mum daily, robbing her. Tortured animals in the most horrific fashion, carried big blade daily, was into the occult. In area of the murder and cops didn't even interview him...what does that tell you

You forgot, allegedly.
LM allegedly took a baseball bat to his uncle as a young teenager,  LM as a young teenager allegedly threatened more than one female with a knife, LM as a young teenager carried knives daily, testified to by many witnesses. Where's the knife Matthew Muraska confiscated from LM at cadets? He had to return it though. It certainly wasn't a penknife, LM murdered his girlfriend, a child,  at age fourteen then went on to mutilate the poor girl's body. Found guilty by a jury who heard more than you, I or Dr. Lean. As for MK being into the occult? He didn't request Satanic books as a religious right. Not for education or advancement but as a religious right. Whatever MK was he was never convinced by a jury of his peers for the murder of a child.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 27, 2021, 08:50:25 PM
You forgot, allegedly.
LM allegedly took a baseball bat to his uncle as a young teenager,  LM as a young teenager allegedly threatened more than one female with a knife, LM as a young teenager carried knives daily, testified to by many witnesses. Where's the knife Matthew Muraska confiscated from LM at cadets? He had to return it though. It certainly wasn't a penknife, LM murdered his girlfriend, a child,  at age fourteen then went on to mutilate the poor girl's body. Found guilty by a jury who heard more than you, I or Dr. Lean. As for MK being into the occult? He didn't request Satanic books as a religious right. Not for education or advancement but as a religious right. Whatever MK was he was never convinced by a jury of his peers for the murder of a child.

Lest we forget, Luke’s conviction was a majority verdict based on a circumstantial case. If the evidence against him was as compelling as some here suggest then the verdict would have been unanimous.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 08:51:52 PM
Lest we forget, Luke’s conviction was a majority verdict based on a circumstantial case. If the evidence against him was as compelling as some here suggest then the verdict would have been unanimous.

Absolutely!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 27, 2021, 09:10:38 PM
Absolutely!

Just think, even after months of negative media saturation and one of the longest trials of a single defendant in Scottish history the Crown’s case was still so threadbare that they weren’t able even to obtain a majority verdict. I wonder what part of the case failed to convince the dissenters? Was it the adopting of statements at complete variance to their first ones by JaJ, SK and AW or AB’s inability to identify Luke or even the total destruction of RW’s credibility by DF? All of their main witnesses raised more questions than they ever answered and that must have played badly with many of th jury.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on June 27, 2021, 09:11:42 PM
Just think, even after months of negative media saturation and one of the longest trials of a single defendant in Scottish history the Crown’s case was still so threadbare that they weren’t able even to obtain a majority verdict. I wonder what part of the case failed to convince the dissenters? Was it the adopting of statements at complete variance to their first ones by JaJ, SK and AW or AB’s inability to identify Luke or even the total destruction of RW’s credibility by DF? All of their main witnesses raised more questions than they ever answered and that must have played badly with many of th jury.

quite possibly, when you put it like that
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 09:29:19 PM
And yet the majority of the jury who sat through the whole trial found LM guilty.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 27, 2021, 09:33:41 PM
LM allegedly took a baseball bat to his uncle as a young teenager,  LM as a young teenager allegedly threatened more than one female with a knife, LM as a young teenager carried knives daily, testified to by many witnesses. Where's the knife Matthew Muraska confiscated from LM at cadets? He had to return it though. It certainly wasn't a penknife, LM murdered his girlfriend, a child,  at age fourteen then went on to mutilate the poor girl's body. Found guilty by a jury who heard more than you, I or Dr. Lean. As for MK being into the occult? He didn't request Satanic books as a religious right. Not for education or advancement but as a religious right.


Sandra Leans public statements on killer Luke Mitchell today have without doubt helped to expose his psychopathic personality

Were the references to him being ‘a little boy’, ‘wee laddie’ and ‘kid’ too much and beginning to get to him ?

What did and do his fellow inmates make of him being referred to in this way?

Did you not hear what she told Sharon Indy Sunshine here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-x5EIX9m1Lc

at around 46:00

Sandra Lean
‘We’re coming up to 17 years. I’m getting tired of “you can’t do this you can’t do that” and I mean in reference to the case. We’re 17 years in* (*can’t make out if she said in or down) the line there’s a kid there who’s lost his his entire youth so if it comes to getting a new website up and putting stuff on there that’s not been out before well maybe it’s time maybe it’s time
so I will announce on Facebook when we finally get a way to set up a website and all of that it will be on Facebook but if anybody wants to get in touch just look for me Sandra Lean the the picture is a hand with a yellow paper clip it’s not a picture of me so.… 





Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Paranoid Android on June 27, 2021, 09:47:58 PM
LM was recently referred to on here as 'the poor child'.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 27, 2021, 09:57:48 PM
And yet the majority of the jury who sat through the whole trial found LM guilty.

Could have been 7/8….it could have been a very, very slim majority.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 27, 2021, 09:59:26 PM
LM was recently referred to on here as 'the poor child'.

Wouldn’t you call a 14 year old a child? I certainly would.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 27, 2021, 11:20:38 PM
Lest we forget, Luke’s conviction was a majority verdict based on a circumstantial case. If the evidence against him was as compelling as some here suggest then the verdict would have been unanimous.

"We" don't forget anything. Luke Mitchell was found guilty by a majority of his peers. You keep reminding everyone this could have been almost half who didn't agree to his guilt. Not necessarily the case but we're constantly reminded. Appeals are surely our safety net, no? Failed appeals, in this case, too. We're also constantly reminded by CM and others that ONLY A RETRIAL WILL SUFFICE! Nothing less than innocence will do. Well, that wasn't the case with LMs appeals, was it? They'd have taken any way of making him walk. Easy statements to make when everything but innocence has been exhausted. Let's not dress this up and pretend differently.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 27, 2021, 11:51:05 PM
"We" don't forget anything. Luke Mitchell was found guilty by a majority of his peers. You keep reminding everyone this could have been almost half who didn't agree to his guilt. Not necessarily the case but we're constantly reminded. Appeals are surely our safety net, no? Failed appeals, in this case, too. We're also constantly reminded by CM and others that ONLY A RETRIAL WILL SUFFICE! Nothing less than innocence will do. Well, that wasn't the case with LMs appeals, was it? They'd have taken any way of making him walk. Easy statements to make when everything but innocence has been exhausted. Let's not dress this up and pretend differently.

Are you really trying to pretend that the lack of success at appeal in anyway proves guilt? We dress the appeals process up as a safety net but it is really just a fairy story we tell ourself to feel better about our hopelessly broken judicial system, isn’t it?  Some of the highest profile miscarriages of justice had gone to appeal several times and the appeals rejected before eventually being quashed. Unfortunately the judiciary don’t like marching their homework down. Further you might not like it but a majority verdict does suggest that the evidence of guilt presented by the crown was not strong enough to convince a significant number of the jury of Luke’s guilt, but that’s simply logic, and yes that could have been as many as seven.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on June 28, 2021, 12:02:45 AM
Are you really trying to pretend that the lack of success at appeal in anyway proves guilt? We dress the appeals process up as a safety net but it is really just a fairy story we tell ourself to feel better about our hopelessly broken judicial system, isn’t it?  Some of the highest profile miscarriages of justice had gone to appeal several times and the appeals rejected before eventually being quashed. Unfortunately the judiciary don’t like marching their homework down. Further you might not like it but a majority verdict does suggest that the evidence of guilt presented by the crown was not strong enough to convince a significant number of the jury of Luke’s guilt, but that’s simply logic, and yes that could have been as many as seven.

I don't disagree with most of that but am I right in thinking that Sandra Lean is attempting to have the conviction overturned on a technicality rather than prove innocence?

Assuming that is the case, Luke will always have this stigma hanging over his head as overturning any conviction on a technicality is not an exoneration.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 12:24:11 AM
Are you really trying to pretend that the lack of success at appeal in anyway proves guilt? We dress the appeals process up as a safety net but it is really just a fairy story we tell ourself to feel better about our hopelessly broken judicial system, isn’t it?  Some of the highest profile miscarriages of justice had gone to appeal several times and the appeals rejected before eventually being quashed. Unfortunately the judiciary don’t like marching their homework down. Further you might not like it but a majority verdict does suggest that the evidence of guilt presented by the crown was not strong enough to convince a significant number of the jury of Luke’s guilt, but that’s simply logic, and yes that could have been as many as seven.

Stop distracting and pretending you didn't read my reply properly. Please address my reply properly or save your time and mine.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 12:32:27 AM
Are you really trying to pretend that the lack of success at appeal in anyway proves guilt? We dress the appeals process up as a safety net but it is really just a fairy story we tell ourself to feel better about our hopelessly broken judicial system, isn’t it?  Some of the highest profile miscarriages of justice had gone to appeal several times and the appeals rejected before eventually being quashed. Unfortunately the judiciary don’t like marching their homework down. Further you might not like it but a majority verdict does suggest that the evidence of guilt presented by the crown was not strong enough to convince a significant number of the jury of Luke’s guilt, but that’s simply logic, and yes that could have been as many as seven.

So, how many of Luke Mitchell's "fairy stories" have I helped to pay??
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on June 28, 2021, 02:30:18 AM
I don't disagree with most of that but am I right in thinking that Sandra Lean is attempting to have the conviction overturned on a technicality rather than prove innocence?

Assuming that is the case, Luke will always have this stigma hanging over his head as overturning any conviction on a technicality is not an exoneration.

Is this the angle which she was seeking? Publicly in her lives she called for an independent review like that of the Hillsborough disaster.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 28, 2021, 08:33:39 AM
I don't disagree with most of that but am I right in thinking that Sandra Lean is attempting to have the conviction overturned on a technicality rather than prove innocence?

Assuming that is the case, Luke will always have this stigma hanging over his head as overturning any conviction on a technicality is not an exoneration.

Luke Mitchell’s murder conviction won’t be overturned now or in the future
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 08:36:53 PM
I don't disagree with most of that but am I right in thinking that Sandra Lean is attempting to have the conviction overturned on a technicality rather than prove innocence?

Assuming that is the case, Luke will always have this stigma hanging over his head as overturning any conviction on a technicality is not an exoneration.

If a new legal team have taken over who knows which direction they’ll take.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 09:51:07 PM
Give your head a wobble. You have been given a perfectly acceptable reply to your post. Perhaps if it was too erudite for you  you should go back to gossiping and leave the adult chat to the grownups?

My comment wasn't for you. I'll wait for the reply I was looking for. Thanks anyway.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 10:03:48 PM
My comment wasn't for you. I'll wait for the reply I was looking for. Thanks anyway.

I think it would be a good idea for you to ride back. When you’re in a hole etc etc.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 10:07:36 PM
I think it would be a good idea for you to ride back. When you’re in a hole etc etc.

Thanks for your advice but I think you'll find it's not me who's in a hole at this point in time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 10:21:44 PM
Thanks for your advice.

No problem…anytime.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 10:30:03 PM
No problem…anytime.
Again, sarcasm being your defence.  SMH.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
Again, sarcasm being your defence.  SMH.

Defence? Against?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 10:38:51 PM
Defence? Against?
Against any adult argument coming your way. Look back!! Incase no one ever bothered to tell you, sarcasm is just that. Nothing else and it's a bad look.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 11:00:38 PM
Against any adult argument coming your way. Look back!! Incase no one ever bothered to tell you, sarcasm is just that. Nothing else and it's a bad look.

Nicholas has posted something really interesting on another thread about a comment of YouTube…best get over there and stop wasting time replying to me.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on June 28, 2021, 11:09:04 PM
Nicholas has posted something really interesting on another thread about a comment of YouTube…best get over there and stop wasting time replying to me.

I believe YOU replied to me and I have no personal input with YouTube. Do you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on June 28, 2021, 11:22:47 PM
I believe YOU replied to me and I have no personal input with YouTube. Do you?

Didn’t you ask Dr Lean a question on a YouTube live? Isn’t that considered ‘personal input’?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 06:15:49 PM
If she ever became a person of respect, I would happily share it. Its all a matter of record. The damages paid to Me, were for slander, and nothing to do with others.....I've not made or asked for 1p in the luke Mitchell case! Despite years of work 👍

15 years he’s allegedly worked on the case with Sandra Lean 🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 06:18:32 PM
Maybe you need a different hobbie. Have you been waiting all day for a reply from someone anyone?

⬇️

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@DrMoragKerr
@Sevcositcom
 and 3 others
I speak to her regularly. That's thats 15 yrs we been on this, we were at Uni together, I had 1st class law school, 2010, and was daily at the late Bill Stewart about this. Sandra in criminology dept doing PhD, and Luke case was part of the programm
7:24 PM · Feb 19, 2021·Twitter for Android
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on July 01, 2021, 06:20:11 PM
⬇️

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@DrMoragKerr
@Sevcositcom
 and 3 others
I speak to her regularly. That's thats 15 yrs we been on this, we were at Uni together, I had 1st class law school, 2010, and was daily at the late Bill Stewart about this. Sandra in criminology dept doing PhD, and Luke case was part of the programm
7:24 PM · Feb 19, 2021·Twitter for Android

He isn't on this forum or reads it sorry to burst your bubble.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on July 01, 2021, 07:08:00 PM
Notorious prisoner Charles Bronson urged London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan to ‘just do it’
https://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-charles-bronson-says-he-could-be-released-from-prison-this-year-20210226

This is a thread about Scott Forbes. Not sure what that has to do with him
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 07:11:05 PM
This is a thread about Scott Forbes. Not sure what that has to do with him

Make up your mind 🙄

Quote
give SF a rest for a while
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on July 01, 2021, 07:25:44 PM
Make up your mind 🙄

You see what you want to see every time don't you. When facts are pointed out that you can't argue with you go quiet or change the subject.


I said this thread is about SF which it is not lets talk some more about him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 01, 2021, 08:22:29 PM
Make up your mind 🙄

Hi. Did you post something about YouTube or on YouTube recently I may be interested in please?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on July 01, 2021, 10:03:16 PM
Is this why this lot have been at loggerheads for years now? The CM we saw clearly in her podcast was not singing in harmony with any of this nonsense. So many liars how does one pick truth from any of it? Do we put their names, information into a hat, use some literal pot luck - or do we simply bin it where it belongs?

CM stated that no legal team would touch them. We know up to the submission to the SCCRC there was no legal team, there was legal help pro bono with some aspects of the submission. Has SF lost count here? It was 6 yrs now 5 yrs? That the time with the SCCRC there was no active legal team on the case. That the rejection saw a parting of ways. Then it went over to MOJO who did have legal help on board, but not specifically legal representation of any given person. That this flopped, we don't need to go into the ins and outs of it lying dusty in a room. That CM picked the files up herself. And onto 2018 where SL stated to the Herald that there was a new legal team on board, that a new appeal was in the pipeline? But CM was not singing from this hymn sheet?

That JE had brought about further interest publicly via Joe Steele. So not Lean, not CM but Joe Steele via his friendship with LM? And we know the dubious past of this gangland bloke. We know he was heavily into and addicted to class A drugs whilst inside - In which part of all of this is his word to be trusted on anything? LM was friends with Tobin too!

So, 2018. Legal team, none would touch it? New appeal in the making which was hot air was it not, as per bloody usual. There was of course the release of IB a book to sell to tout ones story. The sudden interest which swiftly dwindled. Saw promises of wonderful things and pleas for money. Money to let Lean pack in one of her part time jobs, to put the files onto hard drives. The formation (2018) of  "Long road to Justice" which was brushed off consistently with technical issues, not lack of funding then? That claim of vital evidence having a two year life limit to it? Those funds were needed pronto, the hard drives put in place for easy access. Easy access?? What a lot of tosh was it not? Just about everything of those case notes was already accessible online, saved in Ms Leans memory of her comp drivers. Without a shadow of a doubt backed up should they be lost. She had already written two bloody books backed up with her bits n bobs from those files. - there were those bells again jangling down the garden path.

To the new legal help - did they mean the wonderful disgraced ex cops? Whom a waiver was signed for them to access those defence papers. Defence papers and certain parts as they claimed the did not get everything of them. Far less the extent of everything on this actual case. But coincidently yet again it was very much in line with Jigsawman V these others, right down to the murder happening somewhere else. It is like a repeat of CM and SM - the bigger the hole gets, does it not?

And of March and Ms Leans claims of being asked to help others, of there simply being no time. She needed funds to give up work to meet those demands of help, to be able to pay her bills. Which is fine, however - whilst she did not even have "Long road to Justice" up and running from 2018 she set up the "Truthseeker project" Along with other You Tube subscriptions. Fingers getting stuck in many pies. And of course the doc on the back of her book along with SF and the disgraced two PI's. To then doing many blogs with others with similar interests, and other blogs popping up - Each and everyone centered around promoting that book, sales of which had gotten nowhere since 2018?

And one has been retreating for weeks now. And it would appear deliberating around handing those files over? Perhaps simply needing time to get the rest onto hard copy?  I wonder if LM and his lawyer? will be requesting that Ms Lean hands everything over?  However, back to truth and lies?

Revolving doors and is it all simply stemming from the master of them all? LM. Leading them all a merry dance, he does after all have the gangsters of Glasgow on board now. The others have served their purpose. There are no funds to be made for anyone to give up work. Perhaps that setting off into the sunset in one's campervan has reached its time. Leading others along that trail of false hope also. Never any intention of anything else, or as the saying goes "good intentions and all that?"  Those hard copies fitting perfectly to the space required. Book three? -Will it be the actual full truth now? Are the Mitchells worried?

Perhaps just a little assumptive there but it should not be difficult at all, should it? - Where the hell is the actual truth in any of this. From these people who are supposed to be fighting for truth and Justice? - This constant hopping from one foot to the other, trying to body swerve away from those telling lies. When they have all been caught lying why should we believe anything, when the truth should just be the bloody truth
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 01, 2021, 10:07:18 PM
Is this why this lot have been at loggerheads for years now? The CM we saw clearly in her podcast was not singing in harmony with any of this nonsense. So many liars how does one pick truth from any of it? Do we put their names, information into a hat, use some literal pot luck - or do we simply bin it where it belongs?

CM stated that no legal team would touch them. We know up to the submission to the SCCRC there was no legal team, there was legal help pro bono with some aspects of the submission. Has SF lost count here? It was 6 yrs now 5 yrs? That the time with the SCCRC there was no active legal team on the case. That the rejection saw a parting of ways. Then it went over to MOJO who did have legal help on board, but not specifically legal representation of any given person. That this flopped, we don't need to go into the ins and outs of it lying dusty in a room. That CM picked the files up herself. And onto 2018 where SL stated to the Herald that there was a new legal team on board, that a new appeal was in the pipeline? But CM was not singing from this hymn sheet?

That JE had brought about further interest publicly via Joe Steele. So not Lean, not CM but Joe Steele via his friendship with LM? And we know the dubious past of this gangland bloke. We know he was heavily into and addicted to class A drugs whilst inside - In which part of all of this is his word to be trusted on anything? LM was friends with Tobin too!

So, 2018. Legal team, none would touch it? New appeal in the making which was hot air was it not, as per bloody usual. There was of course the release of IB a book to sell to tout ones story. The sudden interest which swiftly dwindled. Saw promises of wonderful things and pleas for money. Money to let Lean pack in one of her part time jobs, to put the files onto hard drives. The formation (2018) of  "Long road to Justice" which was brushed off consistently with technical issues, not lack of funding then? That claim of vital evidence having a two year life limit to it? Those funds were needed pronto, the hard drives put in place for easy access. Easy access?? What a lot of tosh was it not? Just about everything of those case notes was already accessible online, saved in Ms Leans memory of her comp drivers. Without a shadow of a doubt backed up should they be lost. She had already written two bloody books backed up with her bits n bobs from those files. - there were those bells again jangling down the garden path.

To the new legal help - did they mean the wonderful disgraced ex cops? Whom a waiver was signed for them to access those defence papers. Defence papers and certain parts as they claimed the did not get everything of them. Far less the extent of everything on this actual case. But coincidently yet again it was very much in line with Jigsawman V these others, right down to the murder happening somewhere else. It is like a repeat of CM and SM - the bigger the hole gets, does it not?

And of March and Ms Leans claims of being asked to help others, of there simply being no time. She needed funds to give up work to meet those demands of help, to be able to pay her bills. Which is fine, however - whilst she did not even have "Long road to Justice" up and running from 2018 she set up the "Truthseeker project" Along with other You Tube subscriptions. Fingers getting stuck in many pies. And of course the doc on the back of her book along with SF and the disgraced two PI's. To then doing many blogs with others with similar interests, and other blogs popping up - Each and everyone centered around promoting that book, sales of which had gotten nowhere since 2018?

And one has been retreating for weeks now. And it would appear deliberating around handing those files over? Perhaps simply needing time to get the rest onto hard copy?  I wonder if LM and his lawyer? will be requesting that Ms Lean hands everything over?  However, back to truth and lies?

Revolving doors and is it all simply stemming from the master of them all? LM. Leading them all a merry dance, he does after all have the gangsters of Glasgow on board now. The others have served their purpose. There are no funds to be made for anyone to give up work. Perhaps that setting off into the sunset in one's campervan has reached its time. Leading others along that trail of false hope also. Never any intention of anything else, or as the saying goes "good intentions and all that?"  Those hard copies fitting perfectly to the space required. Book three? -Will it be the actual full truth now? Are the Mitchells worried?

Perhaps just a little assumptive there but it should not be difficult at all, should it? - Where the hell is the actual truth in any of this. From these people who are supposed to be fighting for truth and Justice? - This constant hopping from one foot to the other, trying to body swerve away from those telling lies. When they have all been caught lying why should we believe anything, when the truth should just be the bloody truth

I believe CM lied throughout the whole shebang. IMO, it was obvious.  Just my humble opinion though. IMO it looked as though JE didn't believe her. Just my opinion.  So, when's the next James English podcast?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 10:12:00 PM
Is this why this lot have been at loggerheads for years now? The CM we saw clearly in her podcast was not singing in harmony with any of this nonsense. So many liars how does one pick truth from any of it? Do we put their names, information into a hat, use some literal pot luck - or do we simply bin it where it belongs?

CM stated that no legal team would touch them. We know up to the submission to the SCCRC there was no legal team, there was legal help pro bono with some aspects of the submission. Has SF lost count here? It was 6 yrs now 5 yrs? That the time with the SCCRC there was no active legal team on the case. That the rejection saw a parting of ways. Then it went over to MOJO who did have legal help on board, but not specifically legal representation of any given person. That this flopped, we don't need to go into the ins and outs of it lying dusty in a room. That CM picked the files up herself. And onto 2018 where SL stated to the Herald that there was a new legal team on board, that a new appeal was in the pipeline? But CM was not singing from this hymn sheet?

That JE had brought about further interest publicly via Joe Steele. So not Lean, not CM but Joe Steele via his friendship with LM? And we know the dubious past of this gangland bloke. We know he was heavily into and addicted to class A drugs whilst inside - In which part of all of this is his word to be trusted on anything? LM was friends with Tobin too!

So, 2018. Legal team, none would touch it? New appeal in the making which was hot air was it not, as per bloody usual. There was of course the release of IB a book to sell to tout ones story. The sudden interest which swiftly dwindled. Saw promises of wonderful things and pleas for money. Money to let Lean pack in one of her part time jobs, to put the files onto hard drives. The formation (2018) of  "Long road to Justice" which was brushed off consistently with technical issues, not lack of funding then? That claim of vital evidence having a two year life limit to it? Those funds were needed pronto, the hard drives put in place for easy access. Easy access?? What a lot of tosh was it not? Just about everything of those case notes was already accessible online, saved in Ms Leans memory of her comp drivers. Without a shadow of a doubt backed up should they be lost. She had already written two bloody books backed up with her bits n bobs from those files. - there were those bells again jangling down the garden path.

Which she apparently only purchased recently? ⬇️
Then Sandra Lean posted about 3 weeks later (24th April 2021) stating,

Hi, everyone. I owe many of you a massive, massive apology. You were so kind to donate money to help with my expenses associated with this work and I haven't yet said thank you. I meant to come on as soon as I received the money and say thank you so much, to everyone who donated - your kindness is really, really appreciated.  With so much going on, it slipped my mind and here we are, three weeks later, with many of you thinking I must be terribly ungrateful and extremely rude. I'm so sorry.
So let me say thank you properly, now, to everyone who donated - it was really, really kind of you. I've bought two external drives so that Luke's entire case papers can be stored digitally (one is for backup, just in case), envelopes and stamps for the sorts of communications that still have to be done the old fashioned way, extra phone data and a five pack of black ink (for copies of case papers that also still have to be reproduced in the old fashioned format). I've also used some for fuel for case related travel. These are all things I've had to pay for myself in the past, so I can't thank you all enough for making it so much easier to just get what I need, when I need it. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!


October 2019
“Your support will mean that I can dedicate much more time to systematically creating a permanent, searchable record of all the details of the case which, in turn, will mean that we can quickly and accurately provide information for experts who can help review the case.”
She added: “It has been frustrating to have to try to do this work in small bursts between other commitments. To be able to concentrate fully, for extended periods of time, means we will finally, once and for all, have permanent records that can be accessed in an instant.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/gofundme-removes-ps10000-appeal-bid-clear-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-816885
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 01, 2021, 10:16:52 PM
Which she apparently only purchased recently?

It's all f******g rubbish. Nothing can be proven/backed up, nothing is in the public domain unless SL allows it to be. This excuse of law is an excuse.  MK is dead. Let us see his statement please. If not, why not?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on July 01, 2021, 10:18:33 PM
It's all f******g rubbish. Nothing can be proven/backed up, nothing is in the public domain unless SL allows it to be. This excuse of law is an excuse.  MK is dead. Let us see his statement please. If not, why not?

You should check your 'facts' before you continue to swear and carry on. Makes you look foolish....again.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 10:20:42 PM
According to Morag Kerr

Morag
@DrMoragKerr
Replying to
@Scf65Forbes
@Sevcositcom
 and 3 others
We were going to meet up at one point but it sort of slipped, I think I got distracted. I missed her call for people to help digitise the statements and couldn't raise her later to see if help was still needed.
7:31 PM · Feb 19, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/DrMoragKerr/status/1362847264985784324
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 01, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
It's all f******g rubbish. Nothing can be proven/backed up, nothing is in the public domain unless SL allows it to be. This excuse of law is an excuse.  MK is dead. Let us see his statement please. If not, why not?

Let’s also see what Scott Forbes said and killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne

And why have they all waited 18 years to show us their words as told to the police at the time

or in Scott Forbes case since 2006🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 01, 2021, 10:55:49 PM
Let's see.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2021, 12:21:12 PM
SF says he was a lawyer but his licence or whatever it's called, has lapsed and that's why he's not registered at the moment.

Where is the evidence for Scott Forbes ever being a lawyer - other than an alleged trainee ?

Russell Findlay wrote an article in 2013 - published in the Daily Record - where it stated,

‘Earlier this month, his appeal against the length of his sentence was rejected and three years ago his appeal against conviction was thrown out.
He has now hired lawyer Graham Mann, who is probing the reconstruction with the dogs and has spoken to Kelly

it goes on,

‘Mann said: "I have been instructed in respect of all ongoing appeal procedures but I am not able to comment at this stage."
APPEAL 1
Mitchell failed to overturn his murder conviction three years ago.
His appeal was heard by Scotland's top judge - the lord Justice General Lord hamilton - and lords Osborne and Kingarth.
Lord Hamilton said there was "sufficient evidence in law" for a guilty verdict but he condemned the way the police interviewed 15-year-old Mitchell.
He added: "At times, the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by hostile interrogation."
APPEAL 2
The killer failed to have his minimum 20-year jail term reduced earlier this month.
His lawyers challenged the length of his sentence on the grounds that he was a child at the time of the crime.
But the appeal court in Edinburgh ruled that the 20-year sentence should stand. Outside the court, Mitchell's mother Corinne said: "The fight goes on."
Bankrupt shame of Mitchell's lawyer
Mitchell's lawyer Gillian Law's highflying career has stalled under a mountain of debt. she was made a partner in Edinburgh firm Beaumont & Co after impressing boss Nigel Beaumont.
But Law has since been declared bankrupt over undisclosed debts owed to the taxman. she was sequestrated at the city's sheriff court - the same place where she defends criminal clients.
As a bankrupt, law's practising certificate was automatically suspended by the law society of scotland. After lodging an appeal, she has been allowed to return to work but with restrictions. she can no longer be a partner in the firm and is only allowed to work as an assistant. She is also banned from handling clients' cash.
Despite her debt woes, Law still drives a VW Beetle convertible with private registration. she lives with advocate Michael Anderson in a £400,000 townhouse beside Duddingston Golf club in the capital.
The Law Society said: "She has had her practising certificate restricted and can only work as an assistant."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 11, 2021, 11:27:18 PM
Where is the evidence for Scott Forbes ever being a lawyer - other than an alleged trainee ?

Russell Findlay wrote an article in 2013 - published in the Daily Record - where it stated,

‘Earlier this month, his appeal against the length of his sentence was rejected and three years ago his appeal against conviction was thrown out.
He has now hired lawyer Graham Mann, who is probing the reconstruction with the dogs and has spoken to Kelly

it goes on,

‘Mann said: "I have been instructed in respect of all ongoing appeal procedures but I am not able to comment at this stage."
APPEAL 1
Mitchell failed to overturn his murder conviction three years ago.
His appeal was heard by Scotland's top judge - the lord Justice General Lord hamilton - and lords Osborne and Kingarth.
Lord Hamilton said there was "sufficient evidence in law" for a guilty verdict but he condemned the way the police interviewed 15-year-old Mitchell.
He added: "At times, the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by hostile interrogation."
APPEAL 2
The killer failed to have his minimum 20-year jail term reduced earlier this month.
His lawyers challenged the length of his sentence on the grounds that he was a child at the time of the crime.
But the appeal court in Edinburgh ruled that the 20-year sentence should stand. Outside the court, Mitchell's mother Corinne said: "The fight goes on."
Bankrupt shame of Mitchell's lawyer
Mitchell's lawyer Gillian Law's highflying career has stalled under a mountain of debt. she was made a partner in Edinburgh firm Beaumont & Co after impressing boss Nigel Beaumont.
But Law has since been declared bankrupt over undisclosed debts owed to the taxman. she was sequestrated at the city's sheriff court - the same place where she defends criminal clients.
As a bankrupt, law's practising certificate was automatically suspended by the law society of scotland. After lodging an appeal, she has been allowed to return to work but with restrictions. she can no longer be a partner in the firm and is only allowed to work as an assistant. She is also banned from handling clients' cash.
Despite her debt woes, Law still drives a VW Beetle convertible with private registration. she lives with advocate Michael Anderson in a £400,000 townhouse beside Duddingston Golf club in the capital.
The Law Society said: "She has had her practising certificate restricted and can only work as an assistant."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-plots-appeal-over-1095460

Ok so let's assume SF was genuinely concerned that MK could have been poor Jodi's killer. MK, according to SF, showed up at Scott's flat in Leith the next day. The following day, SF says he took MK to a police station to declare his whereabouts and what he was doing two nights beforehand. Presumably SF didn't bother going into the station with MK despite his concerns. SF didn't approach CM before her son was imprisoned for life. SF tried and tried to be heard before 2006. He didn't approach CM before 2006 though. What were the other witnesses to Mk's behaviour and injuries doing all of that time? There's a dead, mutilated child but no one did anything that worked until 2006? And despite their grievous concerns about MK, who "could" have killed again, nothing. Nothing concrete until 2006.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 12, 2021, 02:09:16 PM
Ok so let's assume SF was genuinely concerned that MK could have been poor Jodi's killer. MK, according to SF, showed up at Scott's flat in Leith the next day. The following day, SF says he took MK to a police station to declare his whereabouts and what he was doing two nights beforehand. Presumably SF didn't bother going into the station with MK despite his concerns. SF didn't approach CM before her son was imprisoned for life. SF tried and tried to be heard before 2006. He didn't approach CM before 2006 though. What were the other witnesses to Mk's behaviour and injuries doing all of that time? There's a dead, mutilated child but no one did anything that worked until 2006? And despite their grievous concerns about MK, who "could" have killed again, nothing. Nothing concrete until 2006.

Seven years. Undergraduate and postgraduate according to this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 16, 2021, 02:34:18 PM
Apparently this is Jay Mack from Jibber Jabber https://twitter.com/Kevandwhatever/status/1415987846285078528 on Mark Kane

presumably he’s attention seeking 🙄

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on July 16, 2021, 04:55:31 PM
Apparently this is Jay Mack from Jibber Jabber https://twitter.com/Kevandwhatever/status/1415987846285078528 on Mark Kane

presumably he’s attention seeking 🙄

Hi Nicholas. You were in my emails so I'll reply to you. Yup. Clicked on the link and just thought,   *&^^& It's not his true claim that's questionable as someone on Twitter has rightly said.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on September 09, 2021, 08:41:55 PM
Mark K ostracised from family for beating his old disabled granny. Aged 15, at 13 he was jagging smack, addict by 14 bullying his mum daily, robbing her. Tortured animals in the most horrific fashion, carried big blade daily, was into the occult. In area of the murder and cops didn't even interview him...what does that tell you

This needs bumped.

We are still waiting for evidence to back up these claims that has been put in the public domain, from this poster. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 09, 2021, 09:32:05 PM
This needs bumped.

We are still waiting for evidence to back up these claims that has been put in the public domain, from this poster.

Indeed it does.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on September 09, 2021, 10:02:00 PM
This needs bumped.

We are still waiting for evidence to back up these claims that has been put in the public domain, from this poster.

Rules alleged they were a friend of Kane. His silence on these matters is puzzling.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 09, 2021, 10:03:34 PM
Rules alleged they were a friend of Kane. His silence on these matters is puzzling.

Be prepared to be continually puzzled.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 09, 2021, 10:23:47 PM
Rules alleged they were a friend of Kane. His silence on these matters is puzzling.

I haven't been silent.  I've said about MK.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: mrswah on September 09, 2021, 10:31:03 PM
How did SF know MK in the first place?  Does anyone know?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 09, 2021, 10:33:36 PM
How did SF know MK in the first place?  Does anyone know?

They were students at Newbattle Abbey College together.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 09, 2021, 11:09:45 PM
How did SF know MK in the first place?  Does anyone know?

Actually,  to go further than that, Kane and I have/had a mutual friend who was present when SF "visited" Kane on an occasion and threatened Kane whilst citing, verbally,  an acquaintance of SF's.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: mrswah on September 10, 2021, 09:38:55 AM
They were students at Newbattle Abbey College together.

Thank you for replying!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: rulesapply on September 13, 2021, 08:16:35 PM
Thank you for replying!
You're welcome
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 18, 2022, 05:05:57 AM
Seven years. Undergraduate and postgraduate according to this.

Grifter Scott Forbes is apparently having charlatan Sandra Lean help him with his book 🙄

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/rise-with-bnt-57_6YhTgKctjfCsQOr.html

Seems the pair of them are going to continue to attempt to accuse innocent people for sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s murderous crimes

Both Scott Forbes & Sandra Lean have difficulties admitting when they are wrong
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on April 26, 2022, 04:15:33 PM
Grifter Scott Forbes is apparently having charlatan Sandra Lean help him with his book 🙄

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/rise-with-bnt-57_6YhTgKctjfCsQOr.html

Seems the pair of them are going to continue to attempt to accuse innocent people for sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s murderous crimes

Both Scott Forbes & Sandra Lean have difficulties admitting when they are wrong

This will be a very good read . Lots of people are now speaking up. About time...
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2022, 09:40:26 PM
This will be a very good read . Lots of people are now speaking up. About time...

Unless Sandra Lean and/or Scott Forbes publish transcripts of sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s police interviews, any book by either of them will just keep the killers cult followers going round in circles

Part 1 (Updated)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/27/quite-a-hall-tale-part-1-%ef%b8%8f/

Part 2 will include copies of all transcripts of police ‘record of interviews’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 29, 2022, 03:38:04 PM
Unless Sandra Lean and/or Scott Forbes publish transcripts of sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s police interviews, any book by either of them will just keep the killers cult followers going round in circles

Part 1 (Updated)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/27/quite-a-hall-tale-part-1-%ef%b8%8f/

Part 2 will include copies of all transcripts of police ‘record of interviews’

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-2%EF%B8%8F/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on May 09, 2022, 07:34:46 PM
.Stuart Henderson
Are there any whisperings of Scott Forbes interviews lined up?]

Before Scott Forbes writes another book on killer Luke Mitchell’s Innocence Fraud, does he plan to explain how Sandra Lean got it so wrong in so many cases?

Nick Ward
Matthew Hamlen
Billy Middleton
Simon Hall
Nick Rose
Adrian Prout
Gordon Park
Susan May
Robin Garbutt
Kevin Nunn

Ecetera…
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on May 19, 2022, 09:52:32 PM
Has that moron Scott Forbes gone from blaming innocent Mark Kane to innocent [Name removed]’s brother?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 10, 2022, 02:07:22 PM
Mat, it is extremely interesting that SF Scott Forbes is being mentioned tonight on the blue forum and reference is being made to his past.   This was the guy who took his student pal Mark Kane to the police when he came home the day after Jodi's murder with scratches on his face.

I have spoken to this guy at length about events.

Has con artist Scott Forbes written his book yet or did he never have any intention of writing one ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 10, 2022, 03:53:22 PM
https://twitter.com/Scf65Forbes/status/1362845413938761728?s=19

Has sandra lean ever disclosed how she knows scott forbes?

Seems like something that should been disclosed, given he was the source of the mk allegations, was found to have fabricated these for a story etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/zXJ5GnD.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/gkj6Ggm.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/2vw1H27.png)

And will Scott Forbes book - if it ever gets written - come with subtitles ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 03:06:09 PM
Why doesn’t con man and fraudster Scott Forbes publish transcripts of all of luke, Corrine & Shane Mitchell police interviews and statements ?

And why is he tagging in MaM superfan Sharon Sunshiney?

https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1537012839298236418
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 06:03:40 PM
Why doesn’t con man and fraudster Scott Forbes publish transcripts of all of luke, Corrine & Shane Mitchell police interviews and statements ?

And why is he tagging in MaM superfan Sharon Sunshiney?

https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1537012839298236418

What have Scott Forbes frustrations ‘with media restrictions’ got to do with anything?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 06:05:24 PM
Why doesn’t con man and fraudster Scott Forbes publish transcripts of all of luke, Corrine & Shane Mitchell police interviews and statements ?

And why is he tagging in MaM superfan Sharon Sunshiney?

https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1537012839298236418

And why is Scott Forbes lying and claiming to have been involved in the case from day one? He wasn’t!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 06:22:23 PM
Lexii Tracey
Is Scott going to do it the way sandra has rather than amazon ripping us off the way they tried to wi Innocence betrayed?? If theres a way to buy direct id rather gee it straight to the man himself xx


Lexii Tracey doesn’t yet realise con woman Sandra Lean has ripped off everyone who purchased her book


Sharon Indy Sunshine
Judith Miller Scott is planning on having it available on Amazon and is working on it being available in other places but no updates on that just yet unfortunately!!


 @)(++(* ‘course he it
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 06:38:58 PM
.Stuart Henderson
Are there any whisperings of Scott Forbes interviews lined up?]

Before Scott Forbes writes another book on killer Luke Mitchell’s Innocence Fraud, does he plan to explain how Sandra Lean got it so wrong in so many cases?

Nick Ward
Matthew Hamlen
Billy Middleton
Simon Hall
Nick Rose
Adrian Prout
Gordon Park
Susan May
Robin Garbutt
Kevin Nunn

Ecetera…

Sandra Lean promoted the ‘innocence’ fraud of this killer too https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/history/potato-knife-killer-who-slit-2321778
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 07:38:28 PM
Why doesn’t con man and fraudster Scott Forbes publish transcripts of all of luke, Corrine & Shane Mitchell police interviews and statements ?

And why is he tagging in MaM superfan Sharon Sunshiney?

https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1537012839298236418

If con artist Scott Forbes was really only interested in the truth (he’s not he’s a fraudster!) he wouldn’t be writing and publishing another book like con artist, gaslighter and charlatan Sandra Lean he’d be publishing all the Mitchell family statements and transcripts of what they told the police
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 15, 2022, 07:43:11 PM
When Sandra Lean stated this on 13th June 2021 was she referring to con artist Scott Forbes being killer Luke Mitchell’s new lawyer?

‘So when I ask people not to do things or not to do them in a certain way it’s because I know how these things can go galloping off and end up in disaster so that’s that’s where we’re at so I spoke to Luke earlier this week as I said and couple couple a amazing things erm first up Luke has legal representation yep yep can’t say who can’t say who erm very early stages at the moment but that was a big obstacle we had to get over we had to get over we had to get someone willing to take the case on to take it forward and now we have it so absolutely delighted with that and in view of everything’s that been going on you know the way things have been and in view of everything that’s been going on you know and the way things have been I asked Luke did he want me to bow out now hand over to the legal team and bow out and he said absolutely not Luke wants me to continue and hopefully find ways for me to communicate stuff to the lawyer and all that sort of thing so one of the things that I do have to say upfront and it is quite important for people to understand this some lawyers and I don’t know about this one like I said it’s very earlier days some lawyers like when they are trying to put an application to go back to the commission or an application goes into the commission they will say to the convicted person and their families

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/partial-transcript-of-sandra-leans-13th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-update-re-factually-guilty-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-campaign/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on June 17, 2022, 09:31:49 AM
If con artist Scott Forbes was really only interested in the truth (he’s not he’s a fraudster!) he wouldn’t be writing and publishing another book like con artist, gaslighter and charlatan Sandra Lean he’d be publishing all the Mitchell family statements and transcripts of what they told the police

Along with the SCCRC statement of reasons
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 18, 2022, 06:26:45 PM
According to the Law Society, fraudster Scott Forbes has never been entered with them - ever

Where is the evidence for Scott Forbes ever being a lawyer - other than an alleged trainee ?

When will Scott Forbes be providing proof he’s ever been a practising lawyer?

According to the Law Society he has never been entered with them - Ever
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 18, 2022, 08:07:23 PM
When will Scott Forbes be providing proof he’s ever been a practising lawyer?

According to the Law Society he has never been entered with them - Ever


Has abuser and con artist Scott Forbes or charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean ever told the people they are duping how much money Scott Forbes was paid by the Daily Record?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 18, 2022, 08:09:32 PM
Has abuser and con artist Scott Forbes or charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean told the people they are duping, the name of the author for the article below?
👇
Article re Scott Forbes headed,

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 18, 2022, 08:48:54 PM
Has abuser and con artist Scott Forbes or charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean told the people they are duping, the name of the author for the article below?
👇
Article re Scott Forbes headed,

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845

When will gaslighter, abuser and con artist Scott Forbes be publishing all his ‘clients’ (cough) police interview transcripts and witness statements?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 18, 2022, 09:02:00 PM
When will gaslighter, abuser and con artist Scott Forbes be publishing all his ‘clients’ (cough) police interview transcripts and witness statements?

Mark Kane wrote about abusive bully and con artist Scott Forbes

Here on this forum

👇
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg176570#msg176570
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 09:36:04 AM
Warped Minded Abuser & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Lies - dropping soon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 01:24:44 PM
Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 02:37:59 PM
Updated
👇

Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 05:38:46 PM
Further updates made
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 05:57:14 PM
Further updates made
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/

What are the laws in Scotland regarding case files?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 06:11:27 PM
Was it Scott Forbes who gave Sandra Lean access to the sensitive and confidential case files she wasn’t supposed to have had access to ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 06:14:51 PM
Was it Scott Forbes who gave Sandra Lean access to the sensitive and confidential case files she wasn’t supposed to have had access to ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/

Why did Scott Forbes really threaten legal action and why didn’t he want his name mentioned on the forums ?
👇
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=594.msg18209#msg18209
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 08:49:09 PM
Part 2 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies ~ dropping soon

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 19, 2022, 09:36:28 PM
Scott Forbes wasn't paid ANYTHING. He has never asked for payment either

How much did Scott Forbes get from the Daily Record?

Mark Kane Aka Mr.Rabbit
👇
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 20, 2022, 09:40:05 AM
Further updates to Part 1 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/

Part 2 dropping today
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 20, 2022, 03:24:09 PM
Part 2 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/20/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-2/

Part 3 ~ Dropping Soon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 20, 2022, 04:43:48 PM
Part 2 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/20/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-2/

Part 3 ~ Dropping Soon

Updated
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/20/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-2/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 07:42:12 AM
Part 3 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-3/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 09:15:18 AM
Updated
👇
Part 2 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies


http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/20/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-2/

Part 4 ~ Dropping Soon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 01:38:23 PM
Part 4 of ‘Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies’

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 07:44:29 PM
Sandra Lean
👇
’The claim is that footage of him in a shop in Dalkeith at almost 10pm that night "cleared" him - how so?  *&^^& It’s almost 5 hours after Jodi was supposed to have been murdered.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10523.msg488455.html#msg488455


Suspect it confirms MK didn’t have scratches on his face

And Scott Forbes had exaggerated/lied
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on August 21, 2022, 09:02:29 PM
Quote
"We took a walk around the Sheriff Muir. On the walk he admitted to me he didn't have a clue where he was the day Jodi was murdered, he did remember running on Newbattle Road, but the rest of the day was a blur"
(Free insight available on Amazon of "Long Walk to Justice")

To SL
Quote
"Mark Kane being on the Newbattle Road that night which Scott actually didn't say because he said Mark Kane couldn't remember where he was"

The actual truth, I know, that hard to conceive word for some? MK's day was not a blur prior to "running" to catch the shop to buy booze before it closed. Again, truth, the ultimate proof from the CCTV footage and of course communication with the employee. There were no scratches upon MK's face at this point. Perfectly fit and able to run to catch that shop.

He buys his booze and drinks it in the Abbey woods, it is after 10pm at night, not long before darkness falls. He wakes up in the morning and hears there has been a murder in the woods near to the Abbey. For goodness sake screw your head on the right way! LK cycled up that very path and he was worried, agitated even, for he had been in the vicinity! The boys on the moped the same.

Does it matter apart from the usual predictive way of taken a slithering of truth and building it into sheer fantasy! This male (SF's) who saw the light this past year, after, by his claims, the zillionth time of studying the case! It is bye MK, you are demoted as he has finally solved the murder - Have a word!

DF had not sorted and prepared copied case files to give to LM until around 2008/9, had he? They were not handed to a Phil/His student in 2006. Seriously? Who claims they were piled high ("30 boxes") in his spare room. SL after doing an elective in paralegal work obtained POA in 2009 and claims this was her first access to them.

First question. Are you lying Scott Charles Forbes when you state you had those defence papers in your bedroom/come study? In 2006? Can we see the sworn statement from Luke Mitchell you say took place in 2006? The one in which he stated he would not lie to you? And IF you actually did have some form of copies, how therefore legally, did you manage to obtain these? You being a lawyer (cough) know the law, do you not?

Quote
"Personally I find 'grammar police' lack intelligence albeit well trained. Left school at 14, no qualifications, autistic yet went into B.A (Hons) Phil/His and post Grad Law, top 5% in uni"
This was under his alias Ambedkar on the 4/08?

Are you talking of your friend here Mr Forbes? We all know without any doubt how one pounces upon others' grammar. One thing is for sure, you far outweigh her academically, a clear genius, are you not? People are certainly putting your masterpiece far above anything SL has done. When hers was supposed to be the "everything" people needed to know - Have a word!

Transparent. The censored to the uncensored. And all the while as the hypocrites soak it all up, there is still nothing directly from LM and his mother. Which of course defeats all purpose of deflection and placing focus elsewhere. Working its magic for the intellectually inept. The die hard elite, who believed everything they read in the rags, who are still believing everything they read in these rags, are they not?

Two kindred spirits both claiming to have been working on LM as a MOJ since day dot almost, one having signed statements and case files long before the other? Yet claim never to have met the other until 2008? - Have a word. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 09:10:23 PM
Part 5 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-5/

Part 6 - Guest Blog
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-6/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.

He still is

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 21, 2022, 11:09:27 PM
’Jamie Nolan and I had witnessed Mark Kane for over a year at college’ grifter Scott Forbes

Yet he’s previously said Mark was only there for a semester  *&^^&

Classic innocent fraud grift - blame sadistic psychopath Luke Mitchell’s murder on a dead man
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 12:43:11 AM
Part 5 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-5/

Will be interesting to hear what Scott Forbes has to say about Carol Toal during his next live chat with Sandra Lean

I’d like to hear what Carol Toal has to say about this http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/the-innocence-fraud-con-of-a-killer-his-enablers/

And I’d also like hear from Scott Forbes and what he thinks about charlatan Sandra Lean still shilling for Simon Hall
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 01:05:01 AM
Scott Forbes on MK

“I pleaded for him to speak to someone, even the media. I reminded him a wee boy was on trial”

Why didn’t Scott Forbes speak to the papers - or did he  *&^^&

‘A wee boy’ who was showing signs of sexual aggression by at least the age of 12

‘A wee boy’ who was committing violent acts with knives by age 12

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 01:07:45 AM
‘While Luke Mitchell was at trial, I spoke to Jane Farquharson, Junior Counsel for Luke, at the door of the court. I was prepared to give her a statement there and then”

Scott Forbes sounds a bit like Louise Pugh - she inserted herself into a murder investigation and made things up

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+CLYDACH+KILLINGS+TRIAL%3A+BUNCH+OF+T+S+**T%3B+Witness+rant+at+QC+in...-a087401743
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 01:18:08 AM
‘…no one involved in the case can move on and aren't permitted to grieve properly as there is still so much lingering doubt’

Scott Forbes is telepathic too  *&^^&

There’s no ‘lingering doubt’ to those that matter Scott Forbes ie the Jones family
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 01:28:05 AM
‘While Luke Mitchell was at trial, I spoke to Jane Farquharson, Junior Counsel for Luke, at the door of the court. I was prepared to give her a statement there and then”

Scott Forbes - lawyer, police officer, mind reader 🙄

Author  @)(++(*

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 01:51:47 AM
“A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting on Its Shoes”  @)(++(*

Really Scott  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 08:06:17 AM
  Further updates to Part 1 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 08:11:58 AM
  Further updates to Part 5 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-5/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 11:13:24 AM
Where did you go on holiday Scott Forbes

Mark Kane:
‘He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg176570#msg176570

and did you take your daughter with you?

Who went on holiday with you Scott ?

Scott Forbes
👇
In 2008 I was awarded a 5figure sum from a tabloid for damages and donated it to a registered charity so hacks could not accuse me of profiting from such a crime…’”

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 05:23:13 PM
 Part 7 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/22/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-7/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 07:56:05 PM
 Part 8 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/22/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-8/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 09:16:12 PM
 Part 9 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/22/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-9/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 22, 2022, 09:46:20 PM
LH Hammersley
some things about jodi’s home set up strike me as very unusual.
1. JaJ moves out of home at 14 and there were plans for Jodi to do the same. Why would the daughters move out or plan to move out at such a young age?
This could of course all be unrelated, but when you are trying to piece together her home life none of it seems particularly normal to me.

Will Sandra Lean tell LH Hammersley how old her daughter was when she moved out ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 03:20:32 PM
The Illusory Truth Effect, Coercive Persuasion & Gaslighting of ’Innocence’ Fraud Killers & Their Enablers (Part 8) ~ Charlatan & Fraudster Sandra Lean
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/quite-a-hall-tale-part-17g%ef%b8%8f/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 03:40:13 PM
*Updated* Part 1 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 04:29:47 PM
*Updated* Part 1 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/

’Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims who have suffered a major injustice.

Who was it in 2002, Sandra Lean ‘felt compelled to help’?

Or will she now claim it was another ‘typo’?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 10:02:46 PM
Part 10
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-10/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 10:49:54 PM
Part 11
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-11/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 23, 2022, 11:47:05 PM
Part 12
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-11-2/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2022, 01:20:10 PM
Who wrote ‘I’m sorry I was ever born can you forgive me?’ on [Name removed]’s killers school jotter and what song are they the lyrics from, if any?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2022, 04:07:32 PM
Updated
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/23/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-10/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2022, 08:14:06 PM
Part 13
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/24/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-13/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 24, 2022, 10:11:59 PM
Part 14
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/24/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-14/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 09:51:15 AM
Part 15 of Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter & Con Artist Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-15/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 11:12:33 AM
The #InnocenceFraud Con of Jodi Jones🌻 Sadistic & Psychopathic Schoolboy Killer & His Enablers
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-innocencefraud-con-of-jodi-jones%f0%9f%8c%bb-sadistic-psychopathic-schoolboy-killer-his-enablers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 12:45:03 PM
Part 16 - dropping soon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 25, 2022, 02:01:19 PM
Parts 16
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-16/

17
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-17/

& 18
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-18/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2022, 08:31:15 AM
Part 19
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-19/

Part 20
👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-20/

Part 21
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-20-2/

Part 22
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-22/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2022, 12:53:33 PM
Part 23 ~ Hypocrite Sandra Lean, Red Flags & Unconscionable Behaviour
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-23/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2022, 01:17:22 PM
Scott Forbes - lawyer, police officer, mind reader 🙄

Author  @)(++(*

And possibly nugnug all along
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,18.80.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2022, 03:49:06 PM
Part 24
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-24/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 27, 2022, 12:13:44 PM
Parts 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29
👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-innocencefraud-con-of-jodi-jones%f0%9f%8c%bb-sadistic-psychopathic-schoolboy-killer-his-enablers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 27, 2022, 07:02:02 PM
nugnug over on blue claimed the following
"Jodis brother pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Sandra lean outside her own home so yes he has got a record. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg115984.html#msg115984
👆🏽
Nugnug

Sandra Lean
👇
Quote
(90) In the course of this study, four people were arrested for online harassment and intimidation, direct physical threats were made to at least three individuals, including death threats, photographs of individuals‟ homes and family members were posted online, and personal addresses and phone numbers were released. Police in England acted on complaints of online harassment and intimidation, whereas Scottish police refused repeatedly to do so
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 28, 2022, 03:59:12 PM
Updated
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-23/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 28, 2022, 07:25:03 PM
Updated
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-23/

Further updates
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/26/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-23/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 28, 2022, 08:22:30 PM
Part 32
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/28/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-32/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2022, 02:59:59 PM
Sandra Lean’s ex - unconvicted child killer, sexual deviant & predator Billy Middleton (More here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.0)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/30/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18c%ef%b8%8f/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on August 30, 2022, 06:56:24 PM
Index
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-innocencefraud-con-of-jodi-jones%f0%9f%8c%bb-sadistic-psychopathic-schoolboy-killer-his-enablers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 11:44:13 AM
This was under his alias Ambedkar on the 4/08?

Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@rattlecans
@yona1959
  and 4 others
I've 3 books on computer. Two murder cases. Blue Bell Woods murder in Drumchapel in Glas, one in Edinburgh and a book Re a Gypsie paedophile.  Then I'd write about Alex S 😉
6:52 pm · 28 Aug 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1563947528588075008
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 03:43:59 PM
DF had not sorted and prepared copied case files to give to LM until around 2008/9, had he? They were not handed to a Phil/His student in 2006. Seriously? Who claims they were piled high ("30 boxes") in his spare room. SL after doing an elective in paralegal work obtained POA in 2009 and claims this was her first access to them.

First question. Are you lying Scott Charles Forbes when you state you had those defence papers in your bedroom/come study? In 2006? Can we see the sworn statement from Luke Mitchell you say took place in 2006? The one in which he stated he would not lie to you? And IF you actually did have some form of copies, how therefore legally, did you manage to obtain these? You being a lawyer (cough) know the law, do you not?

Two kindred spirits both claiming to have been working on LM as a MOJ since day dot almost, one having signed statements and case files long before the other? Yet claim never to have met the other until 2008? - Have a word.

Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on September 01, 2022, 05:34:24 PM
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

Jesus, how many aliases has he got?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on September 01, 2022, 05:35:07 PM
Anyway, been some great reading this past few weeks, great work nic  8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 06:10:07 PM
Anyway, been some great reading this past few weeks, great work nic  8((()*/

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 07:30:05 PM
LAWS31062 Miscarriages of Justice Claire McGourlay 2018-2019

By Claire Mcgourlay
an academic
Andrew Green and Fintan Walker also involved in course delivery

Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right - Jim Dwyer, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck 2003
Book  Not essential reading but a good overview of the USA system
 

Innocents betrayed: a true story of justice abandoned - Sandra Lean 2018

‘Sandra is a writer on miscarriages of justice. She is the Scottish representative of INNOCENT’

From what year did she become a ‘representative’ and what year did this end?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 07:48:50 PM

DF had not sorted and prepared copied case files to give to LM until around 2008/9, had he? They were not handed to a Phil/His student in 2006. Seriously? Who claims they were piled high ("30 boxes") in his spare room. SL after doing an elective in paralegal work obtained POA in 2009 and claims this was her first access to them.

First question. Are you lying Scott Charles Forbes when you state you had those defence papers in your bedroom/come study? In 2006? Can we see the sworn statement from Luke Mitchell you say took place in 2006? The one in which he stated he would not lie to you? And IF you actually did have some form of copies, how therefore legally, did you manage to obtain these? You being a lawyer (cough) know the law, do you not?

One thing is for sure, you far outweigh her academically, a clear genius, are you not? People are certainly putting your masterpiece far above anything SL has done. When hers was supposed to be the "everything" people needed to know - Have a word!

Two kindred spirits both claiming to have been working on LM as a MOJ since day dot almost, one having signed statements and case files long before the other? Yet claim never to have met the other until 2008? - Have a word

Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

On the 28th of March 2021 Sandra Lean stated https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be (from approximately 10:44)
👇
”Next thing on this weeks agenda

Scott Forbes

Now I’ve seen so much stuff about Scott all over the place some of it very disparaging so I’d like to set the record straight on Scott’s involvement in all of this

So in 2006 this man walked into Scott’s caravans to speak to Corrine about some information that he had that he’d been trying to give to, initially the police and laterally Luke’s legal team, and nobody was listening to him

So that was where Scott Forbes involvement began

He was, obviously, trashed by the prosecution erm they they made up all sorts of utter nonsense about him to discredit his story and that that in itself was bad enough if you like

Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case

And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor

He also became involved in another case in Scotland that he did some absolutely fantastic work on …..”



A partial transcript of Sandra Leans statement can be found here
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 01, 2022, 09:23:12 PM
‘Sandra is a writer on miscarriages of justice. She is the Scottish representative of INNOCENT’

From what year did she become a ‘representative’ and what year did this end?

Why did grifter Peter Hill take down the link
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 09:59:22 AM
Des Guetta refused to comment on allegations luke attacked him with a baseball bat some time prior to the murder.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562 (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+going+n+now+he+re%3B+JODI+JONES%3A+THE+MOTHERS+Luke%27s+mum+is+defiant...-a0127512562)

Did Luke Mitchell or his uncle own a baseball bat?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 04:20:42 PM
Further updates to Part 4 re gougers and blaggers Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 05:30:46 PM
DF had not sorted and prepared copied case files to give to LM until around 2008/9, had he? They were not handed to a Phil/His student in 2006. Seriously? Who claims they were piled high ("30 boxes") in his spare room. SL after doing an elective in paralegal work obtained POA in 2009 and claims this was her first access to them.

First question. Are you lying Scott Charles Forbes when you state you had those defence papers in your bedroom/come study? In 2006? Can we see the sworn statement from Luke Mitchell you say took place in 2006? The one in which he stated he would not lie to you? And IF you actually did have some form of copies, how therefore legally, did you manage to obtain these? You being a lawyer (cough) know the law, do you not?

One thing is for sure, you far outweigh her academically, a clear genius, are you not? People are certainly putting your masterpiece far above anything SL has done. When hers was supposed to be the "everything" people needed to know - Have a word!

Two kindred spirits both claiming to have been working on LM as a MOJ since day dot almost, one having signed statements and case files long before the other? Yet claim never to have met the other until 2008? - Have a word

Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

On the 28th of March 2021 Sandra Lean stated https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be (from approximately 10:44)
👇
”Next thing on this weeks agenda

Scott Forbes

Now I’ve seen so much stuff about Scott all over the place some of it very disparaging so I’d like to set the record straight on Scott’s involvement in all of this

So in 2006 this man walked into Scott’s caravans to speak to Corrine about some information that he had that he’d been trying to give to, initially the police and laterally Luke’s legal team, and nobody was listening to him

So that was where Scott Forbes involvement began

He was, obviously, trashed by the prosecution erm they they made up all sorts of utter nonsense about him to discredit his story and that that in itself was bad enough if you like

Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case

And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor

He also became involved in another case in Scotland that he did some absolutely fantastic work on …..”



A partial transcript of Sandra Leans statement can be found here
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/

Angeline aka Sandra Lean

Apr 11, 2010#325
Luke was alibied from around quarter to six - he was seen on a wall at the end of his street by some boys from school then, and about ten minutes later, and then was with Mr High. The critical time, between 5pm and 5.45, is the time that apparently no-one can confirm his whereabouts.

The extent of the DNA evidence was not known to the family until they changed legal teams, following the failed appeal, as the previous team had not disclosed it to them. The DNA from Falconer was known about, as was the match to Kelly. Kelly was brought up at trial, and the presence of his DNA allowed to be "explained away."

For reasons which were never explained, the team dropped interest in Falconer during the appeal. As Corinne has pointed out, they were not told a great many things that they should have been told.

The family did not know, until after the failed appeal, that there had been a "misunderstanding" between SLAB and the defence team - they were told that the DNA could not be tested for the defence because SLAB had refused to fund it. Numerous questions regarding paying for testing themselves were ignored.

The rest of the DNA evidence has come to light since legal teams have changed.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 05:38:44 PM
 4th Feb 2010
reg126 aka Billy Middleton
Until the last few days when I started an interest in the Luke Mitchell case I knew very little about it…

11th April 2010
Guest1
Do we know what time JOF claims to have been at the scene when he left the used condom? I would say Mr Falconer and friend but according to him he was there by himself.

Nugnug
he said 9pm and he filled the condom up on his own and no one was with him and he never spoted a dead body 50 yards away from him
oh well i suppose stranger things have happened

Guest1
It was still light at 9pm how could he not have seen a body.
So he was on his own, tidy enough to use a condom,then threw it on the ground...and the police bought this...unbelievable!

12th April 2010
Corinne Mitchell
i asked many men this question and they were all somewhat confused. maybe there's a male poster out there who could explain why? when you are,how shall I put it,......having a SELF sexual experience.....why would you wear a condom???? the majority of men hate wearing them..so if you don't have to,why bother?
Since finding out about this I can't believe the police and Findlay accepted his explanation and as said above...how didn't he see a body?????

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 05:51:36 PM
27th February 2010
Angeline aka Sandra Lean
Although the evidence seems to suggest that Jodi was killed behind the wall (blood spray on the wall), this does not rule out the possibility that she was held somewhere before she was killed, or even that she went somewhere voluntarily.

28th February 2010
Angeline aka Sandra Lean
Fairly early in the investigation, during one of the searches of the Mitchell family home, officers were told specifically to look for anything connected with Marilyn Manson. One investigating officer, it appears, found the Dahlia paintings on a website.
However, later discoveries have shown that at least some members of the investigating team had already been alerted to a possible Manson/Dahlia connection, but with regard to a completely different suspect - I suspect that this was transferred onto Luke either because in the mass of information flooding into the incident room, it was simply not noticed that this referred to someone other than Luke, or, perhaps cynically, that it offered an opportunity to blacken Luke's character, even if it amounted to nothing (which, in the event, is exactly what happened.)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 06:20:53 PM
On the 28th of March 2021 Sandra Lean stated https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be (from approximately 10:44)
👇
”Next thing on this weeks agenda

Scott Forbes

Now I’ve seen so much stuff about Scott all over the place some of it very disparaging so I’d like to set the record straight on Scott’s involvement in all of this

So in 2006 this man walked into Scott’s caravans to speak to Corrine about some information that he had that he’d been trying to give to, initially the police and laterally Luke’s legal team, and nobody was listening to him

So that was where Scott Forbes involvement began

And according to Scott Forbes, Sandra lean gave Scott the paperwork in 2006
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 06:50:00 PM
Part 40
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/03/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-40/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 03, 2022, 07:46:44 PM
Part 41 - Sandra Lean’s recent blatant lies
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/03/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-41/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 04, 2022, 10:59:31 AM
Further updates to Part 17d of the ongoing blog series Quite A Hall Tale
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/04/quite-a-hall-tale-part-17d%ef%b8%8f/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 04, 2022, 11:38:06 AM
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

8th April 2010
Corinne Mitchell
Nugnug is well versed with info....because they read "No Smoke" ..as I have said before.....maybe you should

The "tho" thing. I suggest you read that bit again,.,...That was ME saying that.

Sandra didnt become Power of Attorney till well after the appeal...you are ahead of yourself there.

You said "the first thing I would say .............is sack him instantly.
Well you are forgetting Luke was a 16yr old boy with no experience....you, however are a grown man with plenty experience

I had no "experts " on hand at time of trial and waiting for the appeal
.....SEEMPLES.... TCH!

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 05, 2022, 12:10:06 PM
Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean are completely and utterly deluded  🤣🤣

Stephanie (Hall) has one twitter account

She has had no direct contact with Sandra Lean since 2017 here
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382408.html#msg382408

And Stephanie does not knowingly communicate directly with @Ambedker/Scott Forbes on Twitter although she has been made aware that Scott Forbes is seemingly accusing anyone and everyone of being Stephanie (Hall) like here for
example
👇
https://twitter.com/AldoT75292320/status/1562507679649927170

Similar to what he and Sandra Lean have been doing with regards killer Luke Mitchell’s murderous and sadistic crime and attempting to blame innocent people for LM’s murder of [Name removed]

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 05, 2022, 01:52:52 PM
If you are reading this Scott Forbes

You have been and are being used and duped by Sandra Lean and sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell and his deceptive mother Corinne

or maybe you know full well what you have been doing, and are doing, and are as deceitful and manipulative as they (the Mitchell’s and Lean) all are
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 05, 2022, 02:15:23 PM
Talk about tunnel vision
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 05, 2022, 08:32:39 PM
(Free insight available on Amazon of "Long Walk to Justice")

To SL
The actual truth, I know, that hard to conceive word for some? MK's day was not a blur prior to "running" to catch the shop to buy booze before it closed. Again, truth, the ultimate proof from the CCTV footage and of course communication with the employee. There were no scratches upon MK's face at this point. Perfectly fit and able to run to catch that shop.

He buys his booze and drinks it in the Abbey woods, it is after 10pm at night, not long before darkness falls. He wakes up in the morning and hears there has been a murder in the woods near to the Abbey. For goodness sake screw your head on the right way! LK cycled up that very path and he was worried, agitated even, for he had been in the vicinity! The boys on the moped the same.

Does it matter apart from the usual predictive way of taken a slithering of truth and building it into sheer fantasy! This male (SF's) who saw the light this past year, after, by his claims, the zillionth time of studying the case! It is bye MK, you are demoted as he has finally solved the murder - Have a word!

DF had not sorted and prepared copied case files to give to LM until around 2008/9, had he? They were not handed to a Phil/His student in 2006. Seriously? Who claims they were piled high ("30 boxes") in his spare room. SL after doing an elective in paralegal work obtained POA in 2009 and claims this was her first access to them.

First question. Are you lying Scott Charles Forbes when you state you had those defence papers in your bedroom/come study? In 2006? Can we see the sworn statement from Luke Mitchell you say took place in 2006? The one in which he stated he would not lie to you? And IF you actually did have some form of copies, how therefore legally, did you manage to obtain these? You being a lawyer (cough) know the law, do you not?
 This was under his alias Ambedkar on the 4/08?

Are you talking of your friend here Mr Forbes? We all know without any doubt how one pounces upon others' grammar. One thing is for sure, you far outweigh her academically, a clear genius, are you not? People are certainly putting your masterpiece far above anything SL has done. When hers was supposed to be the "everything" people needed to know - Have a word!

Transparent. The censored to the uncensored. And all the while as the hypocrites soak it all up, there is still nothing directly from LM and his mother. Which of course defeats all purpose of deflection and placing focus elsewhere. Working its magic for the intellectually inept. The die hard elite, who believed everything they read in the rags, who are still believing everything they read in these rags, are they not?

Two kindred spirits both claiming to have been working on LM as a MOJ since day dot almost, one having signed statements and case files long before the other? Yet claim never to have met the other until 2008? - Have a word.

Scott Charles Forbes was lying - again
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 12:11:07 AM
Part 48 Liar Scott C Forbes & Those 30 Boxes
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/05/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-48/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 10:56:26 AM
Part 49 More Lies From Fantasist & Blagger Scott C Forbes & Charlatan & Fraudster Sandra Lean
👇
Facts v’s Myths
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 12:58:14 PM
Updated
👇
Part 49 More Lies From Fantasist & Blagger Scott C Forbes & Charlatan & Fraudster Sandra Lean
👇
Facts v’s Myths
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 01:32:58 PM
Further updates to Part 49
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 02:34:23 PM
Index to The #InnocenceFraud Scam of Jodi Jones🌻 Sadistic & Psychopathic Schoolboy Killer & His Abusive Enablers blog series
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-innocencefraud-con-of-jodi-jones%f0%9f%8c%bb-sadistic-psychopathic-schoolboy-killer-his-enablers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 03:34:32 PM
Latest blog on fantasist Scott Forbes & charlatan Sandra Lean proving popular
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 03:57:51 PM
Further updates to Part 49
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/

Part 50 of fantasist & blagger Scott Forbes & charlatan & fraudster Sandra Lean Dropping Soon - and continues on from Part 49
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 05:55:27 PM
Stuart Henderson
"I recently read Scott Forbes book A Long Walk to Justice. It is an account of the circumstances, arrest and conviction of Luke Mitchell for the murder of his girlfriend Jodie Jones. Both Luke and Jodie were 14 years old at the time of her brutal homicide in June 2003.  Scott Forbes has been Luke's lawyer since 2010. He has though been close to the case from 2003. In his book Scott highlights many aspects of the case that cast doubt on the veracity of Luke's conviction. Indeed, some of the glaring mistakes by Lothian and Border Police make one wonder why Luke was even a suspect in the first place.  The circumstances surrounding Jodie's brutal murder are so bizarre I doubt even a crime writing novelist would attempt to push such things to their readers. The catalogue of errors, missteps, omissions, assumptions by the police are really quite unbelievable.  The most important aspect to any murder scene is to secure the crime scene. One of the most important aspects of securing the crime scene is to preserve the scene with minimal contamination and disturbance of physical evidence. First Responders to an incident should document the placement and/or movement of items at the scene. None of this basic stuff was done properly by the police on the scene that night. The body was dragged along the ground. Branches from trees were cut away to allow the police photographer better views for his pictures! These are only two of the many mistakes made at the scene.  This was at the outset of the investigation and sadly, from there it went downhill. Witnesses that should have been questioned were not. People who had been at the scene were allowed to go home in the clothes they were wearing with no forensics taken from them.?".

-Roddy Mkeod/Barrhead Boy

His Interview with Scott will be put up soon.

👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/03/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-41-2/

Why did Sandra Lean choose to never call out Scott Forbes blatant lies

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Scott im actually laughing. Dr Lean can confirm I was lukes lawyer and part of a legal team for 5years. Let them play there wee boys games if it amuses them# laugh#last#laugh#longest.
10:14 PM · Apr 3, 2019·Twitter for Android


Sandra didn’t though did she

All she was prepared to say was that he was allegedly a ‘trainee lawyer’ - which we’ve not yet seen any proof of

She deflected and told people to ‘ask Luke’ about Forbes


Why would a sadistic, psychopathic killer like Luke Mitchell choose an abusive, lying, warp minded ‘lawyer’ (cough) and fraudster like Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 07:41:21 PM
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816


I had been reading Ms Leans thesis, and it is easy to spot where Ms Mitchell and Luke participated.

Do you recall Sandra Lean’s footnote Parky?

👇

Excerpt from P.270-271 ‘Hidden in Plain View’ by Sandra Lean

Internet campaigns

91 In Scotland, where case papers are deemed to belong to the solicitor, the solicitor is prohibited from disclosing information to „third parties‟ – for example, statements and expert reports in cases in England and Wales have been incorporated into campaign websites, but this would be an offence in Scotland.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 06, 2022, 08:24:27 PM
 Part 50 on Fantasist & Blagger Scott C Forbes & Charlatan & Fraudster Sandra Lean
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-50/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 07, 2022, 03:20:21 PM
Why do charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean and fantasist and blagger Scott Forbes choose to keep lying?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/05/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-48/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 07, 2022, 03:45:08 PM
This moron can’t even be bothered to ensure he spells Jodi correctly, and blagger & fantasist Scott Forbes, & others, don’t care enough to correct him  *&^^&

 Barrhead Boy (The dream will never die)
@Scotpol1314
Lookout for a Through A Scottish Prism Midweek Special.I have interviewed Scott Forbes,author,investigator and lawyer for Luke Mitchell convicted of the brutal murder of Jodie Jones in 2003. Could there have been a huge miscarriage of justice?
 Listen in and make up your own mind
Image
Image
11:50 AM · Sep 7, 2022
Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scotpol1314/status/1567465239834202113

Aka Roddy MacLeod
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 08, 2022, 02:24:14 PM
Roddy MacLeod & Scott Forbes’ diabolical nonsense
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/08/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-51/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on September 08, 2022, 05:29:57 PM
This moron can’t even be bothered to ensure he spells Jodi correctly, and blagger & fantasist Scott Forbes, & others, don’t care enough to correct him  *&^^&

 Barrhead Boy (The dream will never die)
@Scotpol1314
Lookout for a Through A Scottish Prism Midweek Special.I have interviewed Scott Forbes,author,investigator and lawyer for Luke Mitchell convicted of the brutal murder of Jodie Jones in 2003. Could there have been a huge miscarriage of justice?
 Listen in and make up your own mind
Image
Image
11:50 AM · Sep 7, 2022
Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Scotpol1314/status/1567465239834202113

Aka Roddy MacLeod

Deary me, it is of no surprise, some of those Alba lot are jumping on the bandwagon. They are a rather nasty group.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 08, 2022, 05:54:32 PM
Deary me, it is of no surprise, some of those Alba lot are jumping on the bandwagon. They are a rather nasty group.

There’s most definitely something seriously off with Roddy MacLeod

Scott Forbes bare faced lied again, this time about accusing Mark Kane of murder and this moron Roddy MacLeod said nothing

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/08/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-51/

More to follow on Roddy MacLeod

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 08, 2022, 06:12:59 PM
Deary me, it is of no surprise, some of those Alba lot are jumping on the bandwagon. They are a rather nasty group.

Updated on grifter & duper Roddy MacLeod
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/08/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-51/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 08, 2022, 08:51:39 PM
Updates continue
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/08/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-51/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 09, 2022, 02:54:03 PM
’In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-53-2/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 10, 2022, 12:55:02 PM
In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”


Were there ever any updates on this?

What ‘stuff’ was going on?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 12, 2022, 06:25:54 PM
Index updates
👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-innocencefraud-con-of-jodi-jones%f0%9f%8c%bb-sadistic-psychopathic-schoolboy-killer-his-enablers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 14, 2022, 12:49:08 PM
It was also clearly ‘bullshit’ when she attempted to cast doubt on Simon Halls guilt when I asked her if she planned to revise or withdraw ‘No Smoke’ early 2017 ⬇️

Sandra Leans book ‘No Smoke’ should be revised or withdrawn’
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382408.html#msg382408

Acknowledging Simon Hall’s guilt would call into question her ‘work’

Dangerous clown Sandra Lean still cannot bring herself to publicly admit she was wrong about killer Simon Hall

👇
Blaggers & gougers Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk

Parts 48
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/05/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-48/

49
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-49/

& 50
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/06/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-50/

touch on Sandra’s and Scott Forbes lies
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 14, 2022, 12:57:05 PM

Blaggers & gougers Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk

Blagger Scott Forbes claimed charlatan Sandra Lean dropped the ‘30 boxes’ off in a van

Was that the former post office van Sandra Lean ripped the seats out of and predator and unconvicted child killer Billy Middleton referred to as ‘Hotel Justicia’ mentioned in Part 18d of the Quite A Hall Tale blog series?

Part 18d
Excerpt;
Well from what I can read online, which is not bound by disclosure, both Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton seem to be touring around like Cliff Richard from Summer Holiday on a big red bus which they have named Hotel Justicia. So from that I can assume they are sleeping in the bus.

Quite what they are doing is not clear because they keep posting that they are in undisclosed places in UK but they were at Simon Halls hearing and not at Luke Mitchells hearing. So if as Lydia says, Mrs Mitchell is ill and possibly could not attend then Luke Mitchell was left on his own at his appeal while his campaigners run around in a red bus in England.

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/31/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18d%EF%B8%8F-2/

Didn’t Sandra Lean acquire that van in 2009?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 14, 2022, 01:17:05 PM
Blaggers & gougers Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk


Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

Why did fantasist and blagger Scott Forbes claim dangerous clown Sandra Lean gave him ‘the paper work in 2006’?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 15, 2022, 10:51:23 AM
‘The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.

In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion

Gouger and blagger Corinne Mitchell knows her sadistic and psychopathic son Luke Mitchell killed [Name removed]
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 15, 2022, 10:56:05 AM
‘The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.

In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion

Shane Mitchell also knows his sadistic and psychopathic younger brother murdered [Name removed]
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 15, 2022, 03:18:59 PM
Was/is fantasist and blagger Scott Forbes - killer LM’s ‘new lawyer’?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7257647/luke-mitchell-new-lawyer-jodi-jones-murder-conviction/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 15, 2022, 03:23:51 PM
And where did blagger and fantasist Scott Forbes fit in to this
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/partial-transcript-of-sandra-leans-13th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-update-re-factually-guilty-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-campaign/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 15, 2022, 04:52:25 PM
Sandra Lean
Why did they bleach the scene before the dogs arrived and who ordered that to be done? I have no idea - there is absolutely nothing in the defence papers to explain this, other than the report from the dog handlers stating that the entire area had been bleached, hampering the dogs' abilities to follow the scent.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768&page=4
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on September 18, 2022, 05:34:17 PM
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@kendoc51
 and
@citizentommy
'Make no mistake, he is guilty' I need to know how I've made a mistake,after 17yrs research, 1000's hrs, reading/examining case files, talking/interviewing people connected to the case. I'd love to know the 'evidence' can lead to such a statement.
3:47 pm · 18 Sep 2022
·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1571511289146642432
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 09, 2022, 01:38:31 PM
Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott Forbes & His Blatant Lies Part 66
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-66/
Part 67
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-65-2/
Part 68
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-68/
Part 69
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-69/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 09, 2022, 01:50:17 PM
Part 70
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-70/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 09, 2022, 02:14:07 PM
Part 71
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/09/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-71/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 21, 2022, 09:47:50 AM
Podcast ~ Dropping today
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/19/coming-soon/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 23, 2022, 12:20:58 PM
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/19/coming-soon/

Part of a comment from the recent podcast (tweedledee and tweedledum aka John Sallens & Michael Neill)
👇

“The most laughably preposterous thing to me though was when they had Tweedledee's relative drive around, and because she didn't notice what the eye witness observed, the witness must be mistaken - as if all human beings have the exact same powers of observation!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 01:36:27 PM
Ambedkar
@Ambedka39148229
Replying to
@HiddenInjustice
What an imbecile, a despicable one at that. I'm reporting you to police for Stalking me. Get facts correct, I didn't give Dr Lean access to paper work on luke mitchell, Dr Lean gave me the paper work in 2006.....you absolute clown
3:36 PM · Sep 1, 2022·Twitter for Android
https://twitter.com/Ambedka39148229/status/1565347841312034816

Sandra Lean didn’t have power of attorney in 2006 ergo Sandra needs to be reported if she did give Scott Forbes the paper work in 2006



8th April 2010 - Corinne Mitchell

Sandra didnt become Power of Attorney till well after the appeal...you are ahead of yourself there”



Appeal was heard in May 2008
👇
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:09:45 PM
What has Scott Forbes said about Corinne Mitchell being an adoptee and of her “extraordinarily physically close” relationship with her youngest son?

https://consideringadoption.com/adopted/impact-of-adoption/long-term-effects-of-adoption/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:14:44 PM
What has Scott Forbes said about Corinne Mitchell being an adoptee and of her “extraordinarily physically close” relationship with her youngest son?

https://consideringadoption.com/adopted/impact-of-adoption/long-term-effects-of-adoption/

Has adoptee Corinne Mitchell ever sought help or advice regarding things like

*Struggles with low self-esteem
*Identity issues, or feeling unsure of where they ‘fit in’
*Difficulty forming emotional attachments
*A sense of grief or loss related to their birth family
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:16:16 PM
Has adoptee Corinne Mitchell ever sought help or advice regarding things like

*Struggles with low self-esteem
*Identity issues, or feeling unsure of where they ‘fit in’
*Difficulty forming emotional attachments
*A sense of grief or loss related to their birth family

Were Corinne Mitchell’s alcohol issues linked to her adoption?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:18:27 PM
Has adoptee Corinne Mitchell ever sought help or advice regarding things like

*Struggles with low self-esteem
*Identity issues, or feeling unsure of where they ‘fit in’
*Difficulty forming emotional attachments
*A sense of grief or loss related to their birth family

What did Philip Mitchell say about Corinne Mitchell and was their divorce linked in any way to the fact Corinne was adopted or alcohol issues?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:19:04 PM
Has adoptee Corinne Mitchell ever sought help or advice regarding things like

*Struggles with low self-esteem
*Identity issues, or feeling unsure of where they ‘fit in’
*Difficulty forming emotional attachments
*A sense of grief or loss related to their birth family

Was Corinne Mitchell’s ‘short fuse’ linked to her being an adoptee?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 05:40:27 PM
What has Scott Forbes said about Corinne Mitchell being an adoptee and of her “extraordinarily physically close” relationship with her youngest son?

https://consideringadoption.com/adopted/impact-of-adoption/long-term-effects-of-adoption/

What did Colin Bowman say ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 06:49:27 PM
Did warped minded fantasist & ‘lawyer’ Scott Forbes explain any of this in his book - if not why not ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/26/killer-luke-mitchell-deluded-flying-monkey-sharon-indy-sunshine-aka-sharon-young-part-89/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2022, 09:07:36 PM
Was Corinne Mitchell’s ‘short fuse’ linked to her being an adoptee?

How old was Corinne Mitchell when she was adopted?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on October 28, 2022, 08:10:45 AM
Was the 'Stocky Man' theory/myth ever dispelled? Scott Forbes claimed in a recent podcast that the SCCRC, while adjudging that Luke had not suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, accepted as fact that the man seen folliwing Jodi on Easthouses Road that fateful day was JosJ. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:07:53 AM
Was the 'Stocky Man' theory/myth ever dispelled? Scott Forbes claimed in a recent podcast that the SCCRC, while adjudging that Luke had not suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, accepted as fact that the man seen folliwing Jodi on Easthouses Road that fateful day was JosJ. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Scott Forbes is a barefaced liar

If criminal cases review commission (CCRC) did accept ‘as fact’ that JosJ was seen following [Name removed] on Easthouses Road on that fateful day - they should be investigated 

Did the CCRC also accept as fact that sadistic killer Luke Mitchell was seen at both ends of path that night too?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:10:57 AM
Scott Forbes is a barefaced liar

If criminal cases review commission (CCRC) did accept ‘as fact’ that JosJ was seen following [Name removed] on Easthouses Road on that fateful day - they should be investigated 

Did the CCRC also accept as fact that sadistic killer Luke Mitchell was seen at both ends of path that night too?

Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean falsely accused SK as being ‘Stocky man’ in 2010
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/26/killer-luke-mitchell-deluded-flying-monkey-sharon-indy-sunshine-aka-sharon-young-part-89/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:16:48 AM
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/19/coming-soon/

Part of a comment from the recent podcast (tweedledee and tweedledum aka John Sallens & Michael Neill)
👇

“The most laughably preposterous thing to me though was when they had Tweedledee's relative drive around, and because she didn't notice what the eye witness observed, the witness must be mistaken - as if all human beings have the exact same powers of observation!

Stephanie Watson
I just rewatched miast. Can I ask, who's idea was it to make the murder in a small town program, like was it channel 5 who approached Sandra and corrine or was it someone who approached channel 5?
Also another question, if 2 private investigators done an investigation given the background they had being police officers etc aswell would that hold any weight with a court or with police?
And also the professionals on the programme, are they involved in getting justice? Just because they all seemed to have looked for themselves and realised very quickly that luke is innocent.
Finally what was so ridiculous it made me giggle was the statement from the police saying they weren't looking for any other individuals 🙄 is that because they already have the person traced and chose not to pursue it?

Ana Azaria (yesterday)
Hi Stephanie,
I just double checked with Dr Sandra Lean and in regards to the C5 documentary – they approached the team/Dr Sandra Lean. After the James English podcasts, different film makers got in touch but the C5 documentary planned to look at the investigation from the beginning, like an investigation of the investigation.
The investigation by the two PI’s won’t make any difference unfortunately – it wasn’t an ‘official’ investigation or an appeal.
The experts were approached independently - I don’t have any information on whether any of the professionals would be involved in any other way, to my understanding, they would need to keep that confidential anyway by instruction of the legal team. 
The police were initially very keen to trace Stocky man, that sighting was described as the first significant sighting of Jodi, but after that (and without any further mention of stocky man), they focused soley on Luke – but not because they had thoroughly investigated and dismissed on that basis, others known to the investigation. Like you said, they appeared not to pursue certain individuals – we know they didn’t follow up questioning MK for example, and stocky man (identified as Jodi’s family member) had zero statements in the case files.

Is Ana Azaria aware of the white flat bed pick up truck in the case of killer Simon Hall?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:21:37 AM
Ana Azaria (yesterday)
Hi Stephanie,
I just double checked with Dr Sandra Lean and in regards to the C5 documentary – they approached the team/Dr Sandra Lean. After the James English podcasts, different film makers got in touch but the C5 documentary planned to look at the investigation from the beginning, like an investigation of the investigation.
The investigation by the two PI’s won’t make any difference unfortunately – it wasn’t an ‘official’ investigation or an appeal.
The experts were approached independently - I don’t have any information on whether any of the professionals would be involved in any other way, to my understanding, they would need to keep that confidential anyway by instruction of the legal team. 
The police were initially very keen to trace Stocky man, that sighting was described as the first significant sighting of Jodi, but after that (and without any further mention of stocky man), they focused soley on Luke – but not because they had thoroughly investigated and dismissed on that basis, others known to the investigation. Like you said, they appeared not to pursue certain individuals – we know they didn’t follow up questioning MK for example, and stocky man (identified as Jodi’s family member) had zero statements in the case files.

Is Ana Azaria aware of the white flat bed pick up truck in the case of killer Simon Hall?

”Detectives hunting the killer of Jodi Jones have received reports of the first possible sightings of the teenager on the night she died, police said today.

One witness told police they had seen the same person a week later on the night of a police reconstruction.

Interestingly, one of the witnesses believes he then saw the same man again on Monday July 7, one week later, the night of the police reconstruction.

"If this is the case, we need to trace this person as a matter of urgency as he may have seen something important on the night that Jodi died."

The man who police are keen to trace was white, stocky and 5ft 7in to 5ft 10in tall.

He had short, tidy brown or ginger hair, perhaps curly or wavy on top.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-188716/Witness-saw-man-Jodi.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:27:47 AM
”Detectives hunting the killer of Jodi Jones have received reports of the first possible sightings of the teenager on the night she died, police said today.

One witness told police they had seen the same person a week later on the night of a police reconstruction.

Interestingly, one of the witnesses believes he then saw the same man again on Monday July 7, one week later, the night of the police reconstruction.

"If this is the case, we need to trace this person as a matter of urgency as he may have seen something important on the night that Jodi died."

The man who police are keen to trace was white, stocky and 5ft 7in to 5ft 10in tall.

He had short, tidy brown or ginger hair, perhaps curly or wavy on top.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-188716/Witness-saw-man-Jodi.html

Was the above description related to the 7th of July sighting?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:30:44 AM
”Detectives hunting the killer of Jodi Jones have received reports of the first possible sightings of the teenager on the night she died, police said today.

One witness told police they had seen the same person a week later on the night of a police reconstruction.

Interestingly, one of the witnesses believes he then saw the same man again on Monday July 7, one week later, the night of the police reconstruction.

"If this is the case, we need to trace this person as a matter of urgency as he may have seen something important on the night that Jodi died."

The man who police are keen to trace was white, stocky and 5ft 7in to 5ft 10in tall.

He had short, tidy brown or ginger hair, perhaps curly or wavy on top.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-188716/Witness-saw-man-Jodi.html

The media article refers to a HE but Louise Reid refers to a SHE ?

Louise Reid
The independent witness who seen stocky man following her also went back to the police and said she had seen the same person on the news at jodis funeral. Police never took that further. Bear in mind she didn't know the family or stocky man

On that day at 5pm, police staged a reconstruction of Jodi's last movements, with a woman police officer taking the part of Jodi.

According to the male witness, the man was walking in Morris Road at around 6pm on the way to Easthouses Road.

He was wearing a denim jacket and carrying a black laptop-style case or holdall.

The witness watched him meet two friends who were around the same age, probably in their late teens, according to police.

The friends gave each other "high-five"-style welcoming handshakes before pulling each other into a hug.

One of the young men was on a bike and wearing shorts, the other appeared to be carrying a videotape.

Both were wearing dark clothing and the group were standing in Morris Road just past the Morris Club”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:41:39 AM
“Police are still trying to trace a blonde woman with a high ponytail and a miniskirt who was pushing a child in a buggy along Easthouses Road in the direction of Jodi’s house on the evening of the murder.

If the other witness statements are correct, she would have passed Jodi and the man who was following her as she walked along the road”


https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-seek-youth-who-trailed-jodi-2469971
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:44:29 AM
Was the 'Stocky Man' theory/myth ever dispelled? Scott Forbes claimed in a recent podcast that the SCCRC, while adjudging that Luke had not suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, accepted as fact that the man seen folliwing Jodi on Easthouses Road that fateful day was JosJ. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Scott Forbes is a barefaced liar

Scott Forbes is also a fantasist

👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:46:32 AM
Was the 'Stocky Man' theory/myth ever dispelled? Scott Forbes claimed in a recent podcast that the SCCRC, while adjudging that Luke had not suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, accepted as fact that the man seen folliwing Jodi on Easthouses Road that fateful day was JosJ. Can anyone shed some light on this?

“Police are still trying to trace a blonde woman with a high ponytail and a miniskirt who was pushing a child in a buggy along Easthouses Road in the direction of Jodi’s house on the evening of the murder.

If the other witness statements are correct, she would have passed Jodi and the man who was following her as she walked along the road”


https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-seek-youth-who-trailed-jodi-2469971

The ‘stocky man’ theory/myth was dispelled!

Just like the white flatbed pick up truck theory/myth was dispelled in killer Simon Hall’s case
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 11:08:21 AM
Was the above description related to the 7th of July sighting?

“Police said that the man spotted on 7 July had come forward as a result of the public appeal.

"We are very pleased that the gentleman in one half of the appeal has come forward and is identified," he said.

"As soon as he heard the description and recognised himself he contacted police.

"He had in fact just got off the bus on the night of the police reconstruction and vehicle check”.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3079777.stm



What did Sandra Lean write in her second book about this man’s description ?

Once traced - What did the police establish about this man’s description?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 12:33:14 PM
What has Scott Forbes said about Corinne Mitchell being an adoptee and of her “extraordinarily physically close” relationship with her youngest son?

https://consideringadoption.com/adopted/impact-of-adoption/long-term-effects-of-adoption/

What do pretend criminologist Sandra Lean and fantasist Scott Forbes say about killer Luke Mitchell’s enmeshed relationship (enmeshment also known as ‘emotional incest’) with his adoptee mother Corinne Mitchell?

https://www.havenwoodacademy.org/enmeshment/

And what do they say about killer Luke Mitchell’s suicide idealisations ?

What does Luke Mitchell’s 29th October 2004 psychiatric report say in relation to his suicide idealisations ?

”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”

https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/

I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 12:43:06 PM
Sandra Lean states to James English

There were no issues in his childhood there was a school report that he’d erm he’d been pulled up for throwing a missile at another student and his mum was called into the school it was a half Mars bar but again this was used after the event that’s about the only thing in his erm 


Killer Luke Mitchell had a wealth of ‘issues’ leading up to his murder of [Name removed]

Why does pretend criminologist Sandra Lean pretend he didn’t present with a wealth of issues?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 12:44:50 PM

Killer Luke Mitchell had a wealth of ‘issues’ leading up to his murder of [Name removed]

Why does pretend criminologist Sandra Lean pretend he didn’t present with a wealth of issues?

And again

What does pretend criminologist Sandra Lean say about what impact Corinne Mitchells adoption has on her sons?

What led Shane Mitchell to become a drug addict? 

And what led Killer Luke Mitchell to become a drug addict?

What help did Luke Mitchell receive for his drug addiction when he was remanded in a YOI?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 12:59:29 PM
Scott Forbes is also a fantasist

👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo

Govan,G51

“..Also as being a Scot I understand being a man ok am a short arse , but if this so called man on this podcast was in front of me spewing this doctored case info I would break his jaw an watch him spit the only truth from his mouth an that would be his teeth” (sic)

 *&^^&


G Govan?

Weren’t Michael Neill and John Sallens based at ‘Govan’ police station

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 01:14:02 PM
Govan,G51

“..Also as being a Scot I understand being a man ok am a short arse , but if this so called man on this podcast was in front of me spewing this doctored case info I would break his jaw an watch him spit the only truth from his mouth an that would be his teeth” (sic)

 *&^^&


G Govan?

Weren’t Michael Neill and John Sallens based at ‘Govan’ police station

Looks like G Govan deleted their first comment

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 01:18:12 PM
Govan,G51

“..Also as being a Scot I understand being a man ok am a short arse , but if this so called man on this podcast was in front of me spewing this doctored case info I would break his jaw an watch him spit the only truth from his mouth an that would be his teeth” (sic)

 *&^^&


G Govan?

Weren’t Michael Neill and John Sallens based at ‘Govan’ police station

Btw the ‘man on this podcast’ - William Ramsey is a lawyer who’s written and published several books
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/21/satanist-killer-luke-mitchell-his-spiritual-twin-damien-echols/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 04:19:42 PM
UPDATED Part 94
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/28/killer-luke-mitchell-threats-of-violence-being-made-by-cult-member-part-94/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 04:29:34 PM
Part 95 - Dropping Soon
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 06:16:52 PM
Part 95
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/28/killer-luke-mitchell-narcissist-scott-forbes-his-balls-of-steel-part-95/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2022, 10:24:29 PM
Stephanie Watson
I just rewatched miast. Can I ask, who's idea was it to make the murder in a small town program, like was it channel 5 who approached Sandra and corrine or was it someone who approached channel 5?
Also another question, if 2 private investigators done an investigation given the background they had being police officers etc aswell would that hold any weight with a court or with police?
And also the professionals on the programme, are they involved in getting justice? Just because they all seemed to have looked for themselves and realised very quickly that luke is innocent.
Finally what was so ridiculous it made me giggle was the statement from the police saying they weren't looking for any other individuals 🙄 is that because they already have the person traced and chose not to pursue it?

Ana Azaria (yesterday)
Hi Stephanie,
I just double checked with Dr Sandra Lean and in regards to the C5 documentary – they approached the team/Dr Sandra Lean. After the James English podcasts, different film makers got in touch but the C5 documentary planned to look at the investigation from the beginning, like an investigation of the investigation.
The investigation by the two PI’s won’t make any difference unfortunately – it wasn’t an ‘official’ investigation or an appeal.
The experts were approached independently - I don’t have any information on whether any of the professionals would be involved in any other way, to my understanding, they would need to keep that confidential anyway by instruction of the legal team. 
The police were initially very keen to trace Stocky man, that sighting was described as the first significant sighting of Jodi, but after that (and without any further mention of stocky man), they focused soley on Luke – but not because they had thoroughly investigated and dismissed on that basis, others known to the investigation. Like you said, they appeared not to pursue certain individuals – we know they didn’t follow up questioning MK for example, and stocky man (identified as Jodi’s family member) had zero statements in the case files.

‘Different film makers’?

Is Sandra Lean suggesting more than one lot of film makers got in touch with her and if so who were the others?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 01:43:11 AM
Without a doubt

JIGSAWMAN - first exposed it seems by Wullie Beck back in 2010 (or earlier ?) ⬇️ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s260.html

It was also clearly ‘bullshit’ when she attempted to cast doubt on Simon Halls guilt when I asked her if she planned to revise or withdraw ‘No Smoke’ early 2017 ⬇️

Sandra Leans book ‘No Smoke’ should be revised or withdrawn’
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382408.html#msg382408

Acknowledging Simon Hall’s guilt would call into question her ‘work’

Silly woman

This has never been about ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ for Sandra Lean

She said she would be withdrawing her book
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029

NOT ‘considering’ it

And she omitted the direct contact which began on the 23rd February 2014
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383098.html#msg383098

When she stated she would be withdrawing her book

Which was just before those Amazon orders Sandra Lean when you claimed you were working on your chimney

And then said how you might have died from carbon monoxide poisoning

Presumably because you didn’t fit the flue of the chimney correctly - presuming those parts were for you and not someone else ?

You are a malignant narcissist Sandra Lean!

👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383036.html#msg383036

You gain pleasure in other peoples suffering

Did the statement state this alleged person ‘ran like a bat out of hell’ Sandra Lean or was this your interpretation?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUg1ishwdTo

You silly woman

Out of interest - does Scott Forbes have ‘issues’ with alcohol too?
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUg1ishwdTo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 06:14:51 PM
You are a bare faced liar Scott Forbes!
👇
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11976.msg694409#msg694409

You and Blagger Sandra Lean can publish the SCCRC statement of reasons

It’s the SCCRC who cannot

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 06:18:39 PM
Sandra Lean
Kirsty Smith Michele Scott You also have to remember how much time the police had to convince the family that their (the police's) theory was correct - and to influence the family's recall, right at the most horrifying time of their lives.

What a hoaxer
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 06:20:49 PM
On the 23rd of February 2014 pretend criminologist Sandra Lean stated

“I have wasted ten years of my life”

She also stated that Lynne Hall’s behaviour reminded of her of Corinne Mitchell’s behaviour

She referred to the enmeshed relationship the pair had with their sons - something Stephanie (Hall) told Sandra Lean she had eventually recognised was evident with Lynne Hall and her killer son

To be clear it was Stephanie (Hall) telling the pretend criminologist about Enmeshment
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 06:56:53 PM
On the 23rd of February 2014 pretend criminologist Sandra Lean stated

“I have wasted ten years of my life”

She also stated that Lynne Hall’s behaviour reminded of her of Corinne Mitchell’s behaviour

She referred to the enmeshed relationship the pair had with their sons - something Stephanie (Hall) told Sandra Lean she had eventually recognised was evident with Lynne Hall and her killer son

Sandra Lean showed her true colours well over a decade ago and demonstrated she wasn’t a ‘truth-seeker’ or genuinely interested in ‘truth’ or ‘justice’

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2022, 07:05:24 PM
Silly woman

This has never been about ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ for Sandra Lean

She said she would be withdrawing her book
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383029.html#msg383029

NOT ‘considering’ it

And she omitted the direct contact which began on the 23rd February 2014
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383098.html#msg383098

When she stated she would be withdrawing her book

Which was just before those Amazon orders Sandra Lean when you claimed you were working on your chimney

And then said how you might have died from carbon monoxide poisoning

Presumably because you didn’t fit the flue of the chimney correctly - presuming those parts were for you and not someone else ?

You are a malignant narcissist Sandra Lean!

👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383036.html#msg383036

You gain pleasure in other peoples suffering

Did the statement state this alleged person ‘ran like a bat out of hell’ Sandra Lean or was this your interpretation?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUg1ishwdTo

You silly woman

Out of interest - does Scott Forbes have ‘issues’ with alcohol too?
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUg1ishwdTo

How much money did cruel and callous Corinne Mitchell settle for in the end Sandra Lean?

And did she go private for her new teeth ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 08:47:04 AM
Posted today on the ‘unofficial’ LM Facebook page by Lisa C Reynolds Peden ⬇️

THIS STATEMENT IS FROM LUKE AND CORINNE:

‘I have spoken to Luke and Corinne both their wishes are that everyone who is able to, attends the protest on the 17th of July in Edinburgh! They are both one hundred percent behind this group and the protest that's been organised! Luke has spoken to  people the last few days and made it very clear that he will not allow ANYONE to speak for him anymore. He is a man now and will not stay in the background and longer. He has dealt with the person/people who have been telling people not to attend this protest because it wasn't organised by the 'official' group. This is not Luke's wishes and the protest is 100% legal. Luke has made it clear that the Free and retry Luke Mitchell group has his full backing and support. They I will now be posting all statements from Luke via myself.

 Also they wish that all the group's come together and that any previous issues are put to bed! Luke has said that he doesn't want animosity between the groups, everyone on these groups are supposed to be here for one reason only and should all be fighting for the same cause! Luke is in charge of his life from now NO ONE ELSE!! He has taken a back seat for far too long and isn't doing it anymore.

*If you are attending any protests please wear a mask and follow all covid guide lines that are in place on the date of the protest.*

Luke and Corinne thank everyone on this group! The support is absolutely amazing! From the bonus ball tickets to raising awareness and being involved and organising two protests! It's all greatly appreciated! All money this group has raised goes directly into a bank account for Corinne.

Luke does not want photos of Jodi distributed for his fight for justice, this is insensitive to Jodis family and friends, and creates bad press for him. It is not and has never been Luke's wishes for us to find the real killer. Our job is to get Luke free and home to his mum. For anyone else to be investigated and/or charged Luke must be acquitted first.

Luke has also advised Sandra that all documents that have been withheld from the public for years be released immediately. He has been too concerned about upsetting other people, and following other wishes,but has lost his childhood, teenage years and adolescence. He will not stand for this anymore.

Luke appreciates your support and welcomes future peaceful protests and any other means of support which are within the law. All ideas from ANY groups MUST be ran by Luke in the first instance before anything is done.

Also Luke has made it very clear that the 'official' group does not speak for him nor has it ever. If you have any questions or would like to run anything by Luke please message myself as I am in daily contact with Corinne and every two days with Luke.

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT AND HELPING ME FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM!! BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!

Luke and Corinne have gave me permission to share with this group some pictures from his childhood. These pictures are not in the public domain. So keep your eyes peeled, I will post one later today!
💞💞💞

#lukemitchellisinnocent  #freelukemitchell

Sandra Lean - 27th June 2021

There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

Was she referring to Scott Forbes ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 09:36:57 AM
Sandra Lean - 27th June 2021

There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

Was she referring to Scott Forbes ?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/

Who were these ‘trolls’ Sandra Lean was referring to?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/partial-transcript-of-sandra-leans-13th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-update-re-factually-guilty-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-campaign/

A Luke supporter made a post questioning had Scott Forbes ever been Luke’s lawyer and how that could of been and it was really quite negative so I answered it and said ask Luke he’ll tell you and the post that came back was along the lines of yeah he had some part in it but he was not his lawyer..”


“…let me get something absolutely clear no matter where it is and no matter who’s posted it I will always call out wrongful accusations always I don’t care where they are or who’s posting them I will always call them out”

More bare faced lies  *&^^&

“first up Luke has legal representation yep yep can’t say who can’t say who erm very early stages at the moment but that was a big obstacle we had to get over we had to get over we had to get someone willing to take the case on to take it forward and now we have it so absolutely delighted with that and in view of everything’s that been going on you know the way things have been and in view of everything that’s been going on you know and the way things have been I asked Luke did he want me to bow out now hand over to the legal team and bow out and he said absolutely not Luke wants me to continue and hopefully find ways for me to communicate stuff to the lawyer and all that sort of thing so one of the things that I do have to say upfront and it is quite important for people to understand this some lawyers and I don’t know about this one like I said it’s very earlier days some lawyers like when they are trying to put an application to go back to the commission or an application goes into the commission they will say to the convicted person and their families..”


Scott Forbes?

 @)(++(*

Derek Edmund had pointed out that there was a case in Scotland equally as bad as Brendan Dassey Stephen Avery cases so that then led to contact and we were chatting and over the years these guys have learned what can and can’t be done what can and can’t be said how it can be done how it can be said and will ask before they put anything out

Does Derek Edmund know that before his rape and murder of Theresa Halbach, and the other rape he (and his lawyers) claimed this rapist/killer didn’t commit - this psychopath poured petrol over the families pet cat and threw it in the fire

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 09:53:49 AM
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/partial-transcript-of-sandra-leans-13th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-update-re-factually-guilty-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-campaign/

Has Sandra Lean deleted the above video from the WWW and if so why?

It’s here https://fb.watch/gx_8O67TJK/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 10:12:00 AM
 @)(++(*

Michelle Diskin Bates is in the “free and retry Luke Mitchell now” Facebook group

Michelle Moj Diskin-Bates (6 days ago)
Dear Group member, I can understand your confusion with all of the conflicting points raised on social media platforms. My advice would be to post a link to the Sandra Leen book. Most of us will NEVER have enough information to be able to answer every point/accusation. This is a way to let interested parties know where they can find clarity.

People are asking questions, which of course hoaxer Sandra Lean doesn’t give the answers to in her second book, but Michelle Diskin Bates answer to these questions is suggesting a link to Sandra book is posted

 @)(++(* @)(++(*

What a complete and utter fantasist this woman is

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 10:59:42 AM

Out of interest - does Scott Forbes have ‘issues’ with alcohol too?
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dUg1ishwdTo

And/or cocaine?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 02:56:47 PM
And/or cocaine?

Is Scott Forbes a coke head?

Someone has asked here if Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean are distancing themselves again

👇
 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo


This is apparently what killer Luke Mitchell said about Scott Forbes

yeah he had some part in it but he was not his lawyer..”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 03:03:55 PM
Again was this in reference to Scott Forbes?

Sandra Lean - 27th June 2021

There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 03:09:15 PM
At about 9:20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk


This deluded idiot Scott Forbes - thinks he’s joined “half a dozen twitters accounts Facebook blogs” which are “all run by the same people”

He claims they are all Stephanie (Hall)  @)(++(*

Just imagine how diabolical his ‘lawyering’  @)(++(* and ‘investigations’ are  @)(++(*


Has Scott Forbes explained why Sandra Lean wrote about this “rapist/murderer” in her book No Smoke

And if killer Simon Hall “made a fool our of her” (Stephanie Hall) as Scott Forbes stated - what does “balls of steel” Scott Forbes make of Sandra Lean’s statement made on the 10th January 2017 about the “rapist/murderer”;

👇

Sandra Lean
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

”In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 03:32:47 PM
Sandra Lean
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

”In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961


Sandra Lean is a malignant narcissist

Her latest pre-recorded video was yet more of her ‘baiting’ - it’s what narcissistic abusers like her do


The reality is that the Jones/Walker family have far greater knowledge on the case than Sandra Lean has ever had

When she appeared on the James English podcast she referred to her father’s death at the age of 56\57(?) and used this as an excuse for writing and publishing her book

This narcissist also stated;

The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there    

If “everything” was in this book as hoaxer Sandra Lean made claim it was - did pretend lawyer Scott Forbes copy Sandra Lean’s book for content for his own

 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 03:45:16 PM

Her latest pre-recorded video was yet more of her ‘baiting’ - it’s what narcissistic abusers like her do


Also

During the podcast with James English Sandra Lean made the claim Joey was sleeping in his mothers bedroom

She’s now claimed he was sleeping at his grandmothers house

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 03:46:45 PM
Sandra Lean’s ‘blame shifting’ is also apparent is her latest video

20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You

” Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with [ censored word]ocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility.

When toxic types can’t control the way you see yourself, they start to control how others see you; they play the martyr while you’re labeled the toxic one. A smear campaign is a preemptive strike to sabotage your reputation and slander your name so that you won’t have a support network to fall back on lest you decide to detach and cut ties with this toxic person. They may even stalk and harass you or the people you know as a way to supposedly “expose” the truth about you; this exposure acts as a way to hide their own abusive behavior while projecting it onto you. .

Toxic individuals lure you into a false sense of security simply to have a platform to showcase their cruelty. Baiting you into a mindless, chaotic argument can escalate into a showdown rather quickly with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of respect. A simple disagreement may bait you into responding politely initially, until it becomes clear that the person has a malicious motive of tearing you down.

By “baiting” you with a seemingly innocuous comment disguised as a rational one, they can then begin to play with you. Remember: narcissistic abusers have learned about your insecurities, the unsettling catchphrases that interrupt your confidence, and the disturbing topics that reenact your wounds – and they use this knowledge maliciously to provoke you. After you’ve fallen for it, hook line and sinker, they’ll stand back and innocently ask whether you’re “okay” and talk about how they didn’t “mean” to agitate you. This faux innocence works to catch you off guard and make you believe that they truly didn’t intend to hurt you, until it happens so often you can’t deny the reality of their malice any longer.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383173.html#msg383173
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 04:13:46 PM
Sandra Lean
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

”In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

Sandra Lean omitted a wealth of evidence from her chapter in her book on killer Simon Hall and failed to mention the Hall families lies and concoctions which were weaved “into the general framework of the case” - not unlike the Mitchell’s lies and concoctions

The evidence was robust enough to justify the conviction

Just like it was in the case of sadistic killer Luke Mitchell

And there is the ‘miscarriage of justice’ phenomenon and the very real innocence FRAUD phenomenon which pretend criminologist Sandra Lean didn’t consider in 2017
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 07:08:11 PM
Sandra Lean
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

”In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

The fact is Sandra Lean accepted in early 2014 that both killers Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell were guilty and had duped Sandra Lean

The fact is Sandra Lean knew in early 2014 that both ‘innocence fraud narratives’ for both killers were a lie

The fact is Sandra Lean knew in early 2014 that both killers Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell committed ‘Lust’ type murders

The fact is that in 2017 Sandra Lean’s genuine motives and true character became clearer to those of us who recognised the fraud

The fraud used by the ‘miscarriage of justice’ phenomenon grifters and hoaxers

And the lengths some of these hoaxers - like Sandra Lean - are prepared to go to with their hoax’s
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 07:33:25 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 07:46:01 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Again where was the witness who claimed to see the moped parked at the V and did this witness really see the V with the moped parked rider-less against it

Is Ana Azaria not aware of the fact that by the time a conviction reaches an appeal, a wealth of the evidence the conviction was based on doesn’t form part of said appeal
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 07:47:53 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 07:54:10 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.[/glow]

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Ana Azaria is you are going to pretend you want justice for [Name removed] why do you choose to use the words ’’the murder’ and the crime
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 08:09:03 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible

What is it about JF cutting his hair because he didn’t want to look like ‘stocky man’ that bothers you Ana Azalia ?

Can give you numerous examples of people reverting to this type of behaviour following similar incidents

You would probably be surprised what a lot of men did during Steve Wrights murder of six women in Suffolk before he was finally apprehended
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 08:17:51 PM
Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible

When did hoaxer Sandra Lean get the paperwork back btw?


27th June 2021
I do want to put it on public record that if anything goes into the public domain before the papers are collected from me it will not be me who put them there no I will not have given my agreement for anything to go out I will not do that

So on Wednesday the 30th of June after the case papers have been collected I will no longer be associated with Luke’s case in any professional capacity because decisions taken about the direction of the campaign can’t be reconciled with the work that I do


https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/


Or did she already have them saved to a digital file?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 08:23:46 PM
At about 9:20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk


This deluded idiot Scott Forbes - thinks he’s joined “half a dozen twitters accounts Facebook blogs” which are “all run by the same people”

He claims they are all Stephanie (Hall)  @)(++(*

Just imagine how diabolical his ‘lawyering’  @)(++(* and ‘investigations’ are  @)(++(*


Has Scott Forbes explained why Sandra Lean wrote about this “rapist/murderer” in her book No Smoke

And if killer Simon Hall “made a fool our of her” (Stephanie Hall) as Scott Forbes stated - what does “balls of steel” Scott Forbes make of Sandra Lean’s statement made on the 10th January 2017 about the “rapist/murderer”;

👇

Sandra Lean
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

”In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961


What does Scott Forbes say about Sandra Lean supporting the “rapist/murderer” Simon Hall nearly 4 years after the innocence fraud was exposed?

Scott Forbes recently stated (here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo)

Killer Simon Hall “claimed he was innocent he then admitted the heinous crime and Hall stayed close to him until he committed suicide”

What about pretend criminologist Sandra Lean?

What do you say about her behaviour Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 08:55:02 PM
Ana Azalia
Ronnie Mothersole Considering that the defence weren't given the information regarding Stocky man's identification until 10 years after Luke's conviction (it was through the appeal process they found out, from my recollection), I'm not sure how much they knew about the two witnesses, or whether they could have used it in opposition to AB's sighting. The defence didn't know who Stocky man was at that time and the prosecution certainly wouldn't have used it at trial because it would have undermined their case.

AB's sighting was given weight - two independent witnesses who corroborated each others account should surely be given more weight than that? But we aren't here to solve the case or decide what should be given weight in regards to how accurate the witnesses were when we don't know who they were - the point is that the investigation shouldn't have left all of these unanswered questions, the two independent sightings should have absolutely been investigated further - especially when it undermines the prosecution's key witness sighting

We don't know what the police said but due to the fact that JF knew about Stocky man before the public did, logic tells us they said something

What makes you presume the investigation left unanswered questions Ana Azalia?


Ronnie Mothersole
Ana Azaria I totally agree we are not here to
Solve the case But it is human nature
For a person to decide who is guilty and who is not To need information
You must remember That is how the jury got it wrong
Because they were not told everything

And a lot deliberately kept from them
If people don't get the truth Then all sorts of things get added on
People need to know ✌️🙏


 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 02, 2022, 09:04:13 PM
Ana Azalia
Ronnie Mothersole Yes - that's why we need the review! These questions that exist right now - we can't answer them ourselves, it would just be speculation.
And we shouldn't be trying to decide who is guilty or otherwise, that is the same as trying to solve the case - we can recognise that Luke's conviction was a farse, but we can't do the same to others, there needs to be more definitive proof/evidence and it needs to be done properly

It was done properly Ana - back in 2004/05 - only you weren’t there and didn’t t hear all the evidence
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Dexter on November 03, 2022, 12:12:37 PM
Serious question... have you ever thought about helping what you believe to be a real miscarriage of justice? Or do you believe there aren't any cases out there at the moment?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 03, 2022, 03:05:26 PM
Serious question...

Didn’t you claim a while back “Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files”

MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files!

What’s the real story about those ‘30 boxes’

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-6/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 01:11:27 PM
Serious question... have you ever thought about helping what you believe to be a real miscarriage of justice? Or do you believe there aren't any cases out there at the moment?

There is a criminal element within the UK CJS (including within the CCRC, lawyers, judges etc) so any genuine cases of injustice don’t have much hope until this criminal element is exposed

One of Philip Saunders killers was once the ‘poster boy’ for the CCRC

Read here http://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/R-v-Alan-Charlton-and-Idris-Ali.pdf what the CoA judges said about the CCRC’s submissions

Michael O’Brien has never proved his actual, factual innocence. Neither did his brother in law Ellis Sherwood or Darren Hall!

Killer Michael O’Brien’s luck ran out around the same time the innocence fraud relating to killer Simon Hall was exposed.

And operation resolute (http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf) found no criminal behaviour on the part of DI Lewis as O’Brien has been falsely claiming to anyone who will listen

During killer Michael O’Brien’s civil claim the judge pointed out the fatal flaws in his and his brother in laws conversations regarding their murder of Philip Saunders

In fact the last set of judges who were privy to Michael O’Briens case files actually pointed out,

the possibility of pauses in the alleged conversation making it easier for Mr Lewis to record what was said was “fatal” to Mr O’Brien’s position, and they dismissed the application for judicial review’

The judgement stated,

Although O’Brien was a young man with no convictions, his activities that evening were a pursuit of crime in the company of Sherwood, and he was forced to admit he had told a sequence of lies. The lack of evidential support for O’Brien’s account meant that, setting aside the expert evidence, the prospects of successful prosecution were very poor.”

Of the expert evidence, the judgement said:

Neither of the experts was prepared to say the note was fabricated, or that their expert evidence amounted to a basis for such a conclusion. The prosecutor was right to emphasise that Prof Coulthard’s conclusion in his second report restated that of his first: ‘There are no serious linguistic objections that can be raised to the majority of the utterances in the note’.

We consider it very likely that a jury would be unsure whether Lewis had claimed from the beginning his note was word for word accurate. Although the term ‘verbatim’ was used by the judge in the summing up, no doubt accurately based on Lewis’ evidence, in the light of the subsequent series of statements and accounts from him, particularly in reference to the confusion between ‘verbatim’ and ‘contemporaneous’, it is unlikely that a reasonable jury could be sure he meant ‘word for word’ accurate. The evidence that recorders of speech are over confident of their own accuracy would sound with the jury.”

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640

Perjury charges were dropped in/around Sept 2011
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15129956

To date Michael O’Brien has failed to show the police fabricated evidence in his case
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 01:27:04 PM
There is a criminal element within the UK CJS (including within the CCRC, lawyers, judges etc) so any genuine cases of injustice done have much hope until this criminal element is exposed

Simon Spence for the crown prosecution service CPS agreed with Michael Mansfield, who represented killer Simon Hall re: his appeal that the ‘main plank’ of the original prosecutions case centred on fibre evidence

It didn’t!

If the three court of appeal judges picked up on this in December 2010/January 2011 they didn’t make it known in their judgement
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 01:33:35 PM
There is a criminal element within the UK CJS (including within the CCRC, lawyers, judges etc) so any genuine cases of injustice done have much hope until this criminal element is exposed

Another example is that of embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/09/links-to-court-transcripts-regarding-seema-misras-trial/

The CCRC appear to have referred her convictions (7 or 8 of them) back to the court of appeal based on a perceived ‘disclosure issue’

Embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra’s West Byfeelt post office wasn’t affected by any bugs that may have affected the Horizon IT system

And the ‘receipts and payments mismatch bug’ did not affect Seema Misra’s post office branch of any post of branch before 2010

Seema Misra had already been suspended long before 2010

The three court of appeal judges appear to have made a fundamental error in their judgement relating to embezzler and fraudster Seema Misra

Touched on in the below blog
👇
https://wordpress.com/post/theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/8627

Why did the CCRC refer Seema Misra’s convictions back to the court of appeal, given the fact Seema only discovered the night before her trial was due to commence (when she searched the Internet) that a handful of other people were alleging issues with the Horizon IT system

And Seema didn’t report any issues with Horizon to the helpline while she ran the West Byfleet post office
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 02:38:31 PM
There is a criminal element within the UK CJS (including within the CCRC, lawyers, judges etc) so any genuine cases of injustice done have much hope until this criminal element is exposed

One of Philip Saunders killers was once the ‘poster boy’ for the CCRC

Michael O’Brien has never proved his actual, factual innocence. Neither did his brother in law Ellis Sherwood or Darren Hall!

Killer Michael O’Brien’s luck ran out around the same time the innocence fraud reflating to killer Simon Hall was exposed.

During killer Michael O’Brien’s civil claim the judge pointed out the fatal flaws in his and his brother in laws conversations regarding their murder of Philip Saunders

I remain of the firm view Darren Hall didn’t make a ‘false confession’ and that he (Hall) kept lookout while Killers Michael O’Brien and his brother in law Ellis Sherwood battered Philip Saunders with the shovel


Jim Nelson
Really painful to listen to forced  MADE UP  CONFESSIONS .thankfully  LM gave as good as he got  when QUESTIONED  .at that young age of 14  who knows what a teenager might say.just to get out home to his family...they prob wouldn't realise the seriousness  of the charges and would most likely would be thinking..mum and dad  will fix it..I WANT OUT OF HERE....little knowing that anything you say  will most certainly be used against you  and if convicted   APPEAL BOARD  will  ask you to explain  WHY DID YOU CONFESS ???

Sandra Lean
Jim Nelson It's quite astonishing how many false confessions there are. People say, "Why would anyone confess to something they haven't done?" Having read the transcripts of some of those interrogations and spoken to people who've been through it (who can fill in the details that are not written down), it's actually surprising that there aren't more. People handcuffed to hot radiators, bare mattresses with not even a blanket for warmth, no food or water for hours and hours, sleep deprivation - then interrogation techniques designed to break even the strongest of minds. They don't have to physically beat confessions out of people (although they've not been averse to that either) - the range of torture techniques is extensive.
Thank god they couldn't hold Luke overnight - how long could a 14 year old, even one as strong as Luke, withstand that sort of treatment, with no end in sight?


Pretend criminologist Sandra Lean and her proven track record and knowledge of ‘confessions’ - true or false - is as diabolical as the contents of her thesis was and is

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 03:35:14 PM
Has pretend lawyer Scott Forbes commented on pretend criminologist Sandra Lean promoting Michael ‘Numpty’ Naughton - who pushed the innocence fraud of ‘rapist/murderer’ Simon Hall ?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RARkcb7s3rxot1w7SD2SY9jUwy7UP6DHapiYCJgKSnK7HCKCdfFkAV8R3edokuRDl&id=1011563515
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 03:58:12 PM
And was does pretend lawyer Scott Forbes say about Michael ‘Numpty’ Naughton”# blatant abuse, deception and fraud ?

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/07/quite-a-hall-tale-part-19m%ef%b8%8f/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 04:02:07 PM
Sandra Lean referred to Michael ‘Numpty’ Naughton a lot in her diabolical and nonsense of a thesis

When the innocence fraud of ‘rapist/murderer’ Simon Hall was exposed in 2012/2013 pretend criminolgist Sandra Lean apparently didn’t recognise the fraud unravelling

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02RARkcb7s3rxot1w7SD2SY9jUwy7UP6DHapiYCJgKSnK7HCKCdfFkAV8R3edokuRDl&id=1011563515

What does Scott Forbes make of this fact?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2022, 07:53:41 PM
Didn’t you claim a while back “Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files”

MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files!

What’s the real story about those ‘30 boxes’

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-6/

Sandra Lean
As I've explained elsewhere, Scott's first case, following his law degree, when he took up his traineeship, was Luke's case. I know this, because I worked with him (and the legal firm) at the time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 11:39:10 AM
Latest from fantasist and abuser Scott Forbes
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 12:06:41 PM
Latest from fantasist and abuser Scott Forbes
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo

Did Sandra Lean block Scott Forbes from her Facebook group
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 02:18:53 PM
Narcissist Corinne Mitchell to James English

‘But they didn’t bank on Luke being Luke’

‘And what annoyed them was he was more intelligent than what they were’


What do pretend criminologist Sandra Lean and fantasist Scott Forbes say about killer Luke Mitchell’s enmeshed relationship (enmeshment also known as ‘emotional incest’) with his adoptee mother Corinne Mitchell?

https://www.havenwoodacademy.org/enmeshment/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 04:04:52 PM
MOJO did not secure my position. I did Not work for MOJO after 2010 and never when I was a trainee solicitor.
Sandra Lean gave Mann Solicitors the case files!

What’s the real story about those ‘30 boxes’

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-6/


Sandra Lean
As I've explained elsewhere, Scott's first case, following his law degree, when he took up his traineeship, was Luke's case. I know this, because I worked with him (and the legal firm) at the time.

Sandra Lean
May 10, 2010#71
The maps are great, Curious, and are sure to help people who don't know the area.
I'm still ploughing through transcripts, etc - will post these asap - I'll dig out some of the timing stuff and post that as well

Sandra Lean
May 10, 2010#76
It hasn't been done yet, John.
Part of the reason has been the difficulty in getting all of the concrete facts.
A reconstruction done on the known timings etc would clearly show that the prosecution line is pretty much impossible, but a reconstruction based on the original statements, etc, would be a powerful counter to the suggestion that the prosecution line was ever even tenable in the fitst place.
Until all of the necessary documents have been made available, the latter isn't possible, but moves are afoot!!!

Corinne Mitchell
Sep 10, 2010#90
The SCCRC's first commitee meeting for Lukes case will be on the 18th October.2010. They hope to reach a decision by 31st May.

Corinne Mitchell
Sep 19, 2010#101
Well we are on our 4th set of legal teams now, we finally have legal teams sussed!!!!! We call the shots.....and we have all our boxes ticked!!!!
If we hadn't been so niave 6years ago we wouldn't be here now.....but 6 years on......we have learnt!!God have we learnt!! (Tapatalk)

Were the ‘moves’’ Sandra Lean was referring to related Graham Mann solicitors ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 04:25:37 PM
@)(++(*

Michelle Diskin Bates is in the “free and retry Luke Mitchell now” Facebook group

Michelle Moj Diskin-Bates (6 days ago)
Dear Group member, I can understand your confusion with all of the conflicting points raised on social media platforms. My advice would be to post a link to the Sandra Leen book. Most of us will NEVER have enough information to be able to answer every point/accusation. This is a way to let interested parties know where they can find clarity.

People are asking questions, which of course hoaxer Sandra Lean doesn’t give the answers to in her second book, but Michelle Diskin Bates answer to these questions is suggesting a link to Sandra book is posted

 @)(++(* @)(++(*

What a complete and utter fantasist this woman is

Corinne Mitchell
Sep 30, 2010#109
I wish I was Guest!!!Poker players can usually tell if someone is bluffing or not!
Surprising article by the Daily Record. For 7 years they have put articles in that were completely untrue and outragious and now with the help of Michelle Diskin they have printed a completely neutral article with only the headline letting it down.
The Midlothian Advertiser has always been fair to us only printing facts about Lukes case but none of the tabloids have ever followed suit. You can imagine my surprise when it was the Record who went with this article though the Daily Star had also mentioned it but didn't actually interview Michelle.
Could this be the media "turnaround" that we so desparately need??

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sister-miscarriage-justice-victim-barry-1071067

Michelle Diskin Bates

"Obviously, you don't support something unless you have gone and checked it out and really looked at the evidence.
"I'm a little bit of a researcher and I don't just take it on face value.  @)(++(*
"I go digging and go into all sorts of things and keep drilling down until I find what I'm looking for.  @)(++(*
"If I can't find a reason to support something, then I don't. But boy, if I can, I get straight on to those people that are campaigning and I'll tell them.
"In the Luke Mitchell case there is no evidence against him, so I can't see any reason why he would have been found guilty of the murder. @)(++(*
"I can't see any reason why he would even have been prosecuted. 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-killer-luke-mitchell-delighted-1071277
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 08, 2022, 05:10:44 PM
Corinne Mitchell
Sep 19, 2010#101
Well we are on our 4th set of legal teams now, we finally have legal teams sussed!!!!! We call the shots.....and we have all our boxes ticked!!!!
If we hadn't been so niave 6years ago we wouldn't be here now.....but 6 years on......we have learnt!!God have we learnt!![/color] (Tapatalk)

Were the ‘moves’’ Sandra Lean was referring to related Graham Mann solicitors ?

Graham Mann

Mentioned in Part 5
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/

Sandra Lean
“Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case
And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor

Angeline Aka Sandra Lean 11th of April 2010
The extent of the DNA evidence was not known to the family until they changed legal teams, following the failed appeal, as the previous team had not disclosed it to them.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 18, 2022, 06:10:39 PM
When did hoaxer Sandra Lean get the paperwork back btw?


27th June 2021
I do want to put it on public record that if anything goes into the public domain before the papers are collected from me it will not be me who put them there no I will not have given my agreement for anything to go out I will not do that

So on Wednesday the 30th of June after the case papers have been collected I will no longer be associated with Luke’s case in any professional capacity because decisions taken about the direction of the campaign can’t be reconciled with the work that I do


https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/


Or did she already have them saved to a digital file?

Was this in relation to Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 19, 2022, 03:00:06 PM
Part 121
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/16/killer-luke-mitchell-there-is-no-pride-to-be-had-sandra-lean-nor-of-course-scott-forbes-in-gaining-support-by-deception-part-121/

Part 122
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/16/killer-luke-mitchell-why-didnt-mother-corinne-or-older-brother-shane-mitchell-accompany-him-on-secluded-path-part-122/

Part 123
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/kindred-spirits-killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-part-123/

Part 124
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-more-lies-from-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-part-124/

Part 125
👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-fairytales-continue-part-125/

Part 126
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-role-is-clearly-to-smear-part-126/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 19, 2022, 03:56:02 PM
UPDATED - Part 126
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-role-is-clearly-to-smear-part-126/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 19, 2022, 05:37:07 PM
Part 127
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-beam-me-up-scottie-forbes-the-killers-missing-bike-part-127/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 20, 2022, 09:30:16 AM
27th June 2021
I do want to put it on public record that if anything goes into the public domain before the papers are collected from me it will not be me who put them there no I will not have given my agreement for anything to go out I will not do that

So on Wednesday the 30th of June after the case papers have been collected I will no longer be associated with Luke’s case in any professional capacity because decisions taken about the direction of the campaign can’t be reconciled with the work that I do


https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/

Has some of the content of liar Scott Forbes book come direct from killer Luke Mitchell, his cruel and callous mother, hoaxer Sandra Lean or a combination of all four of them?

And did hoaxer Sandra Lean direct this to Scott Forbes

There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 20, 2022, 09:56:23 AM
27th June 2021
I do want to put it on public record that if anything goes into the public domain before the papers are collected from me it will not be me who put them there no I will not have given my agreement for anything to go out I will not do that

So on Wednesday the 30th of June after the case papers have been collected I will no longer be associated with Luke’s case in any professional capacity because decisions taken about the direction of the campaign can’t be reconciled with the work that I do


https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/

And was it Scott Forbes who was on a ‘methadone programme’ when he met Mark Kane ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 20, 2022, 11:38:41 AM
Scott Forbes
2 days ago
I can only speak for myself here. Yes it's very frustrating. I was away from direct involvement in driving the case for years. C19 and writing my book changed that thankfully. The last year there has been breakthroughs, the last couple of months real progress and the last week even more.  Please watch the Ice Cream Wars(BBC scotland), cases like this are frustrating But, I've no doubt at some stage this case will break! I hope sooner rather than later, but it will break!

Neither killers Joe Steel or Thomas Campbell (‘Ice Cream Wars’) ever proved their, actual, factual innocence


Foolish Stuart Dempsey Follow’s Toxic Abuser Michelle Moore & ‘Balls Of Steel’ Scott Forbes..
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/01/killer-luke-mitchell-foolish-stuart-dempsey-follows-toxic-abuser-michelle-moore-balls-of-steel-scott-forbes-part-113/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 21, 2022, 06:23:40 PM
 Mag Sue
3 days ago
The second I heard about this I knew something wasn't right. The weird things people have said about him were completely off. I'm from an old mining town myself and so can say that what this guy says about how gossip spreads is absolutely bang on. The best thing I ever did was get out. The way the police and the public have pinned this crime on Luke is worse than a witch hunt. "Oh he's a bit weird, must've been him eh". Classic mining town mentality. I really hope he gets his name cleared and is compensated for the years he has been behind bars.


Scott Forbes
3 days ago (edited)
👏👏 a modern day witch hunt.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 12:25:56 AM
Part 130 Latest On Tom Halliday, ‘Mr Big’ Ron M & Scott ‘Beam Me Up Scottie’ Forbes (Part 130)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

Scott Forbes
4 hours ago
The 'missing knife' as told by the police and hack reporters: looking at productions earlier the Description “Swabbings of jackpyke knife - handle and blade”
No reference number -  it’s not even got a police production label on it is on record and swabs are saved. The only missing knife was a large Bowie knife found in a skip at Homefarm on Newbattle Road, a farm a man running like a 'bat out of hell' towards on the night of the murder. The case stinks to the high heavens

Michele Scott
2 hours ago
 @Divine Spark  no missing knife of Luke’s I’m afraid … yet more disinformation.  Ive added a link to a report today - yet more details uncovered by Scott

Michele Scott
1 hour ago
Won’t let me add the link - have a look at Edinburgh live

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 12:40:19 AM
Part 130 Latest On Tom Halliday, ‘Mr Big’ Ron M & Scott ‘Beam Me Up Scottie’ Forbes (Part 130)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

UPDATED 👆🏽

Suspect the ‘legal breakthrough’ will have something to do with this
👇

”When Corinne received information about a credible suspect very early in the case, she called Judith to alert her. The call went to the answering machine. Judith called the police, who came and set up recording equipment on her phone.. https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg391168.html#msg391168

And will lead to nowhere
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 02:18:49 AM
Quote
There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/

or Corinne Mitchell
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 10:57:58 AM
 
Scott Forbes
3 hours ago (edited)
 @Michele Scott  the skunting knife that's reported as the 'missing knife' isn't missing, police swabbed it, didn't log the production but the swabs are preserved. Same with the Essay that didn't exists, more lies and corruption. The essay and its edited vetsion are in the productions!!  More news coming soon

Scott Forbes
3 hours ago
 @Michele Scott  the Sun highlighted the story Re missing knife to 👏👏

Scott Forbes
1 hour ago
 @CryingLightning19  what a contribution to such a serious case. You must be proud of yourself 👍

Scott Forbes
1 hour ago (edited)
 @dodiblack  since I published my book, I could write another one of what's come to light. The Essay I said MK wrote murder of a women in the woods, that they claimed they didn't find  was named 'No Remorse',  about a junkie (MK) killing/robbing a women in the woods.  Tutor was that impressed that she asked for a follow up. So two essays in an envelope in productions (labeled) but they tell crown No essays....rotten to the core

dodiblack
14 minutes ago
 @Scott Forbes So it was the police who says there was no essay not the tutor?? ken I'm hoping not just the murderer is brought to justice but also every single police officer involved in this blatant corruption should be  jailed too .

Scott Forbes
9 minutes ago
 @Divine Spark  the only Bowie logged was never forensically tested and then 'disappeared' from productions

Scott Forbes
5 minutes ago
 @dodiblack  yes, the tutor said she couldn't recall an essay with a Tile: 'Killing a women in the woods'. Tutor also said, she didn't like me as I didn't go to her class as I didn't like feminist poetry. And cops fed nonsense to the crown. In my experience the crown and cops will turn against each other....watch this space 😉

UPDATED Part 130
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on November 22, 2022, 03:18:51 PM
Been a while since i looked in. Great reading in the blog Nic.

I have to say, the soap opera continues, i have just spent the last hour reading through the comments section in that YouTube podcast. The behaviour of one individual in particular, the self-proclaimed professional lawyer, Mr Forbes. I have always suspected all along that he was unhinged, reading through those comments the rantings & ravings of someone that is quite clearly mentally unstable. In a sense, i'm glad that he has come out and showed his true character, and he no longer hides in the shadows and behind fake names. How on earth anyone can trust such a character is beyond me. 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on November 22, 2022, 03:24:03 PM

Scott Forbes
3 hours ago (edited)
 @Michele Scott  the skunting knife that's reported as the 'missing knife' isn't missing, police swabbed it, didn't log the production but the swabs are preserved. Same with the Essay that didn't exists, more lies and corruption. The essay and its edited vetsion are in the productions!!  More news coming soon

Scott Forbes
3 hours ago
 @Michele Scott  the Sun highlighted the story Re missing knife to 👏👏

Scott Forbes
1 hour ago
 @CryingLightning19  what a contribution to such a serious case. You must be proud of yourself 👍

Scott Forbes
1 hour ago (edited)
 @dodiblack  since I published my book, I could write another one of what's come to light. The Essay I said MK wrote murder of a women in the woods, that they claimed they didn't find  was named 'No Remorse',  about a junkie (MK) killing/robbing a women in the woods.  Tutor was that impressed that she asked for a follow up. So two essays in an envelope in productions (labeled) but they tell crown No essays....rotten to the core

UPDATED Part 130
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

I honestly do not believe at points Mr Forbes actually understands what he is saying. The appeal around MK and the essay - There 'labelled' in productions. The legal team and the time of the appeal, the same 'labelled productions' and he is applying these as the ones he was on about, about 'killing' a girl in the woods. Such a disturbing essay that i) The tutor asked for a follow up, ii) A follow up produced. and iii) He was clearly investigated much more than these people stated he was not.

So NOT hidden, there "labelled" in these productions, that the appeal team had access to - "Rotton to the core --------" The most disturbing aspect of this is Mr Forbes actually believes they have found something, and one does wonder if this is the "Stunning new evidence" they feel they have - Shakes one's head.

So, and again Mr Forbes, not "hidden" or of course buried anywhere, and one would place a small bet on these essays being embellished in your usual fashion. In plain sight for all to see Mr Forbes, the Crown, any legal team Mitchell has had Mr Forbes - Do attempt to be intellectual at least. So, in there will of course be the difference of night and day no doubt. What you claimed they consisted of and the reality of what they actually were. Such as that imaginary massive gouge upon his face that had disappeared by the time of him arriving at the police station Mr Forbes, nor of course any gouge at all on his face on the CCTV footage.

So, it cancels out completely the claims that MK was NOT investigated which really was something to do with the appeal being put in, was it not Mr Forbes, your claims of the police doing nothing. That MK was not out his head on a cocktail of drink and drugs at 10pm in the evening Mr Forbes when running into Dalkeith to buy his booze before close of day. That there is absolutely nothing that placed MK on Newbattle road. Nor the absolute fact that both the sightings were of one and the same male seen on either side of that path Mr Forbes.

Like the knife in the skip fiasco - Investigated and tested at the time, did NOT have anything of the victim upon it. Would NOT be any part of the actual trial and case for this reason as such.

But and again with the above - and again evidence Mr Forbes. There was not some random MK waiting in no-mans land on the off chance that some lonely girl would wander into no-mans land, an area that led to nowhere. There was absolutely NO forensic evidence of any altercation beginning anywhere other than in that area of woodland, and of course, sadly ending there too.

And the constant shaking of one's head around this missing 5ltrs - A woodland and soil, not a hard nonporous surface, bouts of heavy rainfall over the course of many hours before the forensic team arrived. Various different species of wildlife ------------
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on November 22, 2022, 03:30:31 PM
Scott Forbes
2 days ago
I can only speak for myself here. Yes it's very frustrating. I was away from direct involvement in driving the case for years. C19 and writing my book changed that thankfully. The last year there has been breakthroughs, the last couple of months real progress and the last week even more.  Please watch the Ice Cream Wars(BBC scotland), cases like this are frustrating But, I've no doubt at some stage this case will break! I hope sooner rather than later, but it will break!

Neither killers Joe Steel or Thomas Campbell (‘Ice Cream Wars’) ever proved their, actual, factual innocence


Foolish Stuart Dempsey Follow’s Toxic Abuser Michelle Moore & ‘Balls Of Steel’ Scott Forbes..
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/01/killer-luke-mitchell-foolish-stuart-dempsey-follows-toxic-abuser-michelle-moore-balls-of-steel-scott-forbes-part-113/

You are spot on Rusty and the loose cannon just keeps on giving, constantly exposing his own lies, and those of his fellow enablers. The being Mitchell's lawyer for six years, then doubled to 12yrs in a recent article, to then being an ex-solicitor, to then being his legal team again, to then stating he had NO involvement with the case for a long time - That web of deceit constantly getting stickier.

I had mentioned last year of Mitchell being let loose, and of Ms Lean concern, and the vessel chosen to be under that control of being Mitchell's voice, being Mr Forbes. The control he had in the past with his mother keeping a check on things, sadly ill now and a replacement needed?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 05:05:31 PM
A Long Walk To Justice
The truth is coming!!
 
Down with police tunnel vision, then leaving out evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-car-mechanic-claims-found-25565097?fbclid=IwAR08V8Y-yMZ_TZpGiOiNGPxTfeNEcwRoYYdLaBk-V1r5iM7uTD0ik4dK_VI

Yes it is
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 05:32:09 PM
I honestly do not believe at points Mr Forbes actually understands what he is saying.

He most definitely doesn’t
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 05:36:57 PM
"Rotton to the core --------"

The most disturbing aspect of this is Mr Forbes actually believes they have found something

Sandra Lean playing along
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 06:51:32 PM
There 'labelled' in productions

Isn’t Matt Elliott in Scotland filming Scott Forbes

Matt Elliott
Petition handover: Scottish Parliament 16/11/22
Thank-you to everyone who turned up yesterday, signed the petition, wrote to your MP ,shared this injustice and just for caring.
Dr Sandra Lean has worked tirelessly on this case, and is truly grateful to you all and the progress WE are making. Yesterday we made history.
Special mention to Scott Forbes, Neil, Rachel, Sharon and all the Facebook team who work tirelessly, and respectfully ,in the background...you know who you are.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOk1TSt9268

(At around 2:19) Matt (Matthew) Elliott edited the above and has made Sandra Lean and Russell Findlay’s handshake appear very different to the handshakes that took place in reality  - in the unedited version (available to view on Fb)

In reality - Russell Findlay first shook the hand of gouger Scott Forbes, while charlatan Sandra Lean put her hand out, and waited with her hand out for split seconds before the handshake actually took place
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 07:22:40 PM
The behaviour of one individual in particular, the self-proclaimed professional lawyer, Mr Forbes. I have always suspected all along that he was unhinged, reading through those comments the rantings & ravings of someone that is quite clearly mentally unstable.

See Louise Pugh who inserted herself in the Welsh case of the psychopathic sexually deviant killer of Mandy Power, her mother Doris and young daughters Emily and Katie

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mandy-power-dai-morris-clydach-22104806
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 22, 2022, 07:45:27 PM
I had mentioned last year of Mitchell being let loose, and of Ms Lean concern, and the vessel chosen to be under that control of being Mitchell's voice, being Mr Forbes. P

Scott Forbes
7 days ago
 @Smart Duck  here is how it works. The person with the knowledge answers who he/she feels like answering and on this occasion I smelled a rat, an ignorant/troll wanting gossip that has nothing to do with the case or the questioner 👍

 @)(++(*

Scott Forbes
7 days ago
 @Smart Duck  classic transference....

 @)(++(*

Scott Forbes
7 days ago
 @Smart Duck  this is just manufactured lies!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 23, 2022, 04:58:51 PM
Govan,G51,
1 hour ago
 @Scott Forbes 
GRRRRRR,
With Blood on a Large Expensive Knife   ,
After a child has been killed , And Not Scientifically Tested, 
Beyond Belief.

 *&^^&

👇
Forensic tests on knife found near Jodi - 23rd Aug 2003
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/aug/23/ukcrime.kirstyscott

Part 130
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

Part 131
👇

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/22/killer-luke-mitchell-how-on-earth-can-anyone-trust-such-a-character-as-scott-forbes-part-131/

Part 132
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/22/killer-luke-mitchell-scott-forbes-applying-his-lack-of-brain-cells-the-wrong-way-more-on-innocent-mark-kane-part-132/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 24, 2022, 12:19:25 PM
Stuart Henderson
@StuartH79224390
Replying to
@hawaii_fivo
INTERVIEW SCOT FORBES AGAIN!
12:48 AM · Nov 24, 2022
·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/StuartH79224390/status/1595579954187874304

Fivo
@hawaii_fivo
Replying to
@StuartH79224390
Myself and Scott have something even better planned mate you shall know very very soon😉
4:54 AM · Nov 24, 2022
·Twitter for iPhone


Can see his YouTube channel getting pulled
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 24, 2022, 01:39:16 PM
Scott Forbes
19 minutes ago (edited)
 @OurWilliam  still being a coward hiding behind anominity being cheeky. You must be proud being a sweetywife 👍 stock car racing in Mayfield is a big thing for lads that are allowed out by their mums,  I'll make it a full house for your small mind, Bill Bryson (A Bryson family) was into it and the Dylan family to 👍

 @)(++(*

More projections from pretend lawyer Scott Forbes

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 25, 2022, 01:39:52 PM
Ronnie Mothersole
Innocence Fraud what other missing bike
I don't know what you mean
How many bikes did he have
I know he had a skateboard thing
I have already addressed the scrap yard with you and the reason
But you never replied

What ‘skateboard thing’ did killer Luke Mitchell have or has Ronnie Mothersole made that up?

And why doens’t he know about the killers missing bike?

Part 127 Fantasy ‘Lawyer’ Scott ‘Beam Me Up Scottie!’ Forbes & The Killers Missing Bike

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-beam-me-up-scottie-forbes-the-killers-missing-bike-part-127/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2022, 01:00:59 PM
Ronnie Mothersole
Innocence Fraud what makes you so evil
Why attack people
If you're as sane as you make out how come you don't troll Donald Findlay QC
Your actions could cause someone to commit suicide
Also what about the independent inquiry
And they decide Luke Mitchell is not guilty
Are you going to target those people as well
And the law makers who will most definitely have to change the law
What about the people who signed the petition
Are you going to target them as well
Listen innocence Fraud call me
We can have a chat
How is this all going to end How many people are you tracking
What is the end goal for youAs I don't think that you would accept it if Luke Mitchell is Found not guilty in a independent inquiry
What is behind all of this hate and how many people are you going to hurt
Before you are satisfied
What is it going to take
Give me a call We can have a little chat ✌️

Part 130 Latest On Tom Halliday, Pathetic ‘Mr Big’ Ronnie Mothersole & Scott ‘Beam Me Up Scottie’ Forbes
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 27, 2022, 04:23:48 PM
Ronnie Mothersole
Innocence Fraud what makes you so evil
Why attack people
If you're as sane as you make out how come you don't troll Donald Findlay QC
Your actions could cause someone to commit suicide
Also what about the independent inquiry
And they decide Luke Mitchell is not guilty
Are you going to target those people as well
And the law makers who will most definitely have to change the law
What about the people who signed the petition
Are you going to target them as well
Listen innocence Fraud call me
We can have a chat
How is this all going to end How many people are you tracking
What is the end goal for youAs I don't think that you would accept it if Luke Mitchell is Found not guilty in a independent inquiry
What is behind all of this hate and how many people are you going to hurt
Before you are satisfied
What is it going to take
Give me a call We can have a little chat ✌️

Part 130 Latest On Tom Halliday, Pathetic ‘Mr Big’ Ronnie Mothersole & Scott ‘Beam Me Up Scottie’ Forbes
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/21/killer-luke-mitchell-latest-on-tom-halliday-mr-big-ron-m/

Ronnie Mothersole was asked if he had ever been diagnosed with psychopathy

Ronnie Mothersole
Innocence Fraud well ye by you
It also seems to be your favourite word
I remember a few years ago I told Professor David Wilson
That he had Those traits
Experts will tell you that it doesn't mean that you are anything
A lot of people have those traits
Including you combined with a evilness
Makes you pretty dangerous
Like I said give me a call we can have a chat about it
I believe it's in your DNA but there are ways to control it
You don't have to be nasty to people there are ways to move in a positive direction
Think about it
It's good to talk ✌️

Ronnie Mothersole
Innocence Fraud I am not going to be nasty to you
It's not my bag
Unless you want me to
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 30, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
I have to say, the soap opera continues, i have just spent the last hour reading through the comments section in that YouTube podcast. The behaviour of one individual in particular, the self-proclaimed professional lawyer, Mr Forbes. I have always suspected all along that he was unhinged, reading through those comments the rantings & ravings of someone that is quite clearly mentally unstable. In a sense, i'm glad that he has come out and showed his true character, and he no longer hides in the shadows and behind fake names. How on earth anyone can trust such a character is beyond me.

Hadn’t seen a lot of the comments on that video as didn’t have the YT app downloaded. More comments appear to show up in the app

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on November 30, 2022, 09:24:57 PM
Hi everyone, new to the forum but been following the case for the last year or two. I must say after watching the CH5 programme, any credibility for the "defence" team of SL & SF went out the window. If SF is the best LM can do for a lawyer then it kind of sums it all up.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 01:17:24 AM
Hi everyone, new to the forum but been following the case for the last year or two. I must say after watching the CH5 programme, any credibility for the "defence" team of SL & SF went out the window. If SF is the best LM can do for a lawyer then it kind of sums it all up.

Hi Kenmore welcome to the forum

What do you make of the killer telling Judith Jones he went to meet [Name removed] on his bike

“….they believed Luke was coming up the path on his bike and that Jodi left her home with him at teatime
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448524.html#msg448524

And do you think it was Shane Mitchell who helped dispose of said bike?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 02:59:59 PM
Part 143 Warped Minded Abuser Nicki Mac (McIntyre) & Her Deluded Fantasy ‘Lawyer’ & ‘Sweetie Wife’ Boyfriend Scott Forbes
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/01/killer-luke-mitchell-warped-minded-abuser-nicki-mac-mcintyre-her-deluded-fantasy-lawyer-sweetie-wife-boyfriend-scott-forbes-part-143/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 01, 2022, 06:21:12 PM
I'm not entirely sure about the bike but SM's role in the whole affair is concerning and will likely never be known.  Having just watched the full SF Premeditated Patter podcast I can't believe a single thing he says but the comments section is full of support. Zero credibility and probably the only platform SF will get anywhere apart from fellow con-artist SL.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 06:35:37 PM
I'm not entirely sure about the bike but SM's role in the whole affair is concerning and will likely never be known.

Do you think Shane Mitchell has ever disclosed to one of his partners, or someone else, his involvement in ‘events’ that day?

And do you think one day they will speak out - or could have already spoken out?

Do you think Shane Mitchell has ever spoken to a therapist or doctor about what he did that day, and about all the lies he told?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 01, 2022, 06:56:35 PM
Do you think Shane Mitchell has ever disclosed to one of his partners, or someone else, his involvement in ‘events’ that day?  Possibly

And do you think one day they will speak out - or could have already spoken out?  Unlikely

Do you think Shane Mitchell has ever spoken to a therapist or doctor about what he did that day, and about all the lies he told?  Not sure

I think if he did speak out he would be perjuring himself and opening up to assisting/concealing a murderer.  Same with CM.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 07:10:24 PM
I think if he did speak out he would be perjuring himself and opening up to assisting/concealing a murderer.  Same with CM.

Like liars Lynne Hall and Phil Hall in killer Simon Hall’s case

Apparently Phil Hall wouldn’t speak to his adoptive killer son after he admitted to his murder

Phil Hall would apparently hang the phone up if his adoptive killer son ever phoned the house in Capel, and Phil sat in his car when he took his wife Lynne Hall on a prison visit* - just before he (the killer) killed himself

Only Lynne Hall’s name appears on the prison vistor list

Did Shane Mitchell last visit his killer brother in 2004?

What do killer Luke Mitchell’s visit logs evidence? Anyone know?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 07:27:59 PM
Having just watched the full SF Premeditated Patter podcast I can't believe a single thing he says but the comments section is full of support. Zero credibility and probably the only platform SF will get anywhere apart from fellow con-artist SL.

Apparently you can buy ‘views’ on YouTube.

Wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that’s what PP and/or fraudster Scott Forbes did with that video
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 07:36:57 PM
I think if he did speak out he would be perjuring himself and opening up to assisting/concealing a murderer.  Same with CM.

Liar Shane Mitchell couldn’t seem to get out of Dalkeith quick enough

And hasn’t it been said Shane was threatened?

Who exatly was Shane Mitchell threatened by and why?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 07:47:20 PM
I'm not entirely sure about the bike

Was the bike mentioned by any of the witnesses at all during the 42 day trial?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 07:48:37 PM
I'm not entirely sure about the bike

And what exactly did Judith Jones tell the police killer Luke Mitchell had said about his bike?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2022, 08:01:34 PM
Hi everyone, new to the forum but been following the case for the last year or two. I must say after watching the CH5 programme, any credibility for the "defence" team of SL & SF went out the window. If SF is the best LM can do for a lawyer then it kind of sums it all up.

Was it pretend lawyer Scott Forbes who told Douglas Walker of the sun

”This could lead to a judicial review which could even pave a way to his release.”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2022, 11:53:17 AM
Part 144 Warped Minded Abuser, Compulsive Liar & Fantasist Scott Forbes - ‘A Puppet In Sandra Lean’s Games’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/02/killer-luke-mitchell-warped-minded-abuser-compulsive-liar-fantasist-scott-forbes-a-puppet-in-sandra-leans-games-part-144/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2022, 12:54:48 PM
Part 144 Warped Minded Abuser, Compulsive Liar & Fantasist Scott Forbes - ‘A Puppet In Sandra Lean’s Games’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/02/killer-luke-mitchell-warped-minded-abuser-compulsive-liar-fantasist-scott-forbes-a-puppet-in-sandra-leans-games-part-144/

UPDATED 👆🏽
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2022, 02:23:19 PM
Part 145 Deluded Fantasist ‘Lawyer’ Scott Forbes Just Makes Thing Up
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/02/killer-luke-mitchell-warped-minded-abuser-compulsive-liar-fantasist-scott-forbes-a-puppet-in-sandra-leans-games-part-144/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2022, 04:04:21 PM
Part 144 Warped Minded Abuser, Compulsive Liar & Fantasist Scott Forbes - ‘A Puppet In Sandra Lean’s Games’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/02/killer-luke-mitchell-warped-minded-abuser-compulsive-liar-fantasist-scott-forbes-a-puppet-in-sandra-leans-games-part-144/
👆🏽
Further UPDATES
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 02, 2022, 04:13:00 PM

“….they believed Luke was coming up the path on his bike and that Jodi left her home with him at teatime
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg448524.html#msg448524

Did killer Luke Mitchell cycle up the path and meet [Name removed] at her end of the path and hide his other bike somewhere?



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 03, 2022, 02:23:10 PM
I’ve been involved since the very first day it happened” ~ Scott ‘sweetywife’ Forbes

Yet waited how many years before mentioning innocent Mark Kane ?

Mark Kane Aka Mr Rabbit
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar.

I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light.

Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family.

He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at!

What type of human being does such a thing?

He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag.

All of this I reported to the police.

Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 03, 2022, 06:56:17 PM
How long can retired bank robber Walter Mitty LLB be a trainee solicitor at almost 60 years old? Sooner or later, if paid employment is not forthcomong suggests you're not up to the required standard. Or is he trying to outdo Findlay QC with 50 years experience. What I don't understand is the gullibility of LM's supporters who believe everything they read on the internet and demand justice with the like of phoney criminologist SL as the pied piper.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 03, 2022, 08:43:50 PM
How long can retired bank robber Walter Mitty LLB be a trainee solicitor at almost 60 years old? Sooner or later, if paid employment is not forthcomong suggests you're not up to the required standard. Or is he trying to outdo Findlay QC with 50 years experience. What I don't understand is the gullibility of LM's supporters who believe everything they read on the internet and demand justice with the like of phoney criminologist SL as the pied piper.

The TV show and books

Suspect many of these people also ‘believe’ many of the people/convictions labelled as a ‘miscarriage of justice’ are also ‘innocent’ - even though the vast majority have never proven their actual, factual innocence
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 10, 2022, 02:25:19 PM
Graham Mann

Mentioned in Part 5
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/21/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-4/

Sandra Lean
“Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case
And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor

Angeline Aka Sandra Lean 11th of April 2010
The extent of the DNA evidence was not known to the family until they changed legal teams, following the failed appeal, as the previous team had not disclosed it to them.

What do Donald Findlay and co’s notes say on what was explained to killer Luke Mitchell’s about ‘the DNA’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 10, 2022, 04:49:08 PM
How long can retired bank robber Walter Mitty LLB be a trainee solicitor at almost 60 years old? Sooner or later, if paid employment is not forthcomong suggests you're not up to the required standard. Or is he trying to outdo Findlay QC with 50 years experience. What I don't understand is the gullibility of LM's supporters who believe everything they read on the internet and demand justice with the like of phoney criminologist SL as the pied piper.

Sandra Lean has a degree in criminology. Please explain how that equates with your ‘phoney’ label? You may think that she’s rubbish at criminology but that does not make her a phoney.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 10, 2022, 08:17:43 PM
Yes I do believe she is a phoney; intended to deceive or mislead.  She may have a degree in Criminology but does not apply any academic schools of thought or theories to the [Name removed] case, cherry picking certain parts and fingerpointing and smearing practically every every other male that was in the vicinity. She ignores any questions that don't meet her view and cannot make a rational argument.

Writing a book that subsequently had at least two false MOJ verdicts overturned, Hall and Prout, and having fellow bluffer SF alongside her can only damage any hope of credibilty within criminology circles. There's nothing wrong with an amateur approach but calling herself Dr as though she is a renowned expert in the field is a joke.  As far as I'm aware she has never been employed as a criminologist.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 11, 2022, 01:41:47 AM
Sandra Lean has a degree in criminology.

She may have a degree in Criminology

Sandra Lean has a degree in social science (‘Psychology and Sociology, with electives in Criminology’)

Her PhD is apparently in philosophy
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 12, 2022, 07:24:43 PM
and having fellow bluffer SF alongside her can only damage any hope of credibilty within criminology circles. There's nothing wrong with an amateur approach but calling herself Dr as though she is a renowned expert in the field is a joke. 

Sandra Lean 13th June 2021
Quote
A Luke supporter made a post questioning had Scott Forbes ever been Luke’s lawyer and how that could of been and it was really quite negative so I answered it and said ask Luke he’ll tell you and the post that came back was along the lines of yeah he had some part in it but he was not his lawyer

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/partial-transcript-of-sandra-leans-13th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-update-re-factually-guilty-convicted-murderer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-campaign/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 12, 2022, 07:34:02 PM
Wrand having fellow bluffer SF alongside her can only damage any hope of credibilty within criminology circles.

Con-artist Sandra Lean blagging here https://youtu.be/Yg9-_wpxoTk that fantasist Scott Forbes was ‘involved in the case from the start’

 *&^^&

Was Scott Forbes on a methadone programme when he started at Newbattle Abbey college?


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 12, 2022, 07:38:26 PM
Sandra Lean - 27th June 2021
Quote
There are two points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/


Was Sandra Lean referring to warped minded fantasist Scott Forbes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 13, 2022, 03:14:07 PM
Is killer Luke Mitchell currently representing himself ?

In Feb 2010 Sandra Lean stated the following;

“In Scotland, the only way an individual can get access to their own paperwork is if they choose to try to represent themselves - so long as a solicitor is working on the case, the documents officially are the property of the solicitor, and not the client. Many people find this quite shocking - the solicitor can choose not to show his/her own client paperwork relating to their case, and furthermore, is forbidden to disclose any documents to a "third party."

This, of course, makes getting paperwork to journalists rather tricky, since solicitors face action by the law society if they are caught passing documents to anyone”
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s80.html


Does warped minded fantasist Scott Forbes have the case files?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 13, 2022, 09:38:43 PM
Is killer Luke Mitchell currently representing himself ?

In Feb 2010 Sandra Lean stated the following;

“In Scotland, the only way an individual can get access to their own paperwork is if they choose to try to represent themselves - so long as a solicitor is working on the case, the documents officially are the property of the solicitor, and not the client. Many people find this quite shocking - the solicitor can choose not to show his/her own client paperwork relating to their case, and furthermore, is forbidden to disclose any documents to a "third party."

This, of course, makes getting paperwork to journalists rather tricky, since solicitors face action by the law society if they are caught passing documents to anyone”
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s80.html


Does warped minded fantasist Scott Forbes have the case files?

What does the Scottish law society say about Scott Forbes latest innocence fraud PR stunt
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on December 14, 2022, 09:45:51 AM
What does the Scottish law society say about Scott Forbes, period?...

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?LastName=Forbes&FirstName=Scott&OrganisationName=&Postcode=&type=sol (https://www.lawscot.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?LastName=Forbes&FirstName=Scott&OrganisationName=&Postcode=&type=sol)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 14, 2022, 11:52:42 AM
Yes I do believe she is a phoney; intended to deceive or mislead.  She may have a degree in Criminology but does not apply any academic schools of thought or theories to the [Name removed] case, cherry picking certain parts and fingerpointing and smearing practically every every other male that was in the vicinity. She ignores any questions that don't meet her view and cannot make a rational argument.

Writing a book that subsequently had at least two false MOJ verdicts overturned, Hall and Prout, and having fellow bluffer SF alongside her can only damage any hope of credibilty within criminology circles. There's nothing wrong with an amateur approach but calling herself Dr as though she is a renowned expert in the field is a joke.  As far as I'm aware she has never been employed as a criminologist.

Could you please expand on what academic schools of thought or theories she should be applying in as much detail as possible?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 14, 2022, 12:58:18 PM
Fantasist Scott Forbes latest nonsense

Auld Mick
@AuldM
Replying to
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
 @Naomi_TV
  and 15 others
James Mathews from Sky who asked luke questions only police could have asked under caution is local to Dalkieth and his bro Brian was local cop in 2003, who spent his time telling the community that luke was guilty.....coincidence that James knew what questions to ask: think not
6:10 am · 13 Dec 2022

Matthew Elliott
@mattelliottphot
Replying to
@AuldM
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
  and 15 others
It was more of an ‘interrogation’ of a child who was medicated at the time. CM was also told this report wouldn’t be shown on the day of Jodi’s funeral.
9:34 pm · 13 Dec 2022
https://twitter.com/AuldM/status/1602546597287677952

Corinne Mitchell could have stopped the ‘interrogation’ of her killer son Luke Mitchell at any point - she didn’t! Why?

Why was Corinne Mitchell so desperate to get her and her killer son in front of TV cameras on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral?

Auld Mick
@AuldM
Replying to
@mattelliottphot
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
  and 15 others
James Mathews is local, his grandad a miner, his bro the local cop, who helped frame a school child
9:37 pm · 13 Dec 2022

Matthew Elliott
@mattelliottphot
Replying to
@AuldM
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
  and 15 others
It’s all coming out…
9:39 pm · 13 Dec 2022


Auld Mick
@AuldM
Replying to
@mattelliottphot
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
  and 15 others
I'm the cause 😉
9:39 pm · 13 Dec 2022
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 14, 2022, 01:06:40 PM
Matthew Elliott
@mattelliottphot
I wonder how many actually understand how a narrative is ‘adopted’ by the prosecution and fed to the jury…
Did this happen in Luke Mitchell’s case?
ABSOLUTELY!
@AuldM
@WeKnowTheyKnow1
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
@SandraLean5
@Naomi_TV
@Jerome_Elaut
 #justiceforlukemitchell
9:44 am · 14 Dec 2022

Auld Mick
@AuldM
Replying to
@mattelliottphot
@WeKnowTheyKnow1
  and 4 others
The police and prosecutor worked hand in hand. If any witnesses gave evidence contrary to police narrative, they were ignored, smeared or bullied. Evidence that questioned the narrative was hidden or destroyed
9:47 am · 14 Dec 2022


Matthew Elliott is a ‘super-fan’ of psychopathic and sadistic child killers


Matthew Elliott
@mattelliottphot
Happy Birthday
@damienechols
 I hope it doesn’t come and leave on silent feet.
4:45 pm · 11 Dec 2022
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 14, 2022, 05:41:06 PM
Could you please expand on what academic schools of thought or theories she should be applying in as much detail as possible?



Sure. A counter-argument would be a good place to start. All I've heard is the poor laddie was at home mashing tatties with his invisible brother. What about questioning why LM didn't go down the path to meet his girlfriend but waited at the end of Newbattle Rd and even on it. It would have taken 5 mins to meet his girlfriend but he waited for 45 mins (?).  If you're going to have a balanced argument then explore all angles not point the finger at MK and numerous other local males while ignoring other possibilities. It just comes across as rambling nonsense and deflection.  Bombarding football forums under various false identities is not the work of a credible author.


I'm not a criminologist but have studied it at undergrad level. Possible theories to test the author's argument could be: subcultural/social control/power control/conditioning/mental disorder/deviancy/structure of personality, etc. why did the killer commit the crime and what caused him to do it?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 14, 2022, 08:14:21 PM
Could you please expand on what academic schools of thought or theories she should be applying in as much detail as possible?



Sure. A counter-argument would be a good place to start. All I've heard is the poor laddie was at home mashing tatties with his invisible brother. What about questioning why LM didn't go down the path to meet his girlfriend but waited at the end of Newbattle Rd and even on it. It would have taken 5 mins to meet his girlfriend but he waited for 45 mins (?).  If you're going to have a balanced argument then explore all angles not point the finger at MK and numerous other local males while ignoring other possibilities. It just comes across as rambling nonsense and deflection.  Bombarding football forums under various false identities is not the work of a credible author.


I'm not a criminologist but have studied it at undergrad level. Possible theories to test the author's argument could be: subcultural/social control/power control/conditioning/mental disorder/deviancy/structure of personality, etc. why did the killer commit the crime and what caused him to do it?

A counter argument to your ‘counter argument’ is why alarm bells didn’t ring with Jodi’s mum if Jodi had left her home before 5 yet hadn’t met Luke almost 50 minutes later? Did her mother killer her? Of course not but it does clearly demonstrate the paucity of extrapolating without accurate knowledge.

And to test any of the theories above you must be sure the person convicted committed the crime. Just because you are able to apply some of the elements above does not necessarily mean that they are in any way relevant to the crime committed.

But of course you’re right, you’re not a criminologist. Dr Lean, on the other hand, is.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 14, 2022, 09:22:23 PM
A counter argument to your ‘counter argument’ is why alarm bells didn’t ring with Jodi’s mum if Jodi had left her home before 5 yet hadn’t met Luke almost 50 minutes later? Did her mother killer her? Of course not but it does clearly demonstrate the paucity of extrapolating without accurate knowledge.

And to test any of the theories above you must be sure the person convicted committed the crime. Just because you are able to apply some of the elements above does not necessarily mean that they are in any way relevant to the crime committed.

But of course you’re right, you’re not a criminologist. Dr Lean, on the other hand, is.

She may well be but she doesn't act like one and I'm not sure if she's yet had a MOJ case overturned or set aside after 10+ years as a criminologist and has at least 2 blatant published discredited errors in Prout and Hall.

I respect your opinion but I don't believe a word that SL or SF says. The smirking and laughing on podcasts doesn't help either.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Guiltyascharged on December 14, 2022, 09:32:00 PM
All these qualifications and yet she has worked various other jobs over the years. How come no ones hiring someone with such knowledge?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 15, 2022, 12:03:46 AM
A counter argument to your ‘counter argument’ is why alarm bells didn’t ring with Jodi’s mum if Jodi had left her home before 5 yet hadn’t met Luke almost 50 minutes later? Did her mother killer her? Of course not but it does clearly demonstrate the paucity of extrapolating without accurate knowledge.

And to test any of the theories above you must be sure the person convicted committed the crime. Just because you are able to apply some of the elements above does not necessarily mean that they are in any way relevant to the crime committed.

But of course you’re right, you’re not a criminologist. Dr Lean, on the other hand, is.

There is NO counter argument at all, not even a snifter of one. Another feeble attempt by Mitchell's defence - Always good to have a refresher around this claimed comparison to debate.

LM eventually, after changes had to be made. Is on Newbattle Road (claimed) for the best part of 90mins. The claim is of waiting and looking out for Jodi. He had claimed to be walking out to meet with her, he did not get very far. The lad is twiddling his thumbs doing nothing for around 90mins. Time is dragging and dragging. He placed a call to his mother, the claim was to ask If Jodi had been to the house.

Two slips happened here whilst trying to make up any reason for that call other than the truth of course. That the girl somehow got past him whilst he was looking out for her, that he also knew his mother was in the garden still. On that miserable night, idling her time in the garden it is claimed enjoying the fresh air. So we have an adult and the youth, now with that long passage of time, neither doing much of anything really. None of the two are concerned, at all. Both armed with self claimed knowledge, that of the ban on a path due to it's "secluded" nature. That after such a long time the girl had NOT turned up in Newbattle, and he calls his mother and NOT Jodi's mother.

He calls the boys and he calls them back and he calls them back again, they were running slightly late. Claims to have went directly home when he leaves them. That upon his arrival home he claims to have asked his mother again, had Jodi been in contact. Such an odd thing to claim, for in the earlier call he says he has told her to tell Jodi 'they' would be in the Abbey, she would know where. Telepathy perhaps. She had NOT of course arrived in the Abbey, and she had NOT of course made any contact with Mitchell, nor his mother with him to ask again had Jodi had been to any house. So, the claim then is that she told him 'not to worry, the girl would have got caught up gabbing somewhere' This is 3 1/2 hrs after he claimed to have left home. An adult claiming to tell her son not to worry about a girl some 3 1/2 hrs later who had failed to turn up in Newbattle, from walking that "secluded path" - Behave.

10:40pm comes and there has been no meet he claims. 10:50pm and it is guns blazing, he is off like a shot, instantly places a physical search to that path. He is gone X amount of time and his mother is trying to get a hold of him, the claim is of worry, of her son walking that "secluded path" She did NOT of course phone Jodi's house, the place he was supposed to be heading to after the search of that path.

So that young girl, with no phone, no guard dog, no show, had zero concern for her, from the adult, from her son - It is as the AD stated, there was none for she already knew that Jodi Jones was dead. Those very first words spoken "Jodi's dead!"

So what was it you were trying to compare this with exactly. Jodi's mother/father. Who were completely blindsided to ANY danger. Time passing quickly whilst busy and occupied. Who made it clear that because there had been NO contact back from LM they believed the meeting had naturally taken place, wherever that was to be, of somewhere up here. No path, nothing secluded, a girl walking alone with no phone, no guard dog by her side. - Behave!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 15, 2022, 09:44:50 AM
There is NO counter argument at all, not even a snifter of one. Another feeble attempt by Mitchell's defence - Always good to have a refresher around this claimed comparison to debate.

LM eventually, after changes had to be made. Is on Newbattle Road (claimed) for the best part of 90mins. The claim is of waiting and looking out for Jodi. He had claimed to be walking out to meet with her, he did not get very far. The lad is twiddling his thumbs doing nothing for around 90mins. Time is dragging and dragging. He placed a call to his mother, the claim was to ask If Jodi had been to the house.

Two slips happened here whilst trying to make up any reason for that call other than the truth of course. That the girl somehow got past him whilst he was looking out for her, that he also knew his mother was in the garden still. On that miserable night, idling her time in the garden it is claimed enjoying the fresh air. So we have an adult and the youth, now with that long passage of time, neither doing much of anything really. None of the two are concerned, at all. Both armed with self claimed knowledge, that of the ban on a path due to it's "secluded" nature. That after such a long time the girl had NOT turned up in Newbattle, and he calls his mother and NOT Jodi's mother.

He calls the boys and he calls them back and he calls them back again, they were running slightly late. Claims to have went directly home when he leaves them. That upon his arrival home he claims to have asked his mother again, had Jodi been in contact. Such an odd thing to claim, for in the earlier call he says he has told her to tell Jodi 'they' would be in the Abbey, she would know where. Telepathy perhaps. She had NOT of course arrived in the Abbey, and she had NOT of course made any contact with Mitchell, nor his mother with him to ask again had Jodi had been to any house. So, the claim then is that she told him 'not to worry, the girl would have got caught up gabbing somewhere' This is 3 1/2 hrs after he claimed to have left home. An adult claiming to tell her son not to worry about a girl some 3 1/2 hrs later who had failed to turn up in Newbattle, from walking that "secluded path" - Behave.

10:40pm comes and there has been no meet he claims. 10:50pm and it is guns blazing, he is off like a shot, instantly places a physical search to that path. He is gone X amount of time and his mother is trying to get a hold of him, the claim is of worry, of her son walking that "secluded path" She did NOT of course phone Jodi's house, the place he was supposed to be heading to after the search of that path.

So that young girl, with no phone, no guard dog, no show, had zero concern for her, from the adult, from her son - It is as the AD stated, there was none for she already knew that Jodi Jones was dead. Those very first words spoken "Jodi's dead!"

So what was it you were trying to compare this with exactly. Jodi's mother/father. Who were completely blindsided to ANY danger. Time passing quickly whilst busy and occupied. Who made it clear that because there had been NO contact back from LM they believed the meeting had naturally taken place, wherever that was to be, of somewhere up here. No path, nothing secluded, a girl walking alone with no phone, no guard dog by her side. - Behave!

Much of your post I’ve covered already, many times, so I won’t waste my time correcting again the obvious distortions in your narrative.

Your last paragraph does interest me though. We were told by Janine Jones in court that her mum was well aware that Jodi walked RD path by herself. In fact it was such a revelation that Findlay asked if she was sure. As far as Jodi’s mother was concerned Jodi had left her house at 4.55 and had not met Luke by 5.40. That that did not ring alarms bells is absolutely astonishing. I’m afraid as a mother it wouldn’t matter how busy or occupied I was that would worry me especially, as we are lead to believe, Judith thought that Jodi was meeting Luke in Easthouses.

Perhaps you could explain to me why Luke’s mother should have been more worried about Jodi than her own mother? We know that Jodi had stood Luke up before so is it totally unbelievable that she may have done so again?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 15, 2022, 10:44:22 AM
Much of your post I’ve covered already, many times, so I won’t waste my time correcting again the obvious distortions in your narrative.

Your last paragraph does interest me though. We were told by Janine Jones in court that her mum was well aware that Jodi walked RD path by herself. In fact it was such a revelation that Findlay asked if she was sure. As far as Jodi’s mother was concerned Jodi had left her house at 4.55 and had not met Luke by 5.40. That that did not ring alarms bells is absolutely astonishing. I’m afraid as a mother it wouldn’t matter how busy or occupied I was that would worry me especially, as we are lead to believe, Judith thought that Jodi was meeting Luke in Easthouses.

Perhaps you could explain to me why Luke’s mother should have been more worried about Jodi than her own mother? We know that Jodi had stood Luke up before so is it totally unbelievable that she may have done so again?

The narrative is spot on and as usual in your fantasy world nothing changes it, does it now. No matter which head one is wearing at any time.

And you ignoring the actual evidence and why it was led doesn't change it, does it now? The only point to the path was attempting to introduce the possibility of Jodi Jones walking the path alone. And again, when you have your daughters identifying semen from a microscopic stain underarm, change brown wooden gate into large white painted doors, apply roadworks on to a road where Mitchell had to cross but not his mother driving down or mentioning them - Shall we go on?

And your response again confirms completely my point - 90mins of an adult and son who knew Jodi Jones was dead, there was no need for any concern, for in the real world any parent who knew that a young girl with no phone, no security had NOT arrived in an area after such a time, would be showing concern. To then move to 3 1/2 hrs later and again show no concern for they knew Jodi Jones was already dead. Far less that the conversation was actually made up, for and again Mitchell was NOT even in the house.

To move to her own son walking that "secluded path" and the feigned concern giving for trying to get a hold of him was around this worry for his safety. Where any adult who was actually concerned around safety would have called the very persons house he was claiming to head to. Not repeatedly trying his mobile with no answer. Because she wanted to know what was happening, it had nothing to do with concern for safety of him at all. Safety would have had her go with him or his brother. She was without a doubt frantic, waiting on what would happen when the police became involved. Hoping SM wherever he was had completed his tasks? Tell me Faith, where was SM? And where was he when Mitchell was claiming to borrow a torch from him? For he was not even in the house, was he now Faith?

This feeble continuous bleat of trying to compare t-time, of people completely blindsided, who as stated had made it clear that because Mitchell had not alerted them to any danger the meeting was fully believed to have taken place. This nonsense again of not turning up once with FULL CONTACT with Mitchell, communication Faith, which is exactly what was led, yet this time with NO contact he went off and chased those boys.

So, no alibi, five people seeing him in places he claimed not to have been and no-one seeing him where he tried to claim he was. Every other piece of cock and bull through that evening as alibi and disposal was taken place. To having this in place and in and around two lots of 8mins, 16 in total, he had instantly initiated a physical search directly to that path, claiming to borrow torches from a brother who was not in the house. On that path, meets with others and instantly he makes a bee line for that wall - 16mins in total inclusive of walking distance, those 7mins the normal route from house to path, the 6 1/2 minutes standard time from top of path to the V break in that wall. And again he fuels the police with lies to try and make 16mins all about a dog - Leading that poor girls family directly to her body. That adrenalin going warping real time - These kindred spirits such as yourself Faith, this cultish movement of ones greater good, lying and cheating your way through everything, fantasizing Faith. -

But as you say, all perfectly normal for you as a parent, ONLY your girls would be important and no other children - Well done for clarifying this.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 15, 2022, 12:00:15 PM
90mins of an adult and son who knew Jodi Jones was dead, there was no need for any concern, for in the real world any parent who knew that a young girl with no phone, no security had NOT arrived in an area after such a time, would be showing concern. To then move to 3 1/2 hrs later and again show no concern for they knew Jodi Jones was already dead. Far less that the conversation was actually made up, for and again Mitchell was NOT even in the house.

To move to her own son walking that "secluded path" and the feigned concern giving for trying to get a hold of him was around this worry for his safety. Where any adult who was actually concerned around safety would have called the very persons house he was claiming to head to. Not repeatedly trying his mobile with no answer. Because she wanted to know what was happening, it had nothing to do with concern for safety of him at all. Safety would have had her go with him or his brother. She was without a doubt frantic, waiting on what would happen when the police became involved. Hoping SM wherever he was had completed his tasks?

Liar Corinne Mitchell claimed in court she ‘kept trying to phone’ her killer Luke Mitchell because he ‘was late and in trouble

Corinne Mitchell’s evidence in court was ”I kept trying to phone him as he was late and in trouble”

But what did she tell police in her first statements?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 15, 2022, 01:36:14 PM
The narrative is spot on and as usual in your fantasy world nothing changes it, does it now. No matter which head one is wearing at any time.

And you ignoring the actual evidence and why it was led doesn't change it, does it now? The only point to the path was attempting to introduce the possibility of Jodi Jones walking the path alone. And again, when you have your daughters identifying semen from a microscopic stain underarm, change brown wooden gate into large white painted doors, apply roadworks on to a road where Mitchell had to cross but not his mother driving down or mentioning them - Shall we go on?

And your response again confirms completely my point - 90mins of an adult and son who knew Jodi Jones was dead, there was no need for any concern, for in the real world any parent who knew that a young girl with no phone, no security had NOT arrived in an area after such a time, would be showing concern. To then move to 3 1/2 hrs later and again show no concern for they knew Jodi Jones was already dead. Far less that the conversation was actually made up, for and again Mitchell was NOT even in the house.

To move to her own son walking that "secluded path" and the feigned concern giving for trying to get a hold of him was around this worry for his safety. Where any adult who was actually concerned around safety would have called the very persons house he was claiming to head to. Not repeatedly trying his mobile with no answer. Because she wanted to know what was happening, it had nothing to do with concern for safety of him at all. Safety would have had her go with him or his brother. She was without a doubt frantic, waiting on what would happen when the police became involved. Hoping SM wherever he was had completed his tasks? Tell me Faith, where was SM? And where was he when Mitchell was claiming to borrow a torch from him? For he was not even in the house, was he now Faith?

This feeble continuous bleat of trying to compare t-time, of people completely blindsided, who as stated had made it clear that because Mitchell had not alerted them to any danger the meeting was fully believed to have taken place. This nonsense again of not turning up once with FULL CONTACT with Mitchell, communication Faith, which is exactly what was led, yet this time with NO contact he went off and chased those boys.

So, no alibi, five people seeing him in places he claimed not to have been and no-one seeing him where he tried to claim he was. Every other piece of cock and bull through that evening as alibi and disposal was taken place. To having this in place and in and around two lots of 8mins, 16 in total, he had instantly initiated a physical search directly to that path, claiming to borrow torches from a brother who was not in the house. On that path, meets with others and instantly he makes a bee line for that wall - 16mins in total inclusive of walking distance, those 7mins the normal route from house to path, the 6 1/2 minutes standard time from top of path to the V break in that wall. And again he fuels the police with lies to try and make 16mins all about a dog - Leading that poor girls family directly to her body. That adrenalin going warping real time - These kindred spirits such as yourself Faith, this cultish movement of ones greater good, lying and cheating your way through everything, fantasizing Faith. -

But as you say, all perfectly normal for you as a parent, ONLY your girls would be important and no other children - Well done for clarifying this.

Again you can write reams and reams of nonsense but it doesn’t change the fundamental fact and that is that when Luke called Jodi’s home at least 45 minutes after she’d left that home Judith showed no concern that her daughter hadn’t met with Luke and not once in the proceeding hours before she spoke to Luke and found out that her daughter wasn’t with him did she check if her daughter and Luke had eventually met. There really is no way around that and why you think Corrine Mitchell showed have showed more concern for Jodi’s welfare than her own mother, after all the girl had stood her son up before,  heaven alone knows.

Judith, we are told, thought Jodi was staying in Easthouses, only a few minutes from her home so that she wasn’t with Luke should have produced alarm in her. Further if, as we know she was, Judith was aware that Jodi walked RD path on her own that should have multiplied that alarm. Having not been seen for 45 minutes no matter what route she took should have instigated blind panic in her mother, I know it would me. Yet it didn’t. Could that be because Judith knew that Jodi sometimes changed her plans at the last moment…of course we have previous evidence of this..who knows?  What I do know is that with no signs to the contrary Luke probably thought that Jodi had stood him up again…had met friends and was spending time with them. There was nothing to signal that she had come to any harm and, if I was him I’d have been a bit peeved that I’d been stood up, again.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 15, 2022, 04:06:59 PM
Boring Faith - So, not home having imaginary conversations with mother at 5:05pm, not home having imaginary conversations with mother at 9pm, not home borrowing any torch of any imaginary brother at 10:50pm. Not home to leave from there with any mother or brother to go with him. Not standing around on Newbattle road waiting on any dead person and on it goes.

The worry of a son who had crossed over into being a killer, disappears leaving his mother frantic of what would happen next. Trying to get a hold of him. And they just keep on lying. Fantasist Forbes along with CM and of course your good self with Leans head on. This rushing to the station and upon her arrival her son being stripped and forensically examined all over. FF takes it one better, all within the hour of Mitchell leading Jodi's family directly to her body. Let us have a look at these lies, shall we?

One was indeed frantic, diving into those shoes and grabbing her coat to "run" like the proverbial bat out of hell to that station. Where was SM? where was PM? Has to "run" can't drive, no car? no one to take her there? So off she goes in what is a ten minute walk. The station chosen for ease of access, local to their house.

She is stopped on Newbattle Road, so a shorter distance still, the car with Luke sitting in the back. The police roll down the window and she blurts out in her worry, "Jodi's dead!" and asks "Is he under arrest?" She already knew that Jodi was dead, had known all evening, Luke had blanked her, only prior knowledge of the horrific deed in mind. The very reason for having no concern as stated. So she arrives a couple of minutes max behind her son at the station, he had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of her arrival at all, had he now. - Compulsive liars with compulsive liars enabling him/them.

Tell me, just how far has anything actually progressed? Nothing where being able to show innocence is concerned, it is simply more people repeating the same stuff, over and over that has been getting said for years. Not going the SCCRC now again, as there was nothing to go there with of course. This "fantastic new evidence" fallen flat once more. So, it is to push for the review once more, upon air, just more of the same fantasy and lies.

Love the "Auld Mick" which really should be Nick, with the "Lord and Master" - Mitchells puppet, being his full on voice, in what is the life long smear - campaign reaching its peak. And nothing, that is zero of anything different to show that Mitchell in any way is innocent of murdering Jodi Jones. The more attention, the more fallacy is applied. In what is without a doubt the feeding of egotistic natures, is it not?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 15, 2022, 04:38:50 PM
One was indeed frantic, diving into those shoes and grabbing her coat to "run" like the proverbial bat out of hell to that station. Where was SM? where was PM? Has to "run" can't drive, no car? no one to take her there? So off she goes in what is a ten minute walk.

What did CCTV throw up regarding the Mitchell’s motors that night?

Was the maroon frontera seen parked in the drive all evening and who spotted it at the entrance of the paths

What did neighbours witness statements say about the Mitchell’s motors?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 15, 2022, 04:45:43 PM
One was indeed frantic, diving into those shoes and grabbing her coat to "run" like the proverbial bat out of hell to that station. Where was SM? where was PM? Has to "run" can't drive, no car? no one to take her there? So off she goes in what is a ten minute walk.

So Corinne Mitchell’s legs were okay an hour or so after she claimed she told her killer son to take the dog out for her last walk to ‘save her legs’

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 15, 2022, 05:34:37 PM
Boring Faith - So, not home having imaginary conversations with mother at 5:05pm, not home having imaginary conversations with mother at 9pm, not home borrowing any torch of any imaginary brother at 10:50pm. Not home to leave from there with any mother or brother to go with him. Not standing around on Newbattle road waiting on any dead person and on it goes.

The worry of a son who had crossed over into being a killer, disappears leaving his mother frantic of what would happen next. Trying to get a hold of him. And they just keep on lying. Fantasist Forbes along with CM and of course your good self with Leans head on. This rushing to the station and upon her arrival her son being stripped and forensically examined all over. FF takes it one better, all within the hour of Mitchell leading Jodi's family directly to her body. Let us have a look at these lies, shall we?

One was indeed frantic, diving into those shoes and grabbing her coat to "run" like the proverbial bat out of hell to that station. Where was SM? where was PM? Has to "run" can't drive, no car? no one to take her there? So off she goes in what is a ten minute walk. The station chosen for ease of access, local to their house.

She is stopped on Newbattle Road, so a shorter distance still, the car with Luke sitting in the back. The police roll down the window and she blurts out in her worry, "Jodi's dead!" and asks "Is he under arrest?" She already knew that Jodi was dead, had known all evening, Luke had blanked her, only prior knowledge of the horrific deed in mind. The very reason for having no concern as stated. So she arrives a couple of minutes max behind her son at the station, he had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of her arrival at all, had he now. - Compulsive liars with compulsive liars enabling him/them.

Tell me, just how far has anything actually progressed? Nothing where being able to show innocence is concerned, it is simply more people repeating the same stuff, over and over that has been getting said for years. Not going the SCCRC now again, as there was nothing to go there with of course. This "fantastic new evidence" fallen flat once more. So, it is to push for the review once more, upon air, just more of the same fantasy and lies.

Love the "Auld Mick" which really should be Nick, with the "Lord and Master" - Mitchells puppet, being his full on voice, in what is the life long smear - campaign reaching its peak. And nothing, that is zero of anything different to show that Mitchell in any way is innocent of murdering Jodi Jones. The more attention, the more fallacy is applied. In what is without a doubt the feeding of egotistic natures, is it not?

Dear oh dear Parky it may be enough for your acolytes for you to make unsubstantiated claims and have them wolfed down like Billy Bunter at a pie eating competition but some of us are more discerning….evidence dear boy, evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 15, 2022, 09:00:39 PM

Tell me, just how far has anything actually progressed? Nothing where being able to show innocence is concerned, it is simply more people repeating the same stuff, over and over that has been getting said for years. Not going the SCCRC now again, as there was nothing to go there with of course. This "fantastic new evidence" fallen flat once more. So, it is to push for the review once more, upon air, just more of the same fantasy and lies.

Love the "Auld Mick" which really should be Nick, with the "Lord and Master" - Mitchells puppet, being his full on voice, in what is the life long smear - campaign reaching its peak. And nothing, that is zero of anything different to show that Mitchell in any way is innocent of murdering Jodi Jones. The more attention, the more fallacy is applied. In what is without a doubt the feeding of egotistic natures, is it not?

Where are the crack legal teams queuing up to defend Mitchell if he is so obviously innocent and the best he can manage is a former trainee lawyer that didn't quite make the grade.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on December 16, 2022, 01:55:41 AM
Again you can write reams and reams of nonsense but it doesn’t change the fundamental fact and that is that when Luke called Jodi’s home at least 45 minutes after she’d left that home Judith showed no concern that her daughter hadn’t met with Luke and not once in the proceeding hours before she spoke to Luke and found out that her daughter wasn’t with him did she check if her daughter and Luke had eventually met. There really is no way around that and why you think Corrine Mitchell showed have showed more concern for Jodi’s welfare than her own mother, after all the girl had stood her son up before,  heaven alone knows.

Judith, we are told, thought Jodi was staying in Easthouses, only a few minutes from her home so that she wasn’t with Luke should have produced alarm in her. Further if, as we know she was, Judith was aware that Jodi walked RD path on her own that should have multiplied that alarm. Having not been seen for 45 minutes no matter what route she took should have instigated blind panic in her mother, I know it would me. Yet it didn’t. Could that be because Judith knew that Jodi sometimes changed her plans at the last moment…of course we have previous evidence of this..who knows?  What I do know is that with no signs to the contrary Luke probably thought that Jodi had stood him up again…had met friends and was spending time with them. There was nothing to signal that she had come to any harm and, if I was him I’d have been a bit peeved that I’d been stood up, again.

Your reasoning here is almost as barmy as the time you tried to justify that LM couldn't have been that keen on Kimberley Thompson because he didn't ask his mother to drive him to Kenmore so that he could be with her more often -- bearing in mind that the roundtrip distance from his house to hers is 4 hours in a car! Not exactly convenient, eh, Faith? But, you could not accept this obvious problem and fact; instead, you tried to counter it with: "But LM had Corinne wrapped around his little finger. She'd lied for him about the murder, so why wouldn't she do this for him?" Downright barmy! Remember, KT testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until she read reports in newspapers about his relationship with Jodi. She said she was upset when she found out Luke had been dating Jodi behind her back. We know LM was serious about KT, because: he'd met her in the summer of 2002 whilst on holiday in Kenmore; he'd phoned her 70-80 times between Jan 03 and June 03 (call logs as evidence in court) and she had stayed at his house over Christmas time 02 and again on St Valentine's day 03. Crucially, between those aforementioned 70-80 calls, he'd called KT on the night of 28.06.03 for a full 2 hours -- just after he'd had sex with Jodi and she'd went home in a taxi from his house before her 2200 curfew time. Clearly, he didn't reciprocate that love she felt for him -- the love and feelings she had for him were recorded in her diary -- and clearly didn't respect her. Denied having a relationship with KT behind Jodi's back; indicative of his lies and deceit, which were factors in building that circumstantial case without forensics, against him (per se not conclusive, but tied with all the other planks of circumstantial evidence, his lies and deceit were very important in securing that guilty verdict).

Those 45 mins would've seemed like 10 mins to Judith and AO. It was dinner time, she was in the middle of making lasagne, had a big family around her and in near proximity (3 of her own kids, a husband, her mother, nieces, nephews, second cousins, etc); a busy network of people who she contacted daily, wether by foot or phone. Yep, that 45 mins would have flown by. LM phoning the Jones landline at 1741 to hatch the false alibi and to feign concern; and doing it at just the right time so as to not arouse suspicion (only 45 mins had elapsed since Jodi had left) and him knowing full well that not phoning back again would give the impression that they had eventually met (and we'll never know if Judith or AO tried to phone Jodie back immediately after LM hung up, as her phone was broken; maybe this was discussed at the original trial?). And I don't need to include all the other circumstantial evidence again: the credible sightings by AB & LF & RW, placing him at opposite ends of the path at crucial times (the times of these sightings weren't plucked from thin air; they were carefully and meticulously calculated). Was seen confronting her at RDPE, and then on his own, 50 mins later, at RDPW looking edgy and up to no good. AB, LF & RW were all as sure as they could be that it was him; there was no doubt in their sightings of it being him facially and in terms of hairstyle (the jacket issue inevitably had some kinks to iron out, but they got there, and it was accepted by the crown and jury). Leonard Kelly hearing those disturbing strangling noises at 1710/1715 as he cycled by (the noises made him slow down to listen). Of chasing the abbey boys up, desperate to be in their company, to bolster that alibi; and the boys noting how clean he looked; was acting differently and strangely that night (testified under oath). Phoning his mother, not seen for expansive amounts of time by anyone over the course of that evening. The strange burning smells emanating from his back garden (there goes those jeans, boots and parka!). The missing knife and missing parka (still missing .... and he definitely did own both these items before the murder; proved beyond reasonable doubt). His brother caught out lying about the alibi  and all the lies and inconsistent stories from LM and his family which have all been discussed endlesssly on various websites (aided by folk who were at the trial; who by virtue of the evidence they heard during those 9 weeks, that he and his family were lying). And, of course, LM's frequent violent behaviour -- physically and mentally -- which caused concern from as young as primary school (throttling another.pupil in primary schooll so badly that teachers thought he needed an intervention); and climbing on top of a girl when he was 11 and threatening her with a knife because she wouldn't have sex with him! Oh, and it was he who kept bleating on about Manson and his black dahlia paintings in meetings with police psycholigists; so, no, the police didn't formulate a theory out of nothing -- Luke Mitchell gave them all the clues by virtue of his own behaviour and actions.

Guilty as hell!

Ps: sorry for typos . . . my Samsung phone is playing up!



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 16, 2022, 08:15:56 AM
One was indeed frantic, diving into those shoes and grabbing her coat to "run" like the proverbial bat out of hell to that station. Where was SM? where was PM? Has to "run" can't drive, no car? no one to take her there? So off she goes in what is a ten minute walk. The station chosen for ease of access, local to their house.

She is stopped on Newbattle Road, so a shorter distance still, the car with Luke sitting in the back. The police roll down the window and she blurts out in her worry, "Jodi's dead!" and asks "Is he under arrest?" She already knew that Jodi was dead, had known all evening, Luke had blanked her, only prior knowledge of the horrific deed in mind. The very reason for having no concern as stated. So she arrives a couple of minutes max behind her son at the station, he had not been stripped and forensically examined all over by the time of her arrival at all, had he now. - Compulsive liars with compulsive liars enabling him/them.

Excerpt from page 137 of con-artist Sandra Lean’s ‘thesis’ Hidden In Plain View

“The mother of a minor, held by police in extremely traumatic circumstances, was unaware of his whereabouts, or the trauma which had occurred (the discovery of a murder victim). Her repeated attempts to reach him on his mobile phone were known to police, who were in possession of the mobile phone, but ignored for 90 minutes, after which she was simply told to make her way to the local police station. On arrival, she found her son had been stripped naked, searched, and placed in a paper suit, without any responsible adult present, even though police officers knew she was on her way to the police station.

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 16, 2022, 08:22:32 AM
Liar Corinne Mitchell still hasn’t explained why, according to her killer son, she allegedly suggested he go out searching that ‘secluded path’ on his own that night and why Corinne or Shane Mitchell didn’t accompany him
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 16, 2022, 08:39:07 AM
Page 141 of Sandra Lean’s ‘thesis’

One family reported a combination of misleading information, dishonesty, coercion and threats in quick succession, long before the accused was ever identified as a suspect:

They brought us back from the station. We were exhausted, in total shock, we just couldn‟t believe it. We‟d been there all night, but there was nothing we could tell them... my son found the body, that was really it... Over the next few weeks, it was like a nightmare. The liaison officer was the worst. She kept telling us “It’s just procedure, it‟s just procedure.‟ That was their favourite – everything they did was just procedure. When they descended on us at 7 o‟clock in the morning, this female cop, she kept barking at me, stand up, sit down, go over there, get over here. I hadn‟t a clue what was going on, but I thought, well, we‟ve got nothing to hide – let them get on with it...they weren‟t going to find anything, cos there was nothing to find. I found out later they waited until we were out of the house, and then they searched it. They questioned my other son – they told him, we‟ve got people telling us this and that – trying to make him think his brother was lying...We didn‟t know what to do. I asked them, is *** a suspect? No, they said, this is just procedure. But they were telling his brother, if we find out you‟re lying ... that‟s really serious... you‟ll go down for it.
(family member, accused convicted, sentenced to 20 years.)

Sandra Lean - 10th April 2010

Interviews for the PhD must be kept anonymous, and are a completely separate issue from any books. This is made absolutely clear to anyone who is participating in the research. Furthermore, cases which have been featured in the book cannot be used for the PhD. Again, documented evidence is available
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s290.html
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on December 16, 2022, 10:55:21 AM
Your reasoning here is almost as barmy as the time you tried to justify that LM couldn't have been that keen on Kimberley Thompson because he didn't ask his mother to drive him to Kenmore so that he could be with her more often -- bearing in mind that the roundtrip distance from his house to hers is 4 hours in a car! Not exactly convenient, eh, Faith? But, you could not accept this obvious problem and fact; instead, you tried to counter it with: "But LM had Corinne wrapped around his little finger. She'd lied for him about the murder, so why wouldn't she do this for him?" Downright barmy! Remember, KT testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until she read reports in newspapers about his relationship with Jodi. She said she was upset when she found out Luke had been dating Jodi behind her back. We know LM was serious about KT, because: he'd met her in the summer of 2002 whilst on holiday in Kenmore; he'd phoned her 70-80 times between Jan 03 and June 03 (call logs as evidence in court) and she had stayed at his house over Christmas time 02 and again on St Valentine's day 03. Crucially, between those aforementioned 70-80 calls, he'd called KT on the night of 28.06.03 for a full 2 hours -- just after he'd had sex with Jodi and she'd went home in a taxi from his house before her 2200 curfew time. Clearly, he didn't reciprocate that love she felt for him -- the love and feelings she had for him were recorded in her diary -- and clearly didn't respect her. Denied having a relationship with KT behind Jodi's back; indicative of his lies and deceit, which were factors in building that circumstantial case without forensics, against him (per se not conclusive, but tied with all the other planks of circumstantial evidence, his lies and deceit were very important in securing that guilty verdict).

Those 45 mins would've seemed like 10 mins to Judith and AO. It was dinner time, she was in the middle of making lasagne, had a big family around her and in near proximity (3 of her own kids, a husband, her mother, nieces, nephews, second cousins, etc); a busy network of people who she contacted daily, wether by foot or phone. Yep, that 45 mins would have flown by. LM phoning the Jones landline at 1741 to hatch the false alibi and to feign concern; and doing it at just the right time so as to not arouse suspicion (only 45 mins had elapsed since Jodi had left) and him knowing full well that not phoning back again would give the impression that they had eventually met (and we'll never know if Judith or AO tried to phone Jodie back immediately after LM hung up, as her phone was broken; maybe this was discussed at the original trial?). And I don't need to include all the other circumstantial evidence again: the credible sightings by AB & LF & RW, placing him at opposite ends of the path at crucial times (the times of these sightings weren't plucked from thin air; they were carefully and meticulously calculated). Was seen confronting her at RDPE, and then on his own, 50 mins later, at RDPW looking edgy and up to no good. AB, LF & RW were all as sure as they could be that it was him; there was no doubt in their sightings of it being him facially and in terms of hairstyle (the jacket issue inevitably had some kinks to iron out, but they got there, and it was accepted by the crown and jury). Leonard Kelly hearing those disturbing strangling noises at 1710/1715 as he cycled by (the noises made him slow down to listen). Of chasing the abbey boys up, desperate to be in their company, to bolster that alibi; and the boys noting how clean he looked; was acting differently and strangely that night (testified under oath). Phoning his mother, not seen for expansive amounts of time by anyone over the course of that evening. The strange burning smells emanating from his back garden (there goes those jeans, boots and parka!). The missing knife and missing parka (still missing .... and he definitely did own both these items before the murder; proved beyond reasonable doubt). His brother caught out lying about the alibi  and all the lies and inconsistent stories from LM and his family which have all been discussed endlesssly on various websites (aided by folk who were at the trial; who by virtue of the evidence they heard during those 9 weeks, that he and his family were lying). And, of course, LM's frequent violent behaviour -- physically and mentally -- which caused concern from as young as primary school (throttling another.pupil in primary schooll so badly that teachers thought he needed an intervention); and climbing on top of a girl when he was 11 and threatening her with a knife because she wouldn't have sex with him! Oh, and it was he who kept bleating on about Manson and his black dahlia paintings in meetings with police psycholigists; so, no, the police didn't formulate a theory out of nothing -- Luke Mitchell gave them all the clues by virtue of his own behaviour and actions.

Guilty as hell!

Ps: sorry for typos . . . my Samsung phone is playing up!

Poor Mr Apples….if only you were able to look beyond the tabloids and nonsense posted on this forum you may actually say something interesting. We live in hope.

So a 14 year old had two girls interested in him and didn’t tell one about the other…quelle surprise. You tell me what adolescent boy wouldn’t wallow in that kind of attention? Does it make him or them murderers….of course not. Further Luke had not seen Kimberley since he started going out with Jodi and in case we forget Kimberley was 13…everything for teenage girls at that age is infused with hormonal angst. I’m sure she thought that the relationship was serious….from Luke’s actions it’s obvious that that depth of feeling wasn’t exactly reciprocated.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 16, 2022, 01:02:24 PM
Page 141 of Sandra Lean’s ‘thesis’

One family reported a combination of misleading information, dishonesty, coercion and threats in quick succession, long before the accused was ever identified as a suspect:

They brought us back from the station. We were exhausted, in total shock, we just couldn‟t believe it. We‟d been there all night, but there was nothing we could tell them... my son found the body, that was really it...
(family member, accused convicted, sentenced to 20 years.)

Not a shred of concern or distress from liar Corinne Mitchell about young [Name removed]

That was really it

 *&^^&

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 19, 2022, 06:52:01 PM
Been a while since i looked in. Great reading in the blog Nic.

The blog will be have a search facility in 2023 to help readers find relevant content
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 22, 2022, 11:29:46 AM
I've written to The S*n and The Daily Express asking why they refer to Scott Forbes as a lawyer when he's not registered with the Law Society.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on December 22, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
I've written to The S*n and The Daily Express asking why they refer to Scott Forbes as a lawyer when he's not registered with the Law Society.
Probably lifted it from the blurb on his potboiler...
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 22, 2022, 04:07:51 PM
Probably lifted it from the blurb on his potboiler...

And for the elite knocking up the reviews it shows one thing clearly - A promo stunt and nothing more, people who are fully aware he is talking from a hole in his rear end!

But certainly and without a doubt taken from his "potboiler" Those dam "diabolicals" who do nothing to check around the actual truth. A story is a story -------------

But perhaps if people have contacted the media it may just produce something, an article highlighting the facade! Doubtful, not when they are getting their finger in the pie first......
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 04:14:35 PM
A promo stunt and nothing more, people who are fully aware he is talking from a hole in his rear end!

Did fantasist Scott Forbes ever post on Gerard Keegan’s forum ?

And didn’t Scott Forbes wait around 18 months after killer Luke Mitchell was convicted before he mentioned innocent Mark Kane?

martinmorrowdefenceLAWYER - 15th May 2007
MR LUKE MITCHELL IS SPENDING A SENTENCE IN POLMONT YOI
FOR WHAT EXACTLY. FOR BEING ACCUSED OF SOME MURDER TO HIS GIRLFRIEND JODI JONES. WICH THEY ARE NOT EVEN ONE LITTLE SLIGHT EVIDENCE THAT THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL
HAS MURDERED THIS GIRL NAMED AS JODI JONES. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS YOUNG MAN LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY. LETS BE SERIOUS. IT DO NOT TAKE A SCIENTIST TO WORK OUT THAT LUKE MITCHELL IS NOT GUILTY FOR THIS MURDER ON JODI JONES. BUT YET IT TAKES A SCIENTIST TO FIND OUT IF THIS YOUNG MAN IS GUILTY. BUT YET THERE WAS NO DNA OF SUCH OF THE KIND OF LUKE MITCHELLS AT THE SCENE NEVER MIND THIS YOUNG MANS DNA THERE WASNT EVEN ANY OF JODI JONES DNA FOUND. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS BEEN A SET UP WITH POLICE.FOR YET THERE ARE A OTHER MAN WHAT COULD BE JODI JONES MURDERER. AND POLICE HAVENT EVEN BOTHERD TO EVEN INVESTIGATE ON THIS OTHER MAN WICH COULD PERHAPS BE THERE NEXT SUSPECT
https://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=11[/i]
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 04:28:09 PM
What did Colin Bowman say ?

Colin Bowman claimed on 15th May 2007

There are then more complex considerations to do with (what was then a novel) operational collusion between: investigating police, prosecution agents, the fiscal, educational authorities, probably religious and political authorities.
https://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=11

But then deleted his ‘fact and myth forum’ - why?

Why do we seemingly not hear from Colin Bowman anymore ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 04:33:56 PM
Colin Bowman claimed on 15th May 2007

There are then more complex considerations to do with (what was then a novel) operational collusion between: investigating police, prosecution agents, the fiscal, educational authorities, probably religious and political authorities.
https://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=11

But then deleted his ‘fact and myth forum’ - why?

Why do we seemingly not hear from Colin Bowman anymore ?

Colin Bowman - 18th May 2007

I've spent two or three years going through what data there is on this whole affair.”

https://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=12

 *&^^&

But like con-artist Sandra Lean he didn’t attend each and ever day of the 42 day trial
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 22, 2022, 05:11:05 PM
Colin Bowman - 18th May 2007

I've spent two or three years going through what data there is on this whole affair.”

https://gerardkeegan.proboards.com/thread/247/luke-mitchell?page=12

 *&^^&

But like con-artist Sandra Lean he didn’t attend each and ever day of the 42 day trial

No he didn't and he worked closely with Lean, information fed by someone, the actual person who was in "collusion" with the killer and his mother. This is from the moment that murder took place. This utter bollocks of being complete strangers, if that is seriously the case then it only sheds further bad light - What kind of person, hours from a murder taken place is spreading about the community that it was not the boyfriend!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 05:14:51 PM
No he didn't and he worked closely with Lean

Yes he did

But he deleted his ‘fact and myth’ forum

Why?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 05:15:45 PM
the actual person who was in "collusion" with the killer and his mother.

Yep - similar to Stephanie Bon with killer Simon Hall and his mother etc
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 05:19:56 PM
No he didn't and he worked closely with Lean, information fed by someone, the actual person who was in "collusion" with the killer and his mother. This is from the moment that murder took place. This utter bollocks of being complete strangers, if that is seriously the case then it only sheds further bad light

Again, in early 2014 Sandra Lean gave the impression she had been duped by the Mitchell’s and raised her concern about killer Luke Mitchell and his adoptee mother Corinne Mitchell’s enmeshed/emotionally incestuous relationship - which was compared to killer Simon Hall and his adoptive mother Lynne Hall
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 05:21:20 PM
What kind of person, hours from a murder taken place is spreading about the community that it was not the boyfriend!

Why did Sandra Lean’s youngest adult daughter visit killer Luke Mitchell in prison ?

Was she friends with one of his many girlfriends?

Or was Sandra Lean’s daughter part of the same crowd who hung around in the Abbey gardens for example?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 06:01:49 PM
What kind of person, hours from a murder taken place is spreading about the community that it was not the boyfriend!

Lynne Hall did something similar regarding alleged noises heard in the village at around 02:30hrs a few hours before her adoptive son committed his murder

The rough justice Tv show will be available to view again in 2023
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 22, 2022, 06:05:09 PM
This utter bollocks of being complete strangers, if that is seriously the case then it only sheds further bad light - What kind of person, hours from a murder taken place is spreading about the community that it was not the boyfriend!

Will the truth regarding this ever be known?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on December 30, 2022, 08:20:30 PM
I see SF/Inspector Clouseau is preaching via various podcasts with a machete style knife on his wall. Perhaps not the most sensitive or appropriate wall art.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 02, 2023, 07:02:57 PM
Inspector Clouseau reveals the killer in his latest You Tube podcast with lots of earnest chat between two ex-cons. The comments are frighteningly supportive but reflects YT as the gutter of the internet, by and large.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on January 02, 2023, 07:31:32 PM
Inspector Clouseau reveals the killer in his latest You Tube podcast with losts of earnest chat between two ex-cons. The comments are frighteningly supportive but reflects YT as the gutter of the internet, by and large.
Is this the walkabout you mean with "lawyer" Scott Forbes?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 02, 2023, 07:39:06 PM
That's the one. Introduced as author and lawyer. I've got a sieve with less holes in it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 02, 2023, 07:45:36 PM
Is this the walkabout you mean with "lawyer" Scott Forbes?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo)

The same reliable Scott Forbes who tried to cajole Mark Kane into selling a story to the local rag and then split the money between them.

"Mr Beckett told the court that Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers""

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12458908.man-named-appeal-tried-sell-story-newspapers/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 02, 2023, 07:59:11 PM
In that video, Scott Forbes covers the route from the main road to the front of the Mitchell house but we know that is wrong.

Mitchell crossed the road at the end of the path leading to the spot where Jodi was murdered and was seen there by two women in a passing car who thought he was behaving suspiciously. He was identified wearing the parka coat.

All he had to do then was to hop over an old field gate, through the wood, across the stream hiding anything that could tie him to the murder. Another short trek through more woods and a short section of green and hey presto, he pops up at his house. No need to use the main road or the estate road.

I bet to this day that the police have never searched those woods for bloodstained clothing or the murder weapon.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 02, 2023, 08:00:11 PM
I can't get my head around SF as anything more than a Walter Mitty type that certain people seem to lap up. He treats the brutal murder of a young girl as a game of Cluedo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 03, 2023, 12:37:37 AM
In that video, Scott Forbes covers the route from the main road to the front of the Mitchell house but we know that is wrong.

Mitchell crossed the road at the end of the path leading to the spot where Jodi was murdered and was seen there by two women in a passing car who thought he was behaving suspiciously. He was identified wearing the parka coat.

All he had to do then was to hop over an old field gate, through the wood, across the stream hiding anything that could tie him to the murder. Another short trek through more woods and a short section of green and hey presto, he pops up at his house. No need to use the main road or the estate road.

I bet to this day that the police have never searched those woods for bloodstained clothing or the murder weapon.

He was identified wearing the parka? Not true…the witness said that she only said it was a parka because of the length. In her statement it sounded more like the bomber jacket we know Luke was wearing…shiny and green.

As to Luke’s route home, to anyone who looks at an aerial view of Newbattle Abbey Close it’ll become absolutely obvious that Luke would not have been able to get home without breaking cover at some point. A busy estate at around 6 and no one saw him or his parka. In fact the boys who did see him, and knew him, described him wearing his bomber jacket.

Back to the drawing board I’m afraid.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 03, 2023, 12:38:45 AM
I can't get my head around SF as anything more than a Walter Mitty type that certain people seem to lap up. He treats the brutal murder of a young girl as a game of Cluedo.

Unlike some who seem to use it to settle scores.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 03, 2023, 09:51:46 PM
In that video, Scott Forbes covers the route from the main road to the front of the Mitchell house but we know that is wrong.

Mitchell crossed the road at the end of the path leading to the spot where Jodi was murdered and was seen there by two women in a passing car who thought he was behaving suspiciously. He was identified wearing the parka coat.

All he had to do then was to hop over an old field gate, through the wood, across the stream hiding anything that could tie him to the murder. Another short trek through more woods and a short section of green and hey presto, he pops up at his house. No need to use the main road or the estate road.

I bet to this day that the police have never searched those woods for bloodstained clothing or the murder weapon.

Yeah, I would like to see a video of the woodland behind that gate where LM was seen by LF & RW. It does surprise me slightly that LM wasn't spotted going home after emerging from that woodland behind the gate; it was a busy time of day (between 1745-1800), so one would've expected him to have been seen by someone. And I think he did go home between 1745-1800 with the parka in his hand, gave it to either SM or CM to destroy, telling them very briefly what had happened,  changed into the bomber jacket and other clothing before being back on that N'battle rd to be seen by 6 separate people, between 1805-1825. Then he probably went back home for about an hour, telling SM & CM what really happened and then they all went about disposing of the clothing he'd on between 1650 and 1750.

Btw, didn't the police find blood trails in the woodland behind that gate on N'battle rd (not the woodland strip behind the V where Jodi's body was found)?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 03, 2023, 10:21:48 PM
Yeah, I would like to see a video of the woodland behind that gate where LM was seen by LF & RW. It does surprise me slightly that LM wasn't spotted going home after emerging from that woodland behind the gate; it was a busy time of day (between 1745-1800), so one would've expected him to have been seen by someone. And I think he did go home between 1745-1800 with the parka in his hand, gave it to either SM or CM to destroy, telling them very briefly what had happened,  changed into the bomber jacket and other clothing before being back on that N'battle rd to be seen by 6 separate people, between 1805-1825. Then he probably went back home for about an hour, telling SM & CM what really happened and then they all went about disposing of the clothing he'd on between 1650 and 1750.

Btw, didn't the police find blood trails in the woodland behind that gate on N'battle rd (not the woodland strip behind the V where Jodi's body was found)?


“ The court was told Mrs Fleming was being driven to a supermarket that day by Rosemary Walsh, her partner's sister. As they drove from her Newtongrange home along Newbattle Road, she saw someone at a gate at around 5.40pm or 5.50pm, less than an hour after Jodi was last seen.”

And

“Lorraine Fleming, 46, said the boy kept his head down and didn't appear to be waiting for anyone.

She later identified the youth as Luke Mitchell.

The sighting happened around 5.50pmon June 30 last year - about the time it is claimed that 14-year-old Jodi was killed by Mitchell.

But

“Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.

He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”

So the killer, if Luke, had as little as 5 minutes to get home, tell his mum and brother that he’d killed Jodi, clean up and get back on the Newbattle Road for 5.55pm. Even at the longest estimate of 15 minutes it would be incredible but 5 MINUTES. Even you can’t believe that, can you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 03, 2023, 11:33:42 PM

“ The court was told Mrs Fleming was being driven to a supermarket that day by Rosemary Walsh, her partner's sister. As they drove from her Newtongrange home along Newbattle Road, she saw someone at a gate at around 5.40pm or 5.50pm, less than an hour after Jodi was last seen.”

And

“Lorraine Fleming, 46, said the boy kept his head down and didn't appear to be waiting for anyone.

She later identified the youth as Luke Mitchell.

The sighting happened around 5.50pmon June 30 last year - about the time it is claimed that 14-year-old Jodi was killed by Mitchell.

But

“Mr Holburn, 18, a photography student, told the court he and his friends were cycling on Newbattle Road towards the Jewel and Esk College in the evening of Monday June 30.

He said they saw Mr Mitchell standing at an entrance to a driveway before Newbattle Abbey Crescent, where the accused lived. He said they would have cycled past at about 5.55pm or 6pm.”

So the killer, if Luke, had as little as 5 minutes to get home, tell his mum and brother that he’d killed Jodi, clean up and get back on the Newbattle Road for 5.55pm. Even at the longest estimate of 15 minutes it would be incredible but 5 MINUTES. Even you can’t believe that, can you?

I'm pretty sure I could, if I wanted to, find articles that give different times to the times mentioned in the articles you quote (eg, spotted at the gate at 1740; seen by push bike boys at about 1805 . . . see how this works, Faith?). You seemed to have conveniently quoted timings that would make LM's changing of jacket/clothing tight (no pun intended, btw), even unlikely. But, 10-15 mins is all he needed to change that jacket and be back on the N'battle road for 1800/1805. A young fit intelligent teenager could achieve a lot in 10-15 mins, especially when your life/future is at stake; laden with adrenaline, he would've been.

Alas and alack, more predictable and obtuse reasoning from you, Faithlilly. I bet you're one of these people who thinks that because AB didn't see LM on his phone as she drove past the top of RDP east, that it couldn't have been him she seen. I was genuinely hoping 2023 would be the year that saw your analytical skills ameliorate. Not the most auspicious start for you in this regard, is it? I guess we'll pencil in 2024, eh?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 04, 2023, 01:07:23 AM
I'm pretty sure I could, if I wanted to, find articles that give different times to the times mentioned in the articles you quote (eg, spotted at the gate at 1740; seen by push bike boys at about 1805 . . . see how this works, Faith?). You seemed to have conveniently quoted timings that would make LM's changing of jacket/clothing tight (no pun intended, btw), even unlikely. But, 10-15 mins is all he needed to change that jacket and be back on the N'battle road for 1800/1805. A young fit intelligent teenager could achieve a lot in 10-15 mins, especially when your life/future is at stake; laden with adrenaline, he would've been.

Alas and alack, more predictable and obtuse reasoning from you, Faithlilly. I bet you're one of these people who thinks that because AB didn't see LM on his phone as she drove past the top of RDP east, that it couldn't have been him she seen. I was genuinely hoping 2023 would be the year that saw your analytical skills ameliorate. Not the most auspicious start for you in this regard, is it? I guess we'll pencil in 2024, eh?

The floor is yours Mr Apples. Quote me different articles that give different times..although why you think that the print media would misrepresent a witness’s testimony heaven alone knows. Over to you.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 04, 2023, 11:17:28 AM
The floor is yours Mr Apples. Quote me different articles that give different times..although why you think that the print media would misrepresent a witness’s testimony heaven alone knows. Over to you.


These timings from all witnesses are obviously estimates and the reality is that there were probably an extra 5 or 10 minutes to add on to those timings. So, there was potentially a window of 25 mins for LM to do what I think he did. I would say that Lm probably emerged onto the road at just before 1745 for the LF & RW sighting and back on the nb rd with bomber jacket on at just before 1805 for the 3 cyclist sightings. 20 mins. A young lad full of adrenaline and who was calculating, could, imo, get a lot done in that window. Btw, MK was not in Dalkeith that afternoon and was miles away and had an alibi for this; likewise, he was captured that night in dalkeith with no scratches on his face; and, more crucially, his dna was checked against the crime scene circa 2008 and nothing incriminating was found. He looked nothing like LM, anyway, and was about a foot taller. So, where was Luke's twin on NB rd that day?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 04, 2023, 12:30:05 PM

So the killer, if Luke, had as little as 5 minutes to get home, tell his mum and brother that he’d killed Jodi, clean up and get back on the Newbattle Road for 5.55pm. Even at the longest estimate of 15 minutes it would be incredible but 5 MINUTES. Even you can’t believe that, can you?

Let us do just that, we do not erase the fact of the type of murder and mutilation. This is the mindset we are dealing with here. Not some little boy who made a gross mistake in a fit of rage, full of remorse and unable to think, was he now?

This fantasizing of the best way to kill someone comes with an element of pre-meditation. You want to apply the minimum time of just  FIVE minutes. Which tells us, if this were the time it took, then Mitchell without doubt had clothing stashed in his playground. That woodland by his estate, by that river.

Then we apply distance and time. We know from house to that path, the long way, is a 7min walk at an even pace. We are talking a much shorter distance here. From that wooden gate to that stash, then back on to Newbattle road, seen attempting to exit that woodland by that couple in their car, before making his way DOWN to the estate entrance.

Then we apply clothing. Where we know just how much of Mitchell could/would be covered by what he was wearing, which left virtually nothing of himself exposed to any elements. Part of his face and at a push some strands of hair. And we never discount having gloves on. So, he needed a basic wash of surface contamination to the very little of himself exposed. Into other clothing and back on to that road. Your minimum 5 mins is ample time here.

For riding on this all is that alibi, the only person this girl was to be in the company of. That initial call then needing to place himself in that 'intentional' window of opportunity to be seen. The more you try to state the impossible, the more you simply highlight that level of premeditation to this.

We revert back to AB here, a girl, who was obviously not keen on going with the boy where he wanted to go. Beckoning on her to come to him, to go with him down there, as opposed to the "up here" she believed was happening. Leading her down into that area off the beaten track and instantly attacking her - Mitchell knew exactly what he was going to do. That fantasizing into reality. Didn't he now?

This clothing and the very little of himself being exposed, which also answers perfectly why his poor victim picked nothing of him up. There was nothing of him to pick up, was there now? Have another look at those types of hoods, some have drawstrings whilst others have buttons. Given that monk type effect, the face some distance in from the front. That is the reality of what need be exposed.

We apply the murder here, without a doubt having as much covered as possible, not just for contamination but should someone, on that slight off chance, wander into that area off the beaten track. Keeping his identity covered.

Which answers more, If that hood took the brunt of any contamination, then having it down when hearing that car. Having his head down - His hair, almost all of it, having nothing upon it. We have covered the material and colour, red against khaki green,

So there is that minimum 5 mins covered - From a killer who was fully covered bar that little exposure of his face. Which in turn tells us why his ankles were manky, his neck, his hair, none of which needed scrubbed, no killer that needed to be under any long, hot shower, at all. Leaving those nails which was the easiest part of all. Those missing time frames, any further cleaning after that "intentional" window of opportunity. Those hours before he was in police custody.

And not forgetting Mitchell striving to have himself over that wall - He had no idea the extent of anything that would happen, but certainly, should anything have been found upon him he would have put it down to this - Wouldn't he have? 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 04, 2023, 02:49:45 PM

These timings from all witnesses are obviously estimates and the reality is that there were probably an extra 5 or 10 minutes to add on to those timings. So, there was potentially a window of 25 mins for LM to do what I think he did. I would say that Lm probably emerged onto the road at just before 1745 for the LF & RW sighting and back on the nb rd with bomber jacket on at just before 1805 for the 3 cyclist sightings. 20 mins. A young lad full of adrenaline and who was calculating, could, imo, get a lot done in that window. Btw, MK was not in Dalkeith that afternoon and was miles away and had an alibi for this; likewise, he was captured that night in dalkeith with no scratches on his face; and, more crucially, his dna was checked against the crime scene circa 2008 and nothing incriminating was found. He looked nothing like LM, anyway, and was about a foot taller. So, where was Luke's twin on NB rd that day?

Of course they are estimates but I’m interested why you think the witnesses have, to a man,  estimated the times to favour the prosecution. Perhaps you can explain that?

Further you can’t just second guess witnesses timings to suit your agenda. The timings are the timings for good or ill. Andrew Holborn estimated the time he saw Luke was between 17.55-18.00. Why are you second guessing him?

BTW I don’t think I mentioned MK. All the sightings that day, apart from AB, were of Luke, even the one by Walsh and Fleming. .Walsh and Fleming simply ‘misremembered’ where the sighting had taken place as they did with the jogger. “A shiny, green jacket”….sounds very much like Luke’s bomber jacket to me.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 04, 2023, 11:37:53 PM
Let us do just that, we do not erase the fact of the type of murder and mutilation. This is the mindset we are dealing with here. Not some little boy who made a gross mistake in a fit of rage, full of remorse and unable to think, was he now?

This fantasizing of the best way to kill someone comes with an element of pre-meditation. You want to apply the minimum time of just  FIVE minutes. Which tells us, if this were the time it took, then Mitchell without doubt had clothing stashed in his playground. That woodland by his estate, by that river.

Then we apply distance and time. We know from house to that path, the long way, is a 7min walk at an even pace. We are talking a much shorter distance here. From that wooden gate to that stash, then back on to Newbattle road, seen attempting to exit that woodland by that couple in their car, before making his way DOWN to the estate entrance.

Then we apply clothing. Where we know just how much of Mitchell could/would be covered by what he was wearing, which left virtually nothing of himself exposed to any elements. Part of his face and at a push some strands of hair. And we never discount having gloves on. So, he needed a basic wash of surface contamination to the very little of himself exposed. Into other clothing and back on to that road. Your minimum 5 mins is ample time here.

For riding on this all is that alibi, the only person this girl was to be in the company of. That initial call then needing to place himself in that 'intentional' window of opportunity to be seen. The more you try to state the impossible, the more you simply highlight that level of premeditation to this.

We revert back to AB here, a girl, who was obviously not keen on going with the boy where he wanted to go. Beckoning on her to come to him, to go with him down there, as opposed to the "up here" she believed was happening. Leading her down into that area off the beaten track and instantly attacking her - Mitchell knew exactly what he was going to do. That fantasizing into reality. Didn't he now?

This clothing and the very little of himself being exposed, which also answers perfectly why his poor victim picked nothing of him up. There was nothing of him to pick up, was there now? Have another look at those types of hoods, some have drawstrings whilst others have buttons. Given that monk type effect, the face some distance in from the front. That is the reality of what need be exposed.

We apply the murder here, without a doubt having as much covered as possible, not just for contamination but should someone, on that slight off chance, wander into that area off the beaten track. Keeping his identity covered.

Which answers more, If that hood took the brunt of any contamination, then having it down when hearing that car. Having his head down - His hair, almost all of it, having nothing upon it. We have covered the material and colour, red against khaki green,

So there is that minimum 5 mins covered - From a killer who was fully covered bar that little exposure of his face. Which in turn tells us why his ankles were manky, his neck, his hair, none of which needed scrubbed, no killer that needed to be under any long, hot shower, at all. Leaving those nails which was the easiest part of all. Those missing time frames, any further cleaning after that "intentional" window of opportunity. Those hours before he was in police custody.

And not forgetting Mitchell striving to have himself over that wall - He had no idea the extent of anything that would happen, but certainly, should anything have been found upon him he would have put it down to this - Wouldn't he have?

Tut, tut Parky…you talk of premeditation, only Jodi was grounded and Luke only knew that she was allowed to see him around 4.40pm so, if Bryson did see the couple, where was the time for constructing a plan? 13 minutes to get to the Easthouses end of the RDP at a trot, no time for anything else and if his motive for killing Jodi was an argument over Kimberley at that planned meeting how could Luke have planned anything? Surely in that scenario the killing would have been spontaneous?

Or are you saying that Luke’s a psychopath? If so what’s your evidence? He had no criminal record, no history of violence…of course there was plenty who had a tale to tell to the tabloids after Luke’s conviction….for a fee. Nothing whatsoever on his computer suggesting that he had any interest in either death or murder. Or, as ever, are you just throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks? Of course some will buy it and simply gobble up the smorgasbord of nonsense that’s served up to them…unfortunately.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 05, 2023, 09:12:33 AM
Hi Faithlilly,

Was just wondering if you were related to or friends with Sandra Lean?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2023, 09:35:09 AM
Hi Faithlilly,

Was just wondering if you were related to or friends with Sandra Lean?

Odd question. Do you think that everyone who believes that Luke is innocent is connected to Dr Lean in some way?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 05, 2023, 10:06:28 AM
Not always but it might explain similar traits.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 05, 2023, 11:17:26 AM
Tut, tut Parky…you talk of premeditation, only Jodi was grounded and Luke only knew that she was allowed to see him around 4.40pm so, if Bryson did see the couple, where was the time for constructing a plan? 13 minutes to get to the Easthouses end of the RDP at a trot, no time for anything else and if his motive for killing Jodi was an argument over Kimberley at that planned meeting how could Luke have planned anything? Surely in that scenario the killing would have been spontaneous?

Or are you saying that Luke’s a psychopath? If so what’s your evidence? He had no criminal record, no history of violence…of course there was plenty who had a tale to tell to the tabloids after Luke’s conviction….for a fee. Nothing whatsoever on his computer suggesting that he had any interest in either death or murder. Or, as ever, are you just throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks? Of course some will buy it and simply gobble up the smorgasbord of nonsense that’s served up to them…unfortunately.

You are doing it again Faith - That extensive book of photographs inclusive of Mitchells bomber, not that picked by F&W, just the parka Faith. AB, this fishing style coat, possibly a collar, did NOT pick those coats with collars, she picked that parka, it was the only one out of them all that resembled closest to her memory recall.

This describing the best way to kill someone comes with a clear thought process. Bringing that time forward of a meeting does not change any element of pre-meditation Faith, it only alters the time of the happening. In turn he attempted to use this to advantage by claiming no meeting was arranged until those texts - Nonsense.

Those phone records, pop them up now. That meeting without a doubt had been put in place from school whilst her phone was broken. Any contact made around alterations of what had already been set. The only person she needed to contact and did was Mitchell.

When you look at something, a convicted killer, one does not see some sweet little boy at all. For goodness sake, those questions, and I do wonder how the hell we have serial killers, it is because most are in plain sight Faith, they do not have massive arrows held above them with a warning sign attached. Thankfully this one in the making has not been able to kill again, thankfully some are caught first time.

So we are back to those three people who all identified Mitchell on either side of that murder sight. Not one person to place him anywhere else. Who was not wearing that bomber jacket but that khaki army style coat. Then the two people as he tried to exit that woodland back on to that road. And no, we do not move this sighting to where suits. We only apply that Mitchell denied full on that this was him, that he had NOT been where the people saw him, denying that it was him full stop. These two people most definitely did pick that bomber with the orange lining from that book Faith. Mitchell as was shown in court, was only then making his way down to the entrance, to place himself in that 'intentional' window of opportunity to be seen.

I see the new narrative is that Mitchell kept popping off the road out of sight to have a smoke, repeatedly, reason as to why he was not seen! That really tops a lot of the utter BS. Mitchell, popping out of sight to have a smoke, as bloody if! The boy who sparked up in front of the cops, allowed to smoke in front of his mother. Surely we are not talking joints here? Who again, on that quiet stretch of road with little pedestrians would not be popping out of sight at all. But even at that, just how many joints was that 14yr old having Faith, the boy, who Lean lied for years had NOT been smoking drugs, that he had NO drugs in his system - Rotten to the core with utter BS.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2023, 01:10:07 PM
Not always but it might explain similar traits.

You could be right. Maybe being intellectually predisposed to spotting a miscarriage of justice is part of our psychological makeup. What do you think?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 05, 2023, 02:56:28 PM
You could be right. Maybe being intellectually predisposed to spotting a miscarriage of justice is part of our psychological makeup. What do you think?

I think the hordes currently clamouring over Lean & Forbes on social media are in no way intellectually predisposed. GET THE LADDIE OOT NOO!!!! POLIS BASTURDS! WETHE PEOPLE DEMND A RE TRIAL. LET US ALL STAND UP FOR SCOTT ON THIS, etc.

Anyone putting an ounce of faith in what fantasist Forbes says needs their head examined but Ms Lean is smart in using him as her attack dog. I really think having him involved is doing more harm than good. Sign the petition…the killer’s still out there. Top class propaganda. Keep buying the books.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on January 05, 2023, 03:24:36 PM
I think the hordes currently clamouring over Lean & Forbes on social media are in no way intellectually predisposed. GET THE LADDIE OOT NOO!!!! POLIS BASTURDS! WETHE PEOPLE DEMND A RE TRIAL. LET US ALL STAND UP FOR SCOTT ON THIS, etc.

Anyone putting an ounce of faith in what fantasist Forbes says needs their head examined but Ms Lean is smart in using him as her attack dog. I really think having him involved is doing more harm than good. Sign the petition…the killer’s still out there. Top class propaganda. Keep buying the books.
Has anyone called him out on his claimed lawyer credentials... and if not, why not?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 05, 2023, 05:27:43 PM
Has anyone called him out on his claimed lawyer credentials... and if not, why not?

Yes I did ask him but was called a troll, jealous and disrespectful for daring to question his legal status. This is from somebody that publicly names innocent people as murderers. The legal profession must be laughing at him since he's not had another work experience position.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2023, 06:10:09 PM
I think the hordes currently clamouring over Lean & Forbes on social media are in no way intellectually predisposed. GET THE LADDIE OOT NOO!!!! POLIS BASTURDS! WETHE PEOPLE DEMND A RE TRIAL. LET US ALL STAND UP FOR SCOTT ON THIS, etc.

Anyone putting an ounce of faith in what fantasist Forbes says needs their head examined but Ms Lean is smart in using him as her attack dog. I really think having him involved is doing more harm than good. Sign the petition…the killer’s still out there. Top class propaganda. Keep buying the books.

But what has that to do with me?

There seems to be one thread that ties  together all those who believe that Luke is guilty….their absolute loathing of Dr Lean and/or Scott Forbes. At times it’s almost visceral, not to mention in the case of Dr Lean deeply misogynistic.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 05, 2023, 06:36:39 PM
But what has that to do with me?

There seems to be one thread that ties  together all those who believe that Luke is guilty….their absolute loathing of Dr Lean and/or Scott Forbes. At times it’s almost visceral, not to mention in the case of Dr Lean deeply misogynistic.

You claimed the pro Mitchell group are intellectually predisposed to spotting MOJ. The above comments were a selection to claim intellect is perhaps in short supply.

I don't loathe Lean & Forbes but if someone accused me or a family member or a friend of murder of a child - which they have done to numerous people over 15 years - then I think loathing would be an understatement. It is shameful behaviour and nonsense that it's done in the name of justice.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2023, 07:01:48 PM
You are doing it again Faith - That extensive book of photographs inclusive of Mitchells bomber, not that picked by F&W, just the parka Faith. AB, this fishing style coat, possibly a collar, did NOT pick those coats with collars, she picked that parka, it was the only one out of them all that resembled closest to her memory recall.

This describing the best way to kill someone comes with a clear thought process. Bringing that time forward of a meeting does not change any element of pre-meditation Faith, it only alters the time of the happening. In turn he attempted to use this to advantage by claiming no meeting was arranged until those texts - Nonsense.

Those phone records, pop them up now. That meeting without a doubt had been put in place from school whilst her phone was broken. Any contact made around alterations of what had already been set. The only person she needed to contact and did was Mitchell.

When you look at something, a convicted killer, one does not see some sweet little boy at all. For goodness sake, those questions, and I do wonder how the hell we have serial killers, it is because most are in plain sight Faith, they do not have massive arrows held above them with a warning sign attached. Thankfully this one in the making has not been able to kill again, thankfully some are caught first time.

So we are back to those three people who all identified Mitchell on either side of that murder sight. Not one person to place him anywhere else. Who was not wearing that bomber jacket but that khaki army style coat. Then the two people as he tried to exit that woodland back on to that road. And no, we do not move this sighting to where suits. We only apply that Mitchell denied full on that this was him, that he had NOT been where the people saw him, denying that it was him full stop. These two people most definitely did pick that bomber with the orange lining from that book Faith. Mitchell as was shown in court, was only then making his way down to the entrance, to place himself in that 'intentional' window of opportunity to be seen.

I see the new narrative is that Mitchell kept popping off the road out of sight to have a smoke, repeatedly, reason as to why he was not seen! That really tops a lot of the utter BS. Mitchell, popping out of sight to have a smoke, as bloody if! The boy who sparked up in front of the cops, allowed to smoke in front of his mother. Surely we are not talking joints here? Who again, on that quiet stretch of road with little pedestrians would not be popping out of sight at all. But even at that, just how many joints was that 14yr old having Faith, the boy, who Lean lied for years had NOT been smoking drugs, that he had NO drugs in his system - Rotten to the core with utter BS.

And I’m afraid that you are doing it again Parky…claiming knowledge that you do not have….we used to call it making it up as you went along. I suppose that’s why you keep dodging the questions about provenance put to you by myself and Mr Apples…a secret group that only you have access to…pull the other one. Luke was on RDP using his phone at 17.40, putting it down so Judith didn’t hear the motorbike…why…..but then again he was leisurely standing at a gate at 17.40 to be seen by the intrepid duo Walsh and Fleming. Which one was it Parky….or is it a case of when the circumstances change so do the facts?

And the nonsense about Jodi being grounded but being allowed out after her chores, absolute nonsense. Your problem though was trying to explain Judith’s testimony that Jodi was grounded on the night she died and the grounding had only been lifted after she arrived home from school. It was a full grounding, no chores exception clause….but of course there just had to be a plan to meet or your theory wouldn’t work…problem was that there wasn’t and all the witnesses, even Jodi’s mum, agreed on this.

As to expertise in who is and isn’t a killer…I think I’ll listen to the FBI.

Further of course Luke denied that Walsh and Fleming saw him at that gate….he wasn’t there. He had never walked that far. The sil had done what they had did with the jogger and placed him at the wrong place. How much police coercion this took, if any, heaven alone knows.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 05, 2023, 07:10:55 PM
You claimed the pro Mitchell group are intellectually predisposed to spotting MOJ. The above comments were a selection to claim intellect is perhaps in short supply.

I don't loathe Lean & Forbes but if someone accused me or a family member or a friend of murder of a child - which they have done to numerous people over 15 years - then I think loathing would be an understatement. It is shameful behaviour and nonsense that it's done in the name of justice.

No I referred solely to myself and Dr Lean. You misinterpreted my comment.

On your second comment I tend to agree although many of the individuals posting hateful comments have no connection to any of the alleged perpetrators.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 06, 2023, 03:15:07 PM
And I’m afraid that you are doing it again Parky…claiming knowledge that you do not have….we used to call it making it up as you went along. I suppose that’s why you keep dodging the questions about provenance put to you by myself and Mr Apples…a secret group that only you have access to…pull the other one. Luke was on RDP using his phone at 17.40, putting it down so Judith didn’t hear the motorbike…why…..but then again he was leisurely standing at a gate at 17.40 to be seen by the intrepid duo Walsh and Fleming. Which one was it Parky….or is it a case of when the circumstances change so do the facts?

And the nonsense about Jodi being grounded but being allowed out after her chores, absolute nonsense. Your problem though was trying to explain Judith’s testimony that Jodi was grounded on the night she died and the grounding had only been lifted after she arrived home from school. It was a full grounding, no chores exception clause….but of course there just had to be a plan to meet or your theory wouldn’t work…problem was that there wasn’t and all the witnesses, even Jodi’s mum, agreed on this.

As to expertise in who is and isn’t a killer…I think I’ll listen to the FBI.

Further of course Luke denied that Walsh and Fleming saw him at that gate….he wasn’t there. He had never walked that far. The sil had done what they had did with the jogger and placed him at the wrong place. How much police coercion this took, if any, heaven alone knows.

Behave with this nonsense of constantly misrepresenting what I have always said - Fellow students studying in a group PRIVATE to us. Not for any old Tom, Dick or Harry to be joining in with. To that trial, a courtroom jam packed with many people inclusive of students, journalists, general spectators, legal bodies from all walks, the Jury, the Judge, family, friends and on it goes. And from that you can pick whomever and as many as you like, it makes not a blind bit of difference to the truth, does it now dear. To that passage of time and people are not mute! To the absolute fact I am from that area, again, I have stated that I had stayed in Newtongrange.

And again, that bike coming back down that path at the same time he had instantly hung up on a call. Mitchell, who made an attempt to place himself home until 5:40pm, believing that call had not logged, omitting any call until faced with that information, did he not?

To this claimed massive police coercion from that very dim police force - Have a word. At the gate, taken to that gate by F&W, from saying the sighting had been near to the Abbey, those seconds apart in a car. As was your jogger one keeps harping on about dear, not there one second and there the next. From seeing Mitchell at that low wooden gate to then seeing the jogger. To that book of photographs and Mitchell NOT wearing his bomber with orange lining, choosing that parka as the coat he had been wearing. To then being changed and denying that it was him the next couple saw as he attempted to exit that woodland.

So, this mangling of five people who saw Mitchell, scraping and clawing to rearrange everything to suit. To there being absolutely NO confirmed sightings of Jodi Jones that day around 5pm walking to meet with Mitchell. Again the bollocks applied around this mystery man nonsense. Deflected from reality, that IF there had been any confirmed sighting of that girl walking along that road, towards that path, it would have been used without any doubt at all, to show her last movements before meeting with her boyfriend.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 06, 2023, 07:24:39 PM
Behave with this nonsense of constantly misrepresenting what I have always said - Fellow students studying in a group PRIVATE to us. Not for any old Tom, Dick or Harry to be joining in with. To that trial, a courtroom jam packed with many people inclusive of students, journalists, general spectators, legal bodies from all walks, the Jury, the Judge, family, friends and on it goes. And from that you can pick whomever and as many as you like, it makes not a blind bit of difference to the truth, does it now dear. To that passage of time and people are not mute! To the absolute fact I am from that area, again, I have stated that I had stayed in Newtongrange.

And again, that bike coming back down that path at the same time he had instantly hung up on a call. Mitchell, who made an attempt to place himself home until 5:40pm, believing that call had not logged, omitting any call until faced with that information, did he not?

To this claimed massive police coercion from that very dim police force - Have a word. At the gate, taken to that gate by F&W, from saying the sighting had been near to the Abbey, those seconds apart in a car. As was your jogger one keeps harping on about dear, not there one second and there the next. From seeing Mitchell at that low wooden gate to then seeing the jogger. To that book of photographs and Mitchell NOT wearing his bomber with orange lining, choosing that parka as the coat he had been wearing. To then being changed and denying that it was him the next couple saw as he attempted to exit that woodland.

So, this mangling of five people who saw Mitchell, scraping and clawing to rearrange everything to suit. To there being absolutely NO confirmed sightings of Jodi Jones that day around 5pm walking to meet with Mitchell. Again the bollocks applied around this mystery man nonsense. Deflected from reality, that IF there had been any confirmed sighting of that girl walking along that road, towards that path, it would have been used without any doubt at all, to show her last movements before meeting with her boyfriend.

No misrepresentation here Parky. Your parlour tricks have been called out for exactly what they are. What puzzles me is why you’d go to such length to fabricate so much of what you post. What is in it for you? Indeed you may be from the local area and so might I….who’s to say? What that does not prove is the veracity of virtually all of the verbatim statements you attempt to pass off as truth. Did you spend each and every day in court…thought not. Do you have a verbatim transcript of all the witness evidence….thought not. Half of what you post has been picked up over the years on forums such as this….a sprinkling of truth in a morass of gossip, innuendo and downright lies. The other half you simply make up on the hoof as the discussion dictates. All those individuals who have been involved, according to you, in the case yet only you have heard their voices….okkkaaaayyyy. You have a receptive audience, I’ll give you that but in the real world, you know the place where people require proof, you will continue to be called out on those fabrications.

I am truly at a loss to understand your second paragraph. Are there no motorbikes going up and down Newbattle Abbey Crescent? Why would Luke hang up the phone because of the noise of a distant bike? Absolute tosh.

Again that second guessing of witnesses…of the jogger saying that she was not where Fleming and Walsh said she was at the time they claimed. For her ‘just to have passed the youth’ they saw Luke would have to have been some
what further up Newbattle Road than they claimed. Further where Fleming and Walsh shown a compilation of photos of jackets? They certainly don’t mention it….Bryson did…and it was certainly not mentioned in court. What they did mention was the jacket may have been ‘waterproof’ and anyone who has seen a photograph of the actual jacket Luke was wearing…that shiny bomber jacket…would concur with that description. Why you are trying to give credibility to a pair of woman who were shown to be dishonest in court and while they were under oath, again, only you know.

This mystery man nonsense? In the middle of July the media carried an appeal from the police regarding a man seen following Jodi on the Easthouses Road sometime after 1700 on the 30th of June. The police described it as the ‘first credible sighting of Jodi”.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 06, 2023, 09:35:09 PM
There's been a lot of debate recently on timings and sightings and also a lot of suspect naming/shaming from Forbes in his recent podcast. For all the finger pointing and smearing of most of the Jones extended family and associates, has his extensive criminal past ever been discussed in relation to a predjudice against the criminal justice system?

Have Lean & Forbes ever discussed Mitchell's numerous knife threats to a number of girls from the age of 12 and being referred to an educational psychologist? From one media article he allegedy said "move and I'll gut you". Surely this calls for a podcast from Inspector Forbes in the interests of transparancy rather than pondering over why two daft lads scrapped a moped.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 07, 2023, 12:01:04 AM
There's been a lot of debate recently on timings and sightings and also a lot of suspect naming/shaming from Forbes in his recent podcast. For all the finger pointing and smearing of most of the Jones extended family and associates, has his extensive criminal past ever been discussed in relation to a predjudice against the criminal justice system?

Have Lean & Forbes ever discussed Mitchell's numerous knife threats to a number of girls from the age of 12 and being referred to an educational psychologist? From one media article he allegedy said "move and I'll gut you". Surely this calls for a podcast from Inspector Forbes in the interests of transparancy rather than pondering over why two daft lads scrapped a moped.

How many of the girls who said that they were threatened by Luke with a knife were called by the prosecution?  Not one and you have to ask yourself why that was when their testimony would have shown previous violent conduct. Ask yourself why these stories only came out after Luke’s conviction and when the tabloids were offering substantial money to anyone with a story about Luke, the more sensational the better.

As to Luke being referred to an educational psychologist, wasn’t Jodi too? Why do you think that that’s significant?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 07, 2023, 12:52:02 AM
Having had a close female friend involved in a criminal case about male violence I think I have a fair understanding in why females don't come forward to be interrogated on the stand. God forbid "she was wearing a short skirt/top and was asking for it". There were at least 3 girls who claimed Mitchell threatened them with a knife, he carried a knife daily and spoke to friends about killing someone, aged 14, but Lean & Forbes focus on daft lads on a moped, someone with a scratch on their face or the victim's brother. How would you feel if it was your sister?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 07, 2023, 06:22:37 PM
Having had a close female friend involved in a criminal case about male violence I think I have a fair understanding in why females don't come forward to be interrogated on the stand. God forbid "she was wearing a short skirt/top and was asking for it". There were at least 3 girls who claimed Mitchell threatened them with a knife, he carried a knife daily and spoke to friends about killing someone, aged 14, but Lean & Forbes focus on daft lads on a moped, someone with a scratch on their face or the victim's brother. How would you feel if it was your sister?

If she was my sister? I’d be apoplectic with rage but then I’ve never subscribed to the school of thought which says that to prove Luke innocent you must suggest another protagonist.

Further I think many of us have friends who have been victims of both male violence and the system on which they relied for justice but that’s not we’re talking about here….I’m afraid you’re comparing oranges and apples. The women you are talking about are adults…the victims of the alleged knife attacks were children. What would they know, or care,  of the treatment of women at the hands of our justice system? Are you truly suggesting that the girls wouldn’t have told their parents or another adult if such an assault had taken place? That they’d be afraid of being accused of somehow of ‘encouraging’ their attacker?

And 3 incidents and, coincidentally, not one of the victims told the police, or their parents it would appear even when Luke was under lock and key and couldn’t harm them. Nothing…nada…zilch until the opening of those tabloid chequebooks after the trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 07, 2023, 08:22:54 PM
Who knows why the girls didn't report the knife attacks but it's verging on victim blaming which the Lean camp have years of form with. Have you ever once thought that you might be supporting an evil murderer who was correctly dealt with and there is no MOJ.

19 years, numerous appeals, books, petitions and podcasts all no further forward than day one. The public/real life support of no more than a few dozen people at the petition handover probaby sums it up best. Were you there?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 08, 2023, 12:25:12 AM
Who knows why the girls didn't report the knife attacks but it's verging on victim blaming which the Lean camp have years of form with. Have you ever once thought that you might be supporting an evil murderer who was correctly dealt with and there is no MOJ.

19 years, numerous appeals, books, petitions and podcasts all no further forward than day one. The public/real life support of no more than a few dozen people at the petition handover probaby sums it up best. Were you there?

It’s not victim blaming if the girls were never victims at all. Why do you think that these girls would talk to the newspapers for a fee but not the police? Why do you think that they’d reveal all at a price but not help to put away, if their tales of violence are true, a violent individual?

Further do you think you might be able to debate the facts of the case without bringing Dr Lean’s name into every post? I think you said some weeks ago, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you were studying criminology but the personal nature of your comments towards Dr Lean suggests to me that you may find it difficult to be impartial in your work, if you qualify.

Was I at the handing over of the petition….no as I don’t think petitions take us any further forward, only new evidence will do that. It does prove however that those who did attend are not the sum total of individuals who support Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 10, 2023, 07:51:46 PM
It’s not victim blaming if the girls were never victims at all. Why do you think that these girls would talk to the newspapers for a fee but not the police? Why do you think that they’d reveal all at a price but not help to put away, if their tales of violence are true, a violent individual?

Further do you think you might be able to debate the facts of the case without bringing Dr Lean’s name into every post? I think you said some weeks ago, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you were studying criminology but the personal nature of your comments towards Dr Lean suggests to me that you may find it difficult to be impartial in your work, if you qualify.

Your first remark probably says enough about you. For the record, I studied Criminology as part of my degree some years back but was not my main subject. I have nothing personal against Ms Lean/your mum/friend, but do not accept her dangerous and devious approach in defending a convicted child killer in the name of justice for [Name removed] while implicating the wider family and various others over the years while ignoring LM's obvious negative character traits.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 10, 2023, 10:54:00 PM
Your first remark probably says enough about you. For the record, I studied Criminology as part of my degree some years back but was not my main subject. I have nothing personal against Ms Lean/your mum/friend, but do not accept her dangerous and devious approach in defending a convicted child killer in the name of justice for [Name removed] while implicating the wider family and various others over the years while ignoring LM's obvious negative character traits.

“ Witchdoctor Lean”…forgive me but it seems pretty personal to me. As to implicating individuals I’ve read quite a few of your posts suggesting Shane Mitchell was possibly more deeply implicated in Jodi’s murder than was revealed in the court case. This is an individual who hasn’t been convicted of a single offence in connection to this case. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Of course your behaviour towards Dr Lean in cases like this is nothing new. Chris Mullin, the MP who wrote the seminal tome on the miscarriage of justice perpetrated against the Birmingham Six received similar abuse from those angry not with those who had fed them a sea of lies but the individual who had revealed their gullibility. Of course in the end Mr Mullins was completely vindicated and six men whose lives had been savagely stolen from them walked free, after three appeals, from the Court of Appeal. We can only hope the same for Luke.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 10, 2023, 11:25:13 PM
My apologies for the Witchdoctor term. It stems from your and Ms Lean's overuse of "Dr" and "leading criminologist" in her bios. Even Prof. David Wilson isn't quite so high fallutin' and he is employed by a University. As far as I am aware, Ms Lean has zero % success in any MOJ case and in many cases has backed killers who have confessed.

I will stand by my claim that SM was involved more than he admitted on the night and subsequently thereafter resulting in loss of contact with LM & CM in recent years. I don't know enough about the B6 so can't comment but LM's case is effectively closed and no amount of suspect naming by Ms Lean & Forbes will change that. In fact fantasist Forbes is probably causing more harm than good with his outbursts.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 10, 2023, 11:58:52 PM
My apologies for the Witchdoctor term. It stems from your and Ms Lean's overuse of "Dr" and "leading criminologist" in her bios. Even Prof. David Wilson isn't quite so high fallutin' and he is employed by a University. As far as I am aware, Ms Lean has zero % success in any MOJ case and in many cases has backed killers who have confessed.

I will stand by my claim that SM was involved more than he admitted on the night and subsequently thereafter resulting in loss of contact with LM & CM in recent years. I don't know enough about the B6 so can't comment but LM's case is effectively closed and no amount of suspect naming by Ms Lean & Forbes will change that. In fact fantasist Forbes is probably causing more harm than good with his outbursts.

I’m sorry that the use of Dr in relation Dr Lean offends you but she worked hard for that title so fully deserves it to be used. Funny you mention Professor Wilson, I have a friend who wrote a book with him and he tells me that Professor Wilson is not convinced of Luke’s guilt.

And there it is again, that rank hypocrisy. You have not one single piece of tangible evidence that Shane Mitchell was involved in anything connected to Jodi’s murder….not one scintilla of proof yet still you continue to blacken his name in exactly the same way you accuse Dr Lean of doing to [Name removed], [Name removed] and [Name removed]. Surely you can appreciate the irony ?

Luke’s case is, I agree,  effectively closed at the moment but after a failed attempt to appeal the convictions of  the six men accused of the Birmingham pub bombings in 1976 so was their case. It would be a full 12 years before their case went back to the Court of Appeal and still after a six week hearing, the longest criminal appeal in British history, their appeal failed. It would take yet another appeal in 1991 for their convictions to finally be quashed and the men to be set free. So you see the law never admits their mistakes easily and I’m afraid Luke’s case will be no different.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 12, 2023, 06:58:31 PM

And there it is again, that rank hypocrisy. You have not one single piece of tangible evidence that Shane Mitchell was involved in anything connected to Jodi’s murder….not one scintilla of proof yet still you continue to blacken his name in exactly the same way you accuse Dr Lean of doing to [Name removed], [Name removed] and [Name removed]. Surely you can appreciate the irony ?

I'm not trying to blacken SM's name. It was a truly awful position he was put in but he made a decision based on truth, not the lies of his brother & mother and he should be commended. If you know any of his friends in the (?) area I'm sure they will confirm. Ms Lean & Forbes and her followers efforts to implicate a murder victim's family is shameful.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 12, 2023, 11:12:36 PM
I'm not trying to blacken SM's name. It was a truly awful position he was put in but he made a decision based on truth, not the lies of his brother & mother and he should be commended. If you know any of his friends in the (?) area I'm sure they will confirm. Ms Lean & Forbes and her followers efforts to implicate a murder victim's family is shameful.

You did indeed try to blacken Shane’s name by insinuating that he was involved more than he admitted in Jodi’s murder. Im not sure in what other way the reader could interpret that statement. As to his friends I’d hazard a guess that none of them are known to you and therefore you can have no idea what they would or would not confirm. Am I correct?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 13, 2023, 10:08:21 PM
As to his friends I’d hazard a guess that none of them are known to you and therefore you can have no idea what they would or would not confirm. Am I correct?

No you're not, but neither us can prove it unless you want to check out the LV/BB mechanic/bike scene. You'll get your answer within an hour.

Back on topic, why is fantasist Forbes threating people on podcast comments, calling anyone who disagrees imbeciles and liars and threatening to slander them as drug dealers and prostitutes. And this is SL's campaign partner?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 13, 2023, 10:28:47 PM
No you're not, but neither us can prove it unless you want to check out the LV/BB mechanic/bike scene. You'll get your answer within an hour.

Back on topic, why is fantasist Forbes threating people on podcast comments, calling anyone who disagrees imbeciles and liars and threatening to slander them as drug dealers and prostitutes. And this is SL's campaign partner?

So you know Shane’s friends of 20 years ago and they have confirmed what? Please expand?

As to your second question it appears that Mr Forbes is answering comments via his podcast. Why don’t you ask your question there? I’m sure you’d have more success there than asking us.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 13, 2023, 11:08:12 PM
So you know Shane’s friends of 20 years ago and they have confirmed what? Please expand?

As to your second question it appears that Mr Forbes is answering comments via his podcast. Why don’t you ask your question there? I’m sure you’d have more success there than asking us.

Yes, SM has confirmed to various friends and acquaintances in recent years that his brother is guilty and wants nothing to do with him. As I said, check out the LV/BB scene rather than internet nonsense, it's not that hard. All he has do to is say that he was pressurised in court to change his alibi but not a word since the guilty verdict.

I'd rather not venture into YouTube comments which must be the sewer of the internet. Are you saying you support Forbes approach of smearing innocent people and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with his viewpoint? For someone that claims to be a lawyer it is bizarre behaviour.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 13, 2023, 11:47:02 PM
Yes, SM has confirmed to various friends and acquaintances in recent years that his brother is guilty and wants nothing to do with him. As I said, check out the LV/BB scene rather than internet nonsense, it's not that hard. All he has do to is say that he was pressurised in court to change his alibi but not a word since the guilty verdict.

I'd rather not venture into YouTube comments which must be the sewer of the internet. Are you saying you support Forbes approach of smearing innocent people and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with his viewpoint? For someone that claims to be a lawyer it is bizarre behaviour.

But isn’t Shane a liar? Isn’t he more heavily involved in Jodi’s murder than he has ever admitted? Can you really believe a word he says? You really can’t have it both ways.

The arrogance of believing that you are owed any kind of admission from Shane Mitchell is absurd. I’d wager that he stays out of the public eye to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Again as I have already posted I do not condone accusations against anyone without evidence. Perhaps you need to think twice before you do it too.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 14, 2023, 12:38:15 AM
Again as I have already posted I do not condone accusations against anyone without evidence. Perhaps you need to think twice before you do it too.

And yet you defend a court convicted child killer despite 4 attempts to overturn his conviction, 3 books and numerous podcasts accusing the victim's family without a shred of "evidence".
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 14, 2023, 01:22:54 AM
And yet you defend a court convicted child killer despite 4 attempts to overturn his conviction, 3 books and numerous podcasts accusing the victim's family without a shred of "evidence".

I have doubts over the safety of  Luke’s conviction much the same as I have had with numerous other convicted individuals, many of whom have had their sentences quashed after multiple appeals. Those doubts are shared by multiple experts in different but connected disciplines within the legal field who have made their voices heard over many years.

While I am not for one moment suggesting that there is definite proof of any other individuals having committed Jodi’s murder if you, as you do, put store in ‘character traits’ to signify guilt there must be much about the behaviour of certain individuals surrounding the family in the preceding weeks that gives you pause?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 14, 2023, 10:32:30 AM
I have doubts over the safety of  Luke’s conviction much the same as I have had with numerous other convicted individuals, many of whom have had their sentences quashed after multiple appeals. Those doubts are shared by multiple experts in different but connected disciplines within the legal field who have made their voices heard over many years.

While I am not for one moment suggesting that there is definite proof of any other individuals having committed Jodi’s murder if you, as you do, put store in ‘character traits’ to signify guilt there must be much about the behaviour of certain individuals surrounding the family in the preceding weeks that gives you pause?
Mmmmmm, let me think about that - Two liars who take a fragment of truth and build it into something false do so across the board, so what exactly is questionable about members of that girls family in the weeks before the murder, let us think about that dear?

You can only mean the brother, it is the one person who's behaviour is mentioned in the weeks prior to the murder, now let us examine why these enablers know this information (the truthful version and not the fantasy and lies of course). It is in the statements obtained in the investigation, medical records to back up the statements, which equated to honesty dear, they had been fully open, disclosing everything. Other statements taken from other people to back up further information given over in an instant by that girls family.

Again, a luxury that cannot be afforded the Mitchells dear, who were the complete opposite of being honest, ever. So we have these two sides created by you. One, 100% honest around everything, the other the opposite. - Which really is the crux of it all, something that certainly and repeatedly sticks in your craw dear, as you scrape at mimicking your ego to try and find some form of dishonesty = Zero, so you simply manipulate and scrape and of course lie dear.

So, the girls family in their honesty dear, who had lost their daughter, sister, niece and so forth - Have two shady characters using them as a weapon, with dishonesty dear, to gain favour for a compulsive liar and his lying mother. Who, in the pits of all they scrape at are lying around the victim in this case, repeatedly.  Then we add who they are acting for and on behalf of dear, which is her killer.

Which dear has absolutely NOTHING to do with any expert who has giving opinion around certain areas in law, or any other, around what is only a very slim 'possibility' of an unsafe conviction and not factual innocence dear.

So, and again, these others who were fully investigated, the very reason why all this wonderful information (the truthful version) is there, all known about and eliminated as having any involvement in that young girls death.

Where you, dripping with drools dear - Say on repeat you do not need to use anyone else to try and show Mitchell as innocent, yet on the next drool you keep on attacking that girls family dear, with those scrapings to try and find anything at all of dishonesty dear. And there is nothing there, bar having to actually lie about them - Have a word, you my dear are a disgrace to all things moral. Where you have shown repeatedly that the only thing you apply to truth is that it is a word containing five letters.

So, you very much do back, fully, EVERYTHING that is being done by enablers of a convicted killer dear, every lie, every fabrication, every wrongful accusation on repeat against multiple innocent people. Because you back fully that due to there being NOTHING to prove that killer innocent, any tactic will do to gain support for him, even using the victim herself by lying about her. - Behave.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 14, 2023, 12:50:12 PM
Mmmmmm, let me think about that - Two liars who take a fragment of truth and build it into something false do so across the board, so what exactly is questionable about members of that girls family in the weeks before the murder, let us think about that dear?

You can only mean the brother, it is the one person who's behaviour is mentioned in the weeks prior to the murder, now let us examine why these enablers know this information (the truthful version and not the fantasy and lies of course). It is in the statements obtained in the investigation, medical records to back up the statements, which equated to honesty dear, they had been fully open, disclosing everything. Other statements taken from other people to back up further information given over in an instant by that girls family.

Again, a luxury that cannot be afforded the Mitchells dear, who were the complete opposite of being honest, ever. So we have these two sides created by you. One, 100% honest around everything, the other the opposite. - Which really is the crux of it all, something that certainly and repeatedly sticks in your craw dear, as you scrape at mimicking your ego to try and find some form of dishonesty = Zero, so you simply manipulate and scrape and of course lie dear.

So, the girls family in their honesty dear, who had lost their daughter, sister, niece and so forth - Have two shady characters using them as a weapon, with dishonesty dear, to gain favour for a compulsive liar and his lying mother. Who, in the pits of all they scrape at are lying around the victim in this case, repeatedly.  Then we add who they are acting for and on behalf of dear, which is her killer.

Which dear has absolutely NOTHING to do with any expert who has giving opinion around certain areas in law, or any other, around what is only a very slim 'possibility' of an unsafe conviction and not factual innocence dear.

So, and again, these others who were fully investigated, the very reason why all this wonderful information (the truthful version) is there, all known about and eliminated as having any involvement in that young girls death.

Where you, dripping with drools dear - Say on repeat you do not need to use anyone else to try and show Mitchell as innocent, yet on the next drool you keep on attacking that girls family dear, with those scrapings to try and find anything at all of dishonesty dear. And there is nothing there, bar having to actually lie about them - Have a word, you my dear are a disgrace to all things moral. Where you have shown repeatedly that the only thing you apply to truth is that it is a word containing five letters.

So, you very much do back, fully, EVERYTHING that is being done by enablers of a convicted killer dear, every lie, every fabrication, every wrongful accusation on repeat against multiple innocent people. Because you back fully that due to there being NOTHING to prove that killer innocent, any tactic will do to gain support for him, even using the victim herself by lying about her. - Behave.

Let’s start at the end. Lying about the victim? Where? It’s all there before the reader if the care to look back. Of course they won’t, and why should they, but that’s what you’re counting on. Give a dog a bad name and all that. Transparent.

Jodi’s brother? Did I point to him? No, that’d be you…but as you’ve brought it up let’s investigate this truth versus ‘the fantasy’. Was the individual psychotic in the weeks proceeding the murder? Was that psychosis heightened by the use of cannabis? Did the individual’s psychotic state lead to violence towards family members in the weeks leading to Jodi’s murder? Was the individual’s mental health so precarious that a home visit was scheduled from a mental health professional on the afternoon of the murder? Was that visit cancelled to allow the individual to smoke cannabis?

What in the paragraph above is ‘lies’? Further while this information was held by the prosecution at the time of the trial when exactly was it revealed to the defence?

In your own time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 14, 2023, 04:09:35 PM
Let’s start at the end. Lying about the victim? Where? It’s all there before the reader if the care to look back. Of course they won’t, and why should they, but that’s what you’re counting on. Give a dog a bad name and all that. Transparent.

Jodi’s brother? Did I point to him? No, that’d be you…but as you’ve brought it up let’s investigate this truth versus ‘the fantasy’. Was the individual psychotic in the weeks proceeding the murder? Was that psychosis heightened by the use of cannabis? Did the individual’s psychotic state lead to violence towards family members in the weeks leading to Jodi’s murder? Was the individual’s mental health so precarious that a home visit was scheduled from a mental health professional on the afternoon of the murder? Was that visit cancelled to allow the individual to smoke cannabis?

What in the paragraph above is ‘lies’? Further while this information was held by the prosecution at the time of the trial when exactly was it revealed to the defence?

In your own time.

Excellent confirmation once more Ms Lean - Well done, 10/10.

Where you prove my point to the T, kicking in there with the full works to spice it up - Makes it sound rather dreadful, doesn't it?

This information that Lean has put in the public domain for years dear, it is nothing new, Forbes adding his own flavour of spice to it.

Showing exactly why it is in the public domain taken from those statements, the full disclosure and honesty from Jodi's family, they had hidden nothing. Which highlights just how honest they were in everything and not the opposite, with trying to find some dishonesty around anything else dear girl.

Where you simply could not help yourself in giving it the full works, again proving my point, this embellishment to make something appear much worse that the actual truth. Something for a much later time. But and again, it shows the opposite, in whatever flavour is applied, of being fully investigated, honesty and EVERYTHING disclosed to the defence. Who again knew the truth of course and not the fantasy and embellishment applied, and in some parts out and out lies dear. Which part of in the statements was hidden from any defence - Stop making a fool of yourself, repeatedly, with the drools dear.

Rather pushed for time just now, I will leave you a question around lying about the victim dear. Where was Jodi Jones the evening her father died?  Just a kick start around lying about that poor girl, using her as some object to ride on the back of her killer. Let's see if you can even attempt to be honest here. Remember we are talking about you backing the bollocks in every shape dear, backing liars who even lie about the victim.




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 14, 2023, 06:32:22 PM
Excellent confirmation once more Ms Lean - Well done, 10/10.

Where you prove my point to the T, kicking in there with the full works to spice it up - Makes it sound rather dreadful, doesn't it?

This information that Lean has put in the public domain for years dear, it is nothing new, Forbes adding his own flavour of spice to it.

Showing exactly why it is in the public domain taken from those statements, the full disclosure and honesty from Jodi's family, they had hidden nothing. Which highlights just how honest they were in everything and not the opposite, with trying to find some dishonesty around anything else dear girl.

Where you simply could not help yourself in giving it the full works, again proving my point, this embellishment to make something appear much worse that the actual truth. Something for a much later time. But and again, it shows the opposite, in whatever flavour is applied, of being fully investigated, honesty and EVERYTHING disclosed to the defence. Who again knew the truth of course and not the fantasy and embellishment applied, and in some parts out and out lies dear. Which part of in the statements was hidden from any defence - Stop making a fool of yourself, repeatedly, with the drools dear.

Rather pushed for time just now, I will leave you a question around lying about the victim dear. Where was Jodi Jones the evening her father died?  Just a kick start around lying about that poor girl, using her as some object to ride on the back of her killer. Let's see if you can even attempt to be honest here. Remember we are talking about you backing the bollocks in every shape dear, backing liars who even lie about the victim.

Yet again you try to obscure the meat in your word salad.

Please point out where the lies are that I have posted? Are the individual’s mental health problems a figment of my imagination? And of course the cancelling of that important meeting with the mental health professional in order that the individual was able to smoke cannabis….all in his mother’s statement….the admission that she had in the past been dishonest at the request of the individual. All the sound and fury around one mother accused of lying for her boy, without a scintilla of evidence, when we have another mother admitting, candidly, that she did just that. The hypocrisy.

Further those medical records, never revealed to the defence….and how do we know that? Isn’t it obvious? Donald Findlay, Scotland’s most senior advocate, would never have swerved from using such explosive evidence to save his client. A psychotic individual close to Jodi, while Luke, after sessions with a psychologist, was found to be mentally stable. That would have been dynamite. Only a fundamentally incompetent barrister wouldn’t have used that kind of evidence and for all his faults that certainly doesn’t apply to Findlay.

Where was Jodi Jones on the evening that her dad died? No idea. Should I know? Is it relevant to the case or simply more tittle tattle around the periphery used to deflect from the meat?

The ‘dear’ thing….transparent and rather heavy footed. Do try harder.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 15, 2023, 03:31:32 PM
Let us do just that, we do not erase the fact of the type of murder and mutilation. This is the mindset we are dealing with here. Not some little boy who made a gross mistake in a fit of rage, full of remorse and unable to think, was he now?

This fantasizing of the best way to kill someone comes with an element of pre-meditation. You want to apply the minimum time of just  FIVE minutes. Which tells us, if this were the time it took, then Mitchell without doubt had clothing stashed in his playground. That woodland by his estate, by that river.

Then we apply distance and time. We know from house to that path, the long way, is a 7min walk at an even pace. We are talking a much shorter distance here. From that wooden gate to that stash, then back on to Newbattle road, seen attempting to exit that woodland by that couple in their car, before making his way DOWN to the estate entrance.

Then we apply clothing. Where we know just how much of Mitchell could/would be covered by what he was wearing, which left virtually nothing of himself exposed to any elements. Part of his face and at a push some strands of hair. And we never discount having gloves on. So, he needed a basic wash of surface contamination to the very little of himself exposed. Into other clothing and back on to that road. Your minimum 5 mins is ample time here.

For riding on this all is that alibi, the only person this girl was to be in the company of. That initial call then needing to place himself in that 'intentional' window of opportunity to be seen. The more you try to state the impossible, the more you simply highlight that level of premeditation to this.

We revert back to AB here, a girl, who was obviously not keen on going with the boy where he wanted to go. Beckoning on her to come to him, to go with him down there, as opposed to the "up here" she believed was happening. Leading her down into that area off the beaten track and instantly attacking her - Mitchell knew exactly what he was going to do. That fantasizing into reality. Didn't he now?

This clothing and the very little of himself being exposed, which also answers perfectly why his poor victim picked nothing of him up. There was nothing of him to pick up, was there now? Have another look at those types of hoods, some have drawstrings whilst others have buttons. Given that monk type effect, the face some distance in from the front. That is the reality of what need be exposed.

We apply the murder here, without a doubt having as much covered as possible, not just for contamination but should someone, on that slight off chance, wander into that area off the beaten track. Keeping his identity covered.

Which answers more, If that hood took the brunt of any contamination, then having it down when hearing that car. Having his head down - His hair, almost all of it, having nothing upon it. We have covered the material and colour, red against khaki green,

So there is that minimum 5 mins covered - From a killer who was fully covered bar that little exposure of his face. Which in turn tells us why his ankles were manky, his neck, his hair, none of which needed scrubbed, no killer that needed to be under any long, hot shower, at all. Leaving those nails which was the easiest part of all. Those missing time frames, any further cleaning after that "intentional" window of opportunity. Those hours before he was in police custody.

And not forgetting Mitchell striving to have himself over that wall - He had no idea the extent of anything that would happen, but certainly, should anything have been found upon him he would have put it down to this - Wouldn't he have?

It's certainly a plausible theory that it was premeditated (Mitchell having boasted to friends in the past that he knew the best way to kill someone and telling pals during a cannabis-smoking session that he could "imagine getting stoned and going out and killing someone just for a laugh"; and, of course, we can also factor in his previous violent conduct and behaviour against females and males alike). Interesting, too, you mention Jodi not having her phone that day due to it being broken and this potentially playing a part in his decision to murder her that day (opportunistic?). As regards LM 'beckoning' the girl down that path, I'm not so sure. I've always thought -- in line with what was depicted in the BBC Frontline Scotland documentary from 2007 -- that LM was reasoning with Jodi rather than beckoning her somewhere she didn't want to go. I would like to read all of AB's statements around her sighting that day (one of the most interesting things I've read with regard to AB's statements was that she thought "it didn't look like they were there to meet"; this can be cited from an old newspaper article). On the blue JB forum, I'm sure I read that Jodi & Luke had been arguing in school that day (spotted, uncharacteristically, with their backs to one another). Can anyone shed some light on this? It would certainly tie in with them arguing at the top of that path in Easthouses like AB strongly implied. I've always thought that they were arguing at the top of that path, it continued down as they were walking towards newbattle and LM snapped and murdered Jodi in a fit of rage. No premeditation involved, imo. I think LM was under the influence of cannabis, which could've explained the calmness in those post-murder mutilations after that momentary rage subsided. Still, premeditation is a possibility, although carrying this out in the middle of the day in peak summertime would be completely illogical.
 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 16, 2023, 01:04:42 AM
It's certainly a plausible theory that it was premeditated (Mitchell having boasted to friends in the past that he knew the best way to kill someone and telling pals during a cannabis-smoking session that he could "imagine getting stoned and going out and killing someone just for a laugh"; and, of course, we can also factor in his previous violent conduct and behaviour against females and males alike). Interesting, too, you mention Jodi not having her phone that day due to it being broken and this potentially playing a part in his decision to murder her that day (opportunistic?). As regards LM 'beckoning' the girl down that path, I'm not so sure. I've always thought -- in line with what was depicted in the BBC Frontline Scotland documentary from 2007 -- that LM was reasoning with Jodi rather than beckoning her somewhere she didn't want to go. I would like to read all of AB's statements around her sighting that day (one of the most interesting things I've read with regard to AB's statements was that she thought "it didn't look like they were there to meet"; this can be cited from an old newspaper article). On the blue JB forum, I'm sure I read that Jodi & Luke had been arguing in school that day (spotted, uncharacteristically, with their backs to one another). Can anyone shed some light on this? It would certainly tie in with them arguing at the top of that path in Easthouses like AB strongly implied. I've always thought that they were arguing at the top of that path, it continued down as they were walking towards newbattle and LM snapped and murdered Jodi in a fit of rage. No premeditation involved, imo. I think LM was under the influence of cannabis, which could've explained the calmness in those post-murder mutilations after that momentary rage subsided. Still, premeditation is a possibility, although carrying this out in the middle of the day in peak summertime would be completely illogical.


Can you please point out what part of the above isn’t either forum rumour or tabloid tittle tattle?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 17, 2023, 05:52:12 PM

Can you please point out what part of the above isn’t either forum rumour or tabloid tittle tattle?
Purely circumstantial cases tend to beget speculation, my dear. Par for the course. I've always wanted to read all of what AB said verbatim. In fact, ideally, I'd like to watch a recording of the trial in its entirety. I've always found it a tad odd the way in which SL frames some of AB's eyewitness evidence -- namely the evidence that was (initially) supposedly from her husband, saying that a youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots was spotted with that girl at the top of the path at Easthouses, but it actually emerged that the evidence was from AB herself (I made a post about this on one of the other threads); I don't understand how the source of such important evidence (yes, it was established that LM owned army clothing pre-murder) could get mixed up.

So, Faith, off the cuff . . . you've never heard about LM and Jodi arguing in school that day (their backs to one another in the China Gardens that afternoon)?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 17, 2023, 07:28:50 PM
Purely circumstantial cases tend to beget speculation, my dear. Par for the course. I've always wanted to read all of what AB said verbatim. In fact, ideally, I'd like to watch a recording of the trial in its entirety. I've always found it a tad odd the way in which SL frames some of AB's eyewitness evidence -- namely the evidence that was (initially) supposedly from her husband, saying that a youth with long messy hair, army clothing and big boots was spotted with that girl at the top of the path at Easthouses, but it actually emerged that the evidence was from AB herself (I made a post about this on one of the other threads); I don't understand how the source of such important evidence (yes, it was established that LM owned army clothing pre-murder) could get mixed up.

So, Faith, off the cuff . . . you've never heard about LM and Jodi arguing in school that day (their backs to one another in the China Gardens that afternoon)?

So you admit that much of what you write is speculation. Well it’s a start.

So to be clear who do you think actually saw the two youths at the Easthouses entrance to RDP?

As to your question, I’ve never seen any verifiable testimony from any witness that suggested that Luke and Jodi had had a falling out at school on that afternoon. Perhaps you can provide a cite? If you are suggesting that this falling out was over KT then Jodi certainly didn’t tell any of her girlfriend’s or any of her family about such a devastating event and apparently was very happy about her grounding being lifted so she could meet Luke that night. Jodi wrote in her diary, and I’m paraphrasing, that if Luke finished with her she’d die….does that sound like a girl who would be able hide from her mother her devastation at finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 18, 2023, 12:53:44 PM
So you admit that much of what you write is speculation. Well it’s a start.

So to be clear who do you think actually saw the two youths at the Easthouses entrance to RDP?

As to your question, I’ve never seen any verifiable testimony from any witness that suggested that Luke and Jodi had had a falling out at school on that afternoon. Perhaps you can provide a cite? If you are suggesting that this falling out was over KT then Jodi certainly didn’t tell any of her girlfriend’s or any of her family about such a devastating event and apparently was very happy about her grounding being lifted so she could meet Luke that night. Jodi wrote in her diary, and I’m paraphrasing, that if Luke finished with her she’d die….does that sound like a girl who would be able hide from her mother her devastation at finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her?

There were 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial, so it was a robust case. In between these 20 main pieces of evidence were other pieces of incriminating information which were never in the public domain but discussed on forums whose members were actually present at the original trial (such as a boardmember called 'Curious' or 'Concerned' on the tapatalk forums, ). For example, the boys in the abbey testifying that LM looked a lot cleaner than his usual self that night was never in the public domain; likewise, the argument in school might have happened but never released in the public domain (it may only have been discussed briefly in the early days, but then gradually petered out). So, the point I am trying to make here is that just because certain info isn't in the public domain does not mean it didn't happen. I'm sure I read on the blue JB forum that they had had, uncharacteristically, an argument that day in school (and this would certainly tie in with the actions/gesticulations/hand gestures/body language of the male with that female spotted by AB at 1654 at the top of the path in Easthouses, the argument possibly continuing from high school earlier; remember, too, Jodi's close friend Kisten Ford told a newspaper at the time of the trial that "Jodi seemed quiet that day, the more I think about it"). From memory, there was one forum member either on the JB blue forum or Shirley McKie tapatalk forum who claimed they were at the trial, though did not state in which capacity (think their username was 'Curious').

Anyway, I am convinced it was AB herself that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing when communicating with that girl on the top of the path at Easthouses. If it had been AB's husband who saw the couple, then he would have been called to court as a witness, too. It seems to me that police may have gotten mixed up at certain points whilst taking statements from AB, especially if her husband and brother-in-law knew the Joneses & Walkers and were present when AB gave her statements to them (the police may have written down statements from them even though they weren't witnesses).

Jodi simply may not have wanted to discuss it with her mother, and I'm sure Judith wasn't that keen on LM -- all the more reason for Jodi not confiding in her mother about their relationship. Teenagers are fickle, so can  move on quickly from disappointment and tragedy.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 18, 2023, 07:30:02 PM
There were 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial, so it was a robust case. In between these 20 main pieces of evidence were other pieces of incriminating information which were never in the public domain but discussed on forums whose members were actually present at the original trial (such as a boardmember called 'Curious' or 'Concerned' on the tapatalk forums, ). For example, the boys in the abbey testifying that LM looked a lot cleaner than his usual self that night was never in the public domain; likewise, the argument in school might have happened but never released in the public domain (it may only have been discussed briefly in the early days, but then gradually petered out). So, the point I am trying to make here is that just because certain info isn't in the public domain does not mean it didn't happen. I'm sure I read on the blue JB forum that they had had, uncharacteristically, an argument that day in school (and this would certainly tie in with the actions/gesticulations/hand gestures/body language of the male with that female spotted by AB at 1654 at the top of the path in Easthouses, the argument possibly continuing from high school earlier; remember, too, Jodi's close friend Kisten Ford told a newspaper at the time of the trial that "Jodi seemed quiet that day, the more I think about it"). From memory, there was one forum member either on the JB blue forum or Shirley McKie tapatalk forum who claimed they were at the trial, though did not state in which capacity (think their username was 'Curious').

Anyway, I am convinced it was AB herself that spotted the youth wearing the army clothing when communicating with that girl on the top of the path at Easthouses. If it had been AB's husband who saw the couple, then he would have been called to court as a witness, too. It seems to me that police may have gotten mixed up at certain points whilst taking statements from AB, especially if her husband and brother-in-law knew the Joneses & Walkers and were present when AB gave her statements to them (the police may have written down statements from them even though they weren't witnesses).

Jodi simply may not have wanted to discuss it with her mother, and I'm sure Judith wasn't that keen on LM -- all the more reason for Jodi not confiding in her mother about their relationship. Teenagers are fickle, so can  move on quickly from disappointment and tragedy.

Firstly a robust prosecution would have resulted in a unanimous verdict…that didn’t happen.

Did you know that I used all my holidays from work to attend the whole of Luke’s trial and there was a witness, their name escapes me now, who claimed that at the time the police believe Jodi was being killed Luke was in his living room watching Crossroads with him.

Of course the above is absolute rubbish but it does prove how easy it is to claim any old nonsense on internet forums. Further there is always someone who will believe the nonsense and repeat it elsewhere. If the information ‘revealed’ by your forum member has never been in the public domain how do you know if it had any veracity? Is it simply that as long as it fits your preferred narrative, and isn’t it strange that these posters always claim knowledge that further vilifies Luke, then it passes the sniff test?

Bryson didn’t describe her sighting as wearing any kind of military clothing. She described the male as wearing clothing you’d wear when fishing. The rest of the paragraph shows that you clearly don’t understand the rules that police have to adhere to when taking witness statements.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, and you, apart from an anonymous poster on an internet forum there is not one scintilla of proof that Jodi and Luke had any kind of falling out on the day she died.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 18, 2023, 07:54:20 PM
Did you know that I used all my holidays from work to attend the whole of Luke’s trial and there was a witness, their name escapes me now, who claimed that at the time the police believe Jodi was being killed Luke was in his living room watching Crossroads with him.

Crossroads finished in May 2003, unless it was a video.  I know I know it wasnt really.

Was it yourself that vaguely knew LM's Cockburn St group or am I getting mixed up?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 18, 2023, 10:35:34 PM
Crossroads finished in May 2003, unless it was a video.  I know I know it wasnt really.

Was it yourself that vaguely knew LM's Cockburn St group or am I getting mixed up?

You’re getting mixed up. I can’t remember ever having been to Dalkeith or surrounding areas.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 19, 2023, 03:46:13 PM
This fantasizing of the best way to kill someone comes with an element of pre-meditation. You want to apply the minimum time of just  FIVE minutes. Which tells us, if this were the time it took, then Mitchell without doubt had clothing stashed in his playground. That woodland by his estate,

Then we apply clothing. Where we know just how much of Mitchell could/would be covered by what he was wearing, which left virtually nothing of himself exposed to any elements. Part of his face and at a push some strands of hair. And we never discount having gloves on. So, he needed a basic wash of surface contamination to the very little of himself exposed. Into other clothing and back on to that road. Your minimum 5 mins is ample time here.

As I said before, I don't think it was premeditated. The stashing of clothing just seems a bit of a stretch to me. If there had been any stashing of jackets between 1740 - 1800, I think it would only have happened if he'd had the bomber jacket on underneath that parka. This is a possibility, as I think he dropped everything he was doing at 1634 when that first text from Jodi came through to say she was free to come out right there and then as opposed to her then curfew time of 1800 and headed to meet her immediately on foot or push bike. He'd worn the green bomber jacket to school that day, so there was every chance he was still wearing it in his house as Jodi text him at 1634. It was dull and overcast outside, threatening to rain, so LM may have decided to grab that parka just in case of rain, slipping it on top of his bomber jacket. And, as you say, that long parka, by its volume and length, catching the brunt of DNA traces from that poor girl -- transference to other parts of him and other clothing very unlikely. Perhaps he removed the parka in the woodland behind that gate & hid in there for 10-15 mins before emerging back on to n'battle road wearing only the bomber for that window between 1800 - 1820 (during which time he was seen by 6 different people). I think he then, possibly, went back into that woodland and retrieved the parka and went home to begin full disposal of all his clothing (informing his mother & brother what had happened to Jodi), bar the bomber, cleaning up in the adjacent rivers before meeting the boys in the abbey at 1930.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 19, 2023, 11:06:30 PM
Just catching up, and well, reading through some of those comments below the latest video, Forbes and Val Young is it? Must have about 2000 comments between them lol, don't these people have day jobs? Anyway, after reading some of the nonsense getting spouted from those that support the Mitchell's, we can be 100% sure that Luke will be spending many more years behind bars. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 20, 2023, 12:02:35 AM
AB paid for her shopping at 1632 then went to a house viewing in easterhouses. She spotted the 2 people near the path at 1654 after viewing the house I believe. Was wondering if anyone knows if she just drove past the house to have a look or parked and went inside to view the house?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 20, 2023, 12:15:48 AM
AB paid for her shopping at 1632 then went to a house viewing in easterhouses. She spotted the 2 people near the path at 1654 after viewing the house I believe. Was wondering if anyone knows if she just drove past the house to have a look or parked and went inside to view the house?

I believe that she didn’t go inside but simply viewed it from the car.

This is from an earlier post of mine.

In AB’s first statements she arrives in Easthouses at around 5.10, gets a bit lost as she said that she didn’t know Easthouses very well, finds the house, has a look and as it’s in a cul de sac has to manoeuvre back out and back up on to the main road  to see  the  individuals at around 5.40...so around 20-30 minutes. Not long if have difficulty finding the house, have a good look from outside then retrace your steps back to the main road and travel on to the locus of the sighting.

The revised timeline however, as you can see, leaves no time for viewing the house. Of course you could argue that AB’s time estimates are only that, estimates but can we really believe that a woman who, we are told, narrowed down a sighting to minutes couldn’t tell the difference between taking 10 minutes to get home and taking around 55 minutes, if her 5.50 estimate is correct. Then again perhaps AB did get home 10 minutes after her 4.54 revised sighting time but then this would leave approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between getting home and her husband’s phone call, instead of the 30 minutes she first estimated ( a 45ish minute discrepancy, just as Rolfe posted). Does this sound plausible to you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 20, 2023, 01:32:03 AM
I believe that she didn’t go inside but simply viewed it from the car.

This is from an earlier post of mine.

In AB’s first statements she arrives in Easthouses at around 5.10, gets a bit lost as she said that she didn’t know Easthouses very well, finds the house, has a look and as it’s in a cul de sac has to manoeuvre back out and back up on to the main road  to see  the  individuals at around 5.40...so around 20-30 minutes. Not long if have difficulty finding the house, have a good look from outside then retrace your steps back to the main road and travel on to the locus of the sighting.

The revised timeline however, as you can see, leaves no time for viewing the house. Of course you could argue that AB’s time estimates are only that, estimates but can we really believe that a woman who, we are told, narrowed down a sighting to minutes couldn’t tell the difference between taking 10 minutes to get home and taking around 55 minutes, if her 5.50 estimate is correct. Then again perhaps AB did get home 10 minutes after her 4.54 revised sighting time but then this would leave approximately an hour and fifteen minutes between getting home and her husband’s phone call, instead of the 30 minutes she first estimated ( a 45ish minute discrepancy, just as Rolfe posted). Does this sound plausible to you?

So the way I see it might be

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct, if til receipt was correct there is no way to have made it to path for 4.54)  -  pay for shopping
4.35 pack shopping leave for easterhouses
4.47 earliest possible time if direct to get to house viewing, not getting lost.
4.52 leave house viewing, giving 2 mins to get to path
4.54 see 2 people top of path
5.05 gets home
AB said she got call 30 mins later, 5.35 but call logged at 1817

Possible but tight, does not explain the call being 617.

Original timeline

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct)  - pay for shopping
5.10 get to easterhouses (for a 10 to 20 min drive seems a long time even if she did have to get to her car and pack it, unless the til receipt was correct?)
30 mins to find the house, view it from outside and drive to top of path. Seems a while but depends on how long she was driving around and how long she sat outside the house I suppose.
5.40 sees people on path
5.50 gets home, said received call 30 mins later
6.17 call received

Seems as with everything in this case there is an argument for both sides lol personally I think the original timeline is more plausible Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 01:05:38 AM
So the way I see it might be

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct, if til receipt was correct there is no way to have made it to path for 4.54)  -  pay for shopping
4.35 pack shopping leave for easterhouses
4.47 earliest possible time if direct to get to house viewing, not getting lost.
4.52 leave house viewing, giving 2 mins to get to path
4.54 see 2 people top of path
5.05 gets home
AB said she got call 30 mins later, 5.35 but call logged at 1817

Possible but tight, does not explain the call being 617.

Original timeline

4.32 on bank statements but 4.45 on supermarket receipts- (police say 4.32 is correct)  - pay for shopping
5.10 get to easterhouses (for a 10 to 20 min drive seems a long time even if she did have to get to her car and pack it, unless the til receipt was correct?)
30 mins to find the house, view it from outside and drive to top of path. Seems a while but depends on how long she was driving around and how long she sat outside the house I suppose.
5.40 sees people on path
5.50 gets home, said received call 30 mins later
6.17 call received

Seems as with everything in this case there is an argument for both sides lol personally I think the original timeline is more plausible Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40

“Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40”

…..IF the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi and if she was right how can Luke have been on the Newbattle Road at around the same time to be seen by Andrew Holborn et al? Of course it would also mean that the Walsh/Fleming sighting could never have happened.

Of course we’ve discussed the contention that the first statement taken from a witness is almost always the most reliable…why is discussed in the link below.

14. Moreover, developing statements through numerous drafts, getting the witness to retell the story over and over, is a process which may corrupt memory and render the final product less reliable than the first “unvarnished” recollection.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Witness-statement-working-group-Final-Report-1-1.pdf


The timings in AB’s first statement were determined by fixed points in her day..picking up her children from school, the supermarket receipt etc. Everything fitted, nothing was forced and of course the statement was taken when AB’s recall was at its sharpest. How the time supplied by the bank for AB’s supermarket checkout was accepted over her supermarket receipt has never been satisfactorily explained or indeed how thoroughly the discrepancy in time was investigated. How readily the defence appear to have simply accepted the prosecution’s explanation for this time anomaly, for me, is one of the most frustrating elements of a desperately frustrating case.

Another anomaly directly related to AB’s sighting is the lack of a police appeal for the couple seen by  her to come forward and eliminate themselves. While the police made many appeals for other individuals to come forward including the moped boys, the lady with the pram and even stocky man no appeal was ever made for the young couple seen at RDP. If Luke was not, as some contend, a suspect at the time the lack of an appeal is puzzling. The couple could have eliminated themselves but more importantly may have seen something pertinent to the investigation. Could it be that the time of the sighting in AB’s first statement was thought by the police to be just too late to be relevant? That would certainly be the logical conclusion.

Of course the lack of an identity parade in relation to AB’s identification of Luke, in contravention of all police guidelines, was nothing short of mystifying. The white background on the photograph of Luke picked out by AB has been discussed infinitum but what is discussed less is Luke’s hair in the photograph….bear with me. AB, in her first statement could not describe any of the facial features of the male youth she saw. She described the clothes he wore and his hair “ sandy brown sticking up in a clump at the back”. The polaroid that was shown to AB showed Luke with obviously blonde hair with wispy hair at the nape of his neck..some think this is the ‘clump’ described by AB…but the photograph was taken at least six weeks after the murder. As already posted she couldn’t describe his face and in the photograph his clothes were different so there was only one way she could have identified him, his hair. In the six weeks between sighting and identification what had happened to that hair? Had it been longer in June and cut shorter by August? Had it been short in June and was longer by August? Was it ever established if it was in a different style in June? Was his hair blonder at the start of the summer? For an identification that seemed to rely solely on the style of the sighting’s hair the questions above seem to have been the minimum that should have been asked. Why weren’t they?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Guiltyascharged on January 21, 2023, 10:06:09 AM


“Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40”

…..IF the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi and if she was right how can Luke have been on the Newbattle Road at around the same time to be seen by Andrew Holborn et al? Of course it would also mean that the Walsh/Fleming sighting could never have happened.

Of course we’ve discussed the contention that the first statement taken from a witness is almost always the most reliable…why is discussed in the link below.

14. Moreover, developing statements through numerous drafts, getting the witness to retell the story over and over, is a process which may corrupt memory and render the final product less reliable than the first “unvarnished” recollection.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Witness-statement-working-group-Final-Report-1-1.pdf


The timings in AB’s first statement were determined by fixed points in her day..picking up her children from school, the supermarket receipt etc. Everything fitted, nothing was forced and of course the statement was taken when AB’s recall was at its sharpest. How the time supplied by the bank for AB’s supermarket checkout was accepted over her supermarket receipt has never been satisfactorily explained or indeed how thoroughly the discrepancy in time was investigated. How readily the defence appear to have simply accepted the prosecution’s explanation for this time anomaly, for me, is one of the most frustrating elements of a desperately frustrating case.

Another anomaly directly related to AB’s sighting is the lack of a police appeal for the couple seen by  her to come forward and eliminate themselves. While the police made many appeals for other individuals to come forward including the moped boys, the lady with the pram and even stocky man no appeal was ever made for the young couple seen at RDP. If Luke was not, as some contend, a suspect at the time the lack of an appeal is puzzling. The couple could have eliminated themselves but more importantly may have seen something pertinent to the investigation. Could it be that the time of the sighting in AB’s first statement was thought by the police to be just too late to be relevant? That would certainly be the logical conclusion.

Of course the lack of an identity parade in relation to AB’s identification of Luke, in contravention of all police guidelines, was nothing short of mystifying. The white background on the photograph of Luke picked out by AB has been discussed infinitum but what is discussed less is Luke’s hair in the photograph….bear with me. AB, in her first statement could not describe any of the facial features of the male youth she saw. She described the clothes he wore and his hair “ sandy brown sticking up in a clump at the back”. The polaroid that was shown to AB showed Luke with obviously blonde hair with wispy hair at the nape of his neck..some think this is the ‘clump’ described by AB…but the photograph was taken at least six weeks after the murder. As already posted she couldn’t describe his face and in the photograph his clothes were different so there was only one way she could have identified him, his hair. In the six weeks between sighting and identification what had happened to that hair? Had it been longer in June and cut shorter by August? Had it been short in June and was longer by August? Was it ever established if it was in a different style in June? Was his hair blonder at the start of the summer? For an identification that seemed to rely solely on the style of the sighting’s hair the questions above seem to have been the minimum that should have been asked. Why weren’t they?
Sandra I notice you say above "even fits with ao saying jodi had just left"

Don't you agree with Scott and lm on the "they"?

How long has the "they" claim been made?  Lm claims this via Scott, your post suggests its not in ao statements and you do not agree?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 10:18:08 AM
Sandra I notice you say above "even fits with ao saying jodi had just left"

Don't you agree with Scott and lm on the "they"?

How long has the "they" claim been made?  Lm claims this via Scott, your post suggests its not in ao statements and you do not agree?

I’m not Sandra but that aside the “even fits” was a quote from another member’s post. This makes your post rather irrelevant I’m afraid.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Guiltyascharged on January 21, 2023, 10:35:29 AM
Sure yer no.... Done exactly as she would, still avoided the question. Is it they or jodi ??? From ao not lm?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 12:51:17 PM
Sure yer no.... Done exactly as she would, still avoided the question. Is it they or jodi ??? From ao not lm?

I didn’t make the claim so am in no way obligated to answer. The answer makes not a scintilla of difference to Luke’s guilt or innocence….my main concern. What it is yet again is tinkering around the periphery of the case in order to deflect. I’m afraid I’m not willing to take part in that kind of nonsense.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 21, 2023, 03:17:09 PM
Just catching up, and well, reading through some of those comments below the latest video, Forbes and Val Young is it? Must have about 2000 comments between them lol, don't these people have day jobs? Anyway, after reading some of the nonsense getting spouted from those that support the Mitchell's, we can be 100% sure that Luke will be spending many more years behind bars.

It really is a cesspit and Forbes seems to have attracted the remnants of the Jeremy Kyle audience, ranting about lie detectors and new evidence. As you say, it will do LM more harm than good in the long run.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 03:56:15 PM
It really is a cesspit and Forbes seems to have attracted the remnants of the Jeremy Kyle audience, ranting about lie detectors and new evidence. As you say, it will do LM more harm than good in the long run.

Do you really think that a few thousand comments or members in a Facebook group, no matter what their intelligence levels, will hamper Luke’s chances of having his conviction quashed? Really? It won’t..much like detractors like your good self won’t keep him in jail if new evidence suggests he’s innocent.

Police Scotland and the Scottish legal system will hold on for grim death but if there’s evidence to be found that exonerates Luke it will be found and neither you nor I or a million keyboard warriors will be able to sabotage that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 21, 2023, 03:56:51 PM
“Even fits with AO saying Jodi had just left during the call made from Luke around 5.40”

…..IF the couple seen by AB was Luke and Jodi and if she was right how can Luke have been on the Newbattle Road at around the same time to be seen by Andrew Holborn et al? Of course it would also mean that the Walsh/Fleming sighting could never have happened.

Of course we’ve discussed the contention that the first statement taken from a witness is almost always the most reliable…why is discussed in the link below.

14. Moreover, developing statements through numerous drafts, getting the witness to retell the story over and over, is a process which may corrupt memory and render the final product less reliable than the first “unvarnished” recollection.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Witness-statement-working-group-Final-Report-1-1.pdf


The timings in AB’s first statement were determined by fixed points in her day..picking up her children from school, the supermarket receipt etc. Everything fitted, nothing was forced and of course the statement was taken when AB’s recall was at its sharpest. How the time supplied by the bank for AB’s supermarket checkout was accepted over her supermarket receipt has never been satisfactorily explained or indeed how thoroughly the discrepancy in time was investigated. How readily the defence appear to have simply accepted the prosecution’s explanation for this time anomaly, for me, is one of the most frustrating elements of a desperately frustrating case.

Another anomaly directly related to AB’s sighting is the lack of a police appeal for the couple seen by  her to come forward and eliminate themselves. While the police made many appeals for other individuals to come forward including the moped boys, the lady with the pram and even stocky man no appeal was ever made for the young couple seen at RDP. If Luke was not, as some contend, a suspect at the time the lack of an appeal is puzzling. The couple could have eliminated themselves but more importantly may have seen something pertinent to the investigation. Could it be that the time of the sighting in AB’s first statement was thought by the police to be just too late to be relevant? That would certainly be the logical conclusion.

Of course the lack of an identity parade in relation to AB’s identification of Luke, in contravention of all police guidelines, was nothing short of mystifying. The white background on the photograph of Luke picked out by AB has been discussed infinitum but what is discussed less is Luke’s hair in the photograph….bear with me. AB, in her first statement could not describe any of the facial features of the male youth she saw. She described the clothes he wore and his hair “ sandy brown sticking up in a clump at the back”. The polaroid that was shown to AB showed Luke with obviously blonde hair with wispy hair at the nape of his neck..some think this is the ‘clump’ described by AB…but the photograph was taken at least six weeks after the murder. As already posted she couldn’t describe his face and in the photograph his clothes were different so there was only one way she could have identified him, his hair. In the six weeks between sighting and identification what had happened to that hair? Had it been longer in June and cut shorter by August? Had it been short in June and was longer by August? Was it ever established if it was in a different style in June? Was his hair blonder at the start of the summer? For an identification that seemed to rely solely on the style of the sighting’s hair the questions above seem to have been the minimum that should have been asked. Why weren’t they?

Meanwhile in reality - First statements, best recall. Love it.

CM we had no shopping, had missed out that she had been shopping. Her best recall of driving down the "Beeches" home. her usual time stepping indoors.

LM, best recall, mum arrived home her usual time, we had burnt pies, no shopping, no mum with any shopping when she arrived home at her usual time.

Both, best recall, it was a very relaxed affair, mother and son together helping sort the rest of dinner, mother outback in the dreich weather enjoying the sunshine, Luke in front of the TV, no indigestion - Lovely recall. first statements.

SM I went home, Luke was not there, I did not see him because he was still at school. Luke spoken about, no memory, no recall of talking with Luke on the phone, the claim that it was to say he would be late home. - Best recall, memory, accuracy, hours from that murder taken place.

Three days later with massive discussion going on in that house, no memory, no recall, the same story, that winging it. Two people to back the other up, all that they thought was needed. The heat is on, SM this time a formal interview within those station walls. Still the same, straight home, no call, no Luke. Dinner? Dam, what dinner and the "I cannot remember" card it played.

Not good, mother has now included him, she is going to be exposed for lying, help me please Shane, for you mother, anything? - Innocence would have been waiting, not rushing to change a statement by request of his mother, to lie to the police for his mother. By phoning the police to change his account. his mother had told him exactly what had taken place - Memory, best recall.

Friday and bang, the computer is taken, shit! Did not bank on that, dam, why the hell have they taken my computer, now they are going to know I was on the internet and not in the kitchen with any brother mashing totties!

Three people from the same household, who had no best memory, no recall, who gave no truth in those first statements, who stuck at those first statements until bang again - CCTV footage and those phone logs produced. - That which was clearly winging it came crashing down about them. - Luke Mitchell was not home.

This best memory, first recall, that very relaxed dinner tale, nicely spread out to cover, right up to and inclusive of that sighting by F&W. 35mins down to just 13mins.

Luke Mitchell I went out to meet with Jodi walking down, I waited a short while, yes he did indeed wait a short while, truth at last, that intentional window of opportunity to be seen on that road around the estate entrance. But dam it turned into 90mins, with around 70mins unaccounted for around the estate entrance - But he was seen elsewhere, by F&W at the wooden gate, by that lovely couple as he tried to exit back on to Newbattle Road, to make his way down to the entrance of that estate, to place himself in that, intentional window of opportunity.

But dam, it was massive police manipulation of witnesses, who were all out to get that boy, that child, to fit him up, for all the police cared about was a hit! No thought for that young girl who had been brutally murdered. - Have a word!

AB - Told exactly what she had been doing, told of seeing that couple with guesstimates, not clock watching and no reason to be. The Jones family, the exact same, a series of events, those guesstimates, there was no clock watching, no concoction of events put in place. And on it goes, checked up on and checked out - Telling the truth.

So spare us this bollocks trying to evade that stark reality - Three people, same household, best memory recall, first statements, exposed and blown wide open.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 21, 2023, 07:46:01 PM
Do you really think that a few thousand comments or members in a Facebook group, no matter what their intelligence levels, will hamper Luke’s chances of having his conviction quashed? Really? It won’t..much like detractors like your good self won’t keep him in jail if new evidence suggests he’s innocent.

Police Scotland and the Scottish legal system will hold on for grim death but if there’s evidence to be found that exonerates Luke it will be found and neither you nor I or a million keyboard warriors will be able to sabotage that.

No I don't think social media will influence any part of LM's future. However nodding dogs accusing the Jones family of murder may taint any possible future investigation. 

The Mitchell camp (in general) seem devoid of any ability to debate the case - obviously not your good self - without accusing someone of being a troll or liar.  There are grown adults saying their hearts are aching for Luke and sending messages to him at HMP Shotts to cheer him up? Regardless of his guilt, he comes across as a deeply unpleasant and disturbing person (and yes I've not met him).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 08:20:52 PM

AB - Told exactly what she had been doing, told of seeing that couple with guesstimates, not clock watching and no reason to be. The Jones family, the exact same, a series of events, those guesstimates, there was no clock watching, no concoction of events put in place. And on it goes, checked up on and checked out - Telling the truth.
So spare us this bollocks trying to evade that stark reality - Three people, same household, best memory recall, first statements, exposed and blown wide open.

Agreed. In her first statement AB did tell the truth and did tell the investigators EXACTLY what she had done and in which order. Of course she estimated some of the times but always in relation to fixed points in her afternoon…her daughter arriving home from school at 4.05 and immediately departing for the supermarket. 10 minutes journey to the supermarket arriving at around 4.15 and then the weekly shop and checking the shopping out in around 30 minutes, working in exactly with the supermarket till receipt time of 4.45. These were the times given twice by AB in two separate  statements on two different days with time in between to really work out her timings. The latterly accepted 4.32 bank statement would have left barely 17 minutes for AB to carry out her weekly shopping and check out…if, as the prosecution maintained, she saw Luke and Jodi. Perhaps you can explain Parky when exactly AB looked for and found the house for sale that she wanted to view?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 08:42:30 PM
No I don't think social media will influence any part of LM's future. However nodding dogs accusing the Jones family of murder may taint any possible future investigation. 

The Mitchell camp (in general) seem devoid of any ability to debate the case - obviously not your good self - without accusing someone of being a troll or liar.  There are grown adults saying their hearts are aching for Luke and sending messages to him at HMP Shotts to cheer him up? Regardless of his guilt, he comes across as a deeply unpleasant and disturbing person (and yes I've not met him).

I’m not sure why you think that any accusations against anyone connected to the case will taint any investigation in the future although perhaps you recognise what a devastating role gossip and tittle tattle had in Luke’s case?

As to “the Mitchell camp” there’s good and bad in every large group. Since contributing to this page I’ve been accused of being multiple personalities as well as carrying out multiple calumnies. Do I judge everyone here harshly because of it…of course not. As to Luke, if you’ve never met him how can you possibly know what he’s like in RL? I have several friends who’ve been monstered by the media and unless you’ve experienced it you can have no idea how far they will go to blacken your name.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 21, 2023, 09:55:28 PM
I’m not sure why you think that any accusations against anyone connected to the case will taint any investigation in the future although perhaps you recognise what a devastating role gossip and tittle tattle had in Luke’s case?

As to “the Mitchell camp” there’s good and bad in every large group. Since contributing to this page I’ve been accused of being multiple personalities as well as carrying out multiple calumnies. Do I judge everyone here harshly because of it…of course not. As to Luke, if you’ve never met him how can you possibly know what he’s like in RL? I have several friends who’ve been monstered by the media and unless you’ve experienced it you can have no idea how far they will go to blacken your name.

Ask Shane Mitchell, he knows the truth.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 21, 2023, 10:35:37 PM
Ask Shane Mitchell, he knows the truth.

True, but according to LM defenders he just wants a quiet life so won't speak out, which is why he never visits his brother or mother since the trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 21, 2023, 11:24:41 PM
True, but according to LM defenders he just wants a quiet life so won't speak out, which is why he never visits his brother or mother since the trial.

How do you know this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 22, 2023, 07:21:54 PM
True, but according to LM defenders he just wants a quiet life so won't speak out, which is why he never visits his brother or mother since the trial.

Shane smashed Luke's alibi into a million pieces when he gave evidence that he was alone in the family home. Strange one really!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 22, 2023, 09:08:34 PM
Shane smashed Luke's alibi into a million pieces when he gave evidence that he was alone in the family home. Strange one really!

He did. His evidence and the missing parka evidence are the two most incriminating pieces of evidence agains LM, followed closely by the record time he found that poor girl's butchered body in (indicative of LM's 'guilty knowledge', imo).

Btw, John, do you think Jodi's murder was premeditated? And, what is your theory as to why LM was seen on N'battle rd wearing a parka @ 1740 and then seen wearing only a bomber jacket @ just before 1800 on N'battle Rd?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 22, 2023, 09:42:04 PM
Shane smashed Luke's alibi into a million pieces when he gave evidence that he was alone in the family home. Strange one really!

You have known since Luke’s trial about Shane’s court testimony yet continued to support him until relatively recently. What changed your mind?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 22, 2023, 10:41:42 PM
Shane smashed Luke's alibi into a million pieces when he gave evidence that he was alone in the family home. Strange one really!

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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 22, 2023, 11:03:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 22, 2023, 11:52:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 23, 2023, 07:40:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 23, 2023, 11:30:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 09:24:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on January 25, 2023, 09:47:37 AM
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 25, 2023, 12:50:53 PM
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.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 03:15:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 25, 2023, 03:21:02 PM
He might be a lawer, but not a genuine bona fide lawyer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s (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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 04:27:54 PM
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.  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 04:58:08 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 04:59:56 PM
I’d forgotten how flimsy the circumstantial case was and how many of the points have been blown apart since.

Totally agree!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 25, 2023, 05:33:54 PM
He might be a lawer, but not a genuine bona fide lawyer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnzKThFXZ0&t=0s)
something about kilts?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on January 25, 2023, 05:46:04 PM
something about kilts?
Not sure what you mean?  Find it hard enough trying to follow his rapid-fire Scottish brogue!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 25, 2023, 06:49:41 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 06:54:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 06:56:17 PM
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?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 07:04:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 07:06:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 07:13:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 07:18:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 07:35:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 25, 2023, 07:40:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 07:52:09 PM
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!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 08:27:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 25, 2023, 08:48:12 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 09:12:06 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 25, 2023, 09:16:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 25, 2023, 09:38:19 PM
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!"

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 09:42:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 10:00:19 PM
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.

Shane believed in his first statement that he had arrived home from work at around 3.30 pm, his usual time and, obviously, Luke wouldn’t have been in the house as he would still have been at school. This is why, in his first statement Shane said that he hadn’t seen Luke. However he changed that time as a direct result of two witnesses, one independent, reminding him of certain events…his friend reminding him that he’d helped him with his car ( receipts provided) and his mum reminding him of the making of the dinner etc. He then changed his statement to reflect these two events. Nothing sinister there. It is strange however that if Shane had been correct about Luke not being at home that he didn’t remember having no dinner that night because there would have been no one there to make it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 10:02:16 PM
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!

If Luke hadn’t been at home Shane wouldn’t have had any dinner.

Did Shane claim that?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 25, 2023, 10:10:56 PM
If Luke hadn’t been at home Shane wouldn’t have had any dinner.

Did Shane claim that?

Didnt SM claim he had his dinner in his room, CM in the garden and LM in the lounge watching TV? And who spotted LM mashing tatties and blaring loud music.

How could all of this happened without SM seeing or hearing LM? And that SM finished his porn session with his door open just before CM arrived home at 5.15pm then left at 5.30pm? That's what I call fast food.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 25, 2023, 10:11:05 PM
Just one more little thing before I hit the hay .... the till mechanism at the Gorebridge Coop being out by 13 mins is interesting. If a survey was put to the general public of what would be more reliable for timings, I'm certain that the bank statement timings would get the bulk of the votes. Therefore, AB's sighting of the couple is still 100% plausible. I'll add to this another day.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 10:16:30 PM
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.

I don't think his memory had anything to do with it. The prosecutor had warned him of the consequences of committing perjury and that was enough to elicit a truthful response.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: John on January 25, 2023, 10:19:35 PM
I’ve read your posts written over many years…you knew the ‘facts’ and still supported Luke. What particular facts changed your mind?

For many years I was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but after visiting the scene and carefully putting together the evidence I came to the reluctant conclusion that he was most probably the killer.

His mother's attitude towards anyone raising serious concerns about his defence certainly didn't do him any favours if I'm honest.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 10:22:49 PM
I don't think his memory had anything to do with it. The prosecutor had warned him of the consequences of committing perjury and that was enough to elicit a truthful response.

His response, I believe, was he honestly could not remember if Luke was home.

Do you think he would have been convinced if not for Shane’s inability to remember if Luke was home or not? Was the case strong enough without this in your opinion?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 10:24:47 PM
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!"

Have you seen the footage? Or was it simply a teacher claiming that Luke had a parka….of course we now know that one of his friends had a parka….who’s to say one boy was not mistaken for the other? With the hood up it’d be hard to tell.

The Ramage concert has already been debunked but keep on spreading the rumours. They were useful in 2003, not sure how successful they are now. Not more than a dozen people sharing long ago disproved ‘facts’ in their own echo chamber. Not sure why you waste your time.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 10:28:45 PM
Didnt SM claim he had his dinner in his room, CM in the garden and LM in the lounge watching TV? And who spotted LM mashing tatties and blaring loud music.

How could all of this happened without SM seeing or hearing LM? And that SM finished his porn session with his door open just before CM arrived home at 5.15pm then left at 5.30pm? That's what I call fast food.

Shane absolutely claimed that. So who made that dinner if not Luke? We know Corrine wasn’t home to 5.15pm.

As to fast food, have you ever seen young men eat?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 10:31:27 PM
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?

This question has came up many times over the years, as to the evidence there was a parka. At no time has anyone ever said there was any pictures or cctv of Luke in a parka before the murder. From my understand, please someone correct me if I’m wrong, there were a number of witnesses around 8 I think and the star witness was a teacher who said he looked like a monk with the hood up in the parka. None of Luke’s close friends or family provided evidence in court on the parka.

That’s not to say there are no pictures came to light since the trial. It may be there is a picture found now that was in the back of someone’s cupboard. Now that I would love to see, actual hard evidence against Luke that would probably be enough to say case closed for a lot of folk. That picture would be worth some money to the right reporter.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 10:41:00 PM
I don't think his memory had anything to do with it. The prosecutor had warned him of the consequences of committing perjury and that was enough to elicit a truthful response.

Or he had just had a charge of perverting the course of justice against him dropped and knew the response the prosecution expected.

Shane’s response to a question put to him by Donald Findlay perfectly illustrates the position he found himself in.

“ He was then asked by defence QC Donald Findlay if there was any point in the evening where he could say he knew for a fact that Luke was not in the house.

Shane responded: "I can't say that."

Why didn’t Shane just say yes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 25, 2023, 10:41:15 PM
Didnt SM claim he had his dinner in his room, CM in the garden and LM in the lounge watching TV? And who spotted LM mashing tatties and blaring loud music.

How could all of this happened without SM seeing or hearing LM? And that SM finished his porn session with his door open just before CM arrived home at 5.15pm then left at 5.30pm? That's what I call fast food.

Was the ‘porn session’ not found to be the pop ups you use to get back then when looking at car sites like Shane was. The timings showed the ‘porn clips’ were just a few seconds at a time, pop ups opening on a website then being closed. (Info from Sandra’s book)
Also there has been many a time when I was younger I came home went right up to my room and had no idea if anyone else was home. If you are not looking listening or taking much notice it’s very possible for someone to be home and not be noticed or remembered.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 25, 2023, 11:26:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 25, 2023, 11:47:50 PM
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?

Isn’t she dead?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 26, 2023, 11:53:15 AM
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.
'
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 26, 2023, 05:47:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 26, 2023, 06:16:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 26, 2023, 06:51:58 PM
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.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 26, 2023, 06:53:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 26, 2023, 07:19:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 26, 2023, 09:34:05 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 27, 2023, 05:37:36 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 27, 2023, 10:49:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 27, 2023, 10:59:15 PM
SF mentions in his JE podcast that JOSJ confessed at a police station to the killing. Does anyone know anything about this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 27, 2023, 11:44:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 12:33:16 AM
“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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 28, 2023, 01:40:44 PM
“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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 07:18:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 08:09:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 28, 2023, 08:28:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 28, 2023, 08:49:13 PM
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.

No incriminating DNA was found, crucially. The stocky man supossedly following Jodi theory has been debunked. It wasn't JOSJ, but a totally separate man. AB, in court, when asked if it was LM in the dock, replied, verbatim: ":I don't know." So, she didn't fail to identify him. She was simply being honest (18 months had elapsed since her first sighting, so he'd obviously changed; and, let's face it, DF would have told him to go out of his way to look differently by means of hairstyle and clothing). There's a world of difference and you know it. Nice try, though.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 28, 2023, 08:50:33 PM
[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.

I think it is about time we started to see cites for such claims. There has not been a shred of evidence provided to back up any of it > EVER.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 09:18:38 PM
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.

Luke’s dna was taken also, nothing incriminating found either.

We only have family’s word Joseph was sleeping.

Why could it not have been Joseph that did it?

I’m not saying he did, all I’m saying is his circumstantial case in court would be as strong as Luke’s was.

If it had went to court then it would matter that the gran and sister wanted to recheck to path, it may point to them knowing where the body was, same as it did for Luke and the dog finding her.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 09:22:58 PM
I think it is about time we started to see cites for such claims. There has not been a shred of evidence provided to back up any of it > EVER.

Long walk to justice - Scott Forbes
James English interview with Scott Forbes
Innocents Betrayed - Dr Sandra Lean

There has not been a shred of evidence to back up the claim Luke had a parka, it was Luke at top of path, anything was burnt in back garden, Luke was not home making tea, Luke was at the crime scene or that Luke killed Jodi. All word of mouth
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 09:27:03 PM
No incriminating DNA was found, crucially. The stocky man supossedly following Jodi theory has been debunked. It wasn't JOSJ, but a totally separate man. AB, in court, when asked if it was LM in the dock, replied, verbatim: ":I don't know." So, she didn't fail to identify him. She was simply being honest (18 months had elapsed since her first sighting, so he'd obviously changed; and, let's face it, DF would have told him to go out of his way to look differently by means of hairstyle and clothing). There's a world of difference and you know it. Nice try, though.

What incriminating DNA would you expect to find on someone who shared a house with the murder victim? Anything that was found could logically be put down to transference, much like the DNA of Jodi’s found on the trousers that Luke had taken to his father’s.

No Stocky Man wasn’t debunked…the lead simply was not followed. Stocky man was identified by a witness, with as much credibility as Bryson, at Jodi’s funeral. That individual was the man previously mentioned with mental health issues.

Bryson did fail to identify him or chose not to identify him but let’s take your claim at face value…if Luke had changed so much in the intervening months that he was unrecognisable does that mean the dock identification of Fleming and Walsh should be disregarded?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 09:29:54 PM
Luke’s dna was taken also, nothing incriminating found either.

We only have family’s word Joseph was sleeping.

Why could it not have been Joseph that did it?

I’m not saying he did, all I’m saying is his circumstantial case in court would be as strong as Luke’s was.

If it had went to court then it would matter that the gran and sister wanted to recheck to path, it may point to them knowing where the body was, same as it did for Luke and the dog finding her.

A more pertinent question is did the individual related to Jodi give evidence in court and if not why not? He was allegedly in the house when Jodi left and was there when the call came through that she was missing. He would certainly have had information to add.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 09:37:38 PM
No incriminating DNA was found, crucially. The stocky man supossedly following Jodi theory has been debunked. It wasn't JOSJ, but a totally separate man. AB, in court, when asked if it was LM in the dock, replied, verbatim: ":I don't know." So, she didn't fail to identify him. She was simply being honest (18 months had elapsed since her first sighting, so he'd obviously changed; and, let's face it, DF would have told him to go out of his way to look differently by means of hairstyle and clothing). There's a world of difference and you know it. Nice try, though.

So all anyone needs to to in court if there is a witness that saw them do the crime is change their appearance? I don’t think so. She knew who Luke Mitchell was in that court room, all she had to do was point him out. She did not
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 28, 2023, 09:43:02 PM
Long walk to justice - Scott Forbes
James English interview with Scott Forbes
Innocents Betrayed - Dr Sandra Lean

Predictable, do you want me to cite you a book to prove god is real. It is embarrassing.

There has not been a shred of evidence to back up the claim Luke had a parka, it was Luke at top of path, anything was burnt in back garden, Luke was not home making tea, Luke was at the crime scene or that Luke killed Jodi. All word of mouth

The evidence was presented in court in front of a jury, if you were not at the trial, then tough. The crown is under no obligation to provide this evidence to some internet conspiracy theorists 18 years later.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 09:51:59 PM
Predictable, do you want me to cite you a book to prove god is real. It is embarrassing.

The evidence was presented in court in front of a jury, if you were not at the trial, then tough. The crown is under no obligation to provide this evidence to some internet conspiracy theorists 18 years later.

The evidence wasn’t even strong enough to obtain a unanimous verdict…and if you consider the vilification of the defendant for years before the case even came to court that can’t fail to surprise even the most ardent pro-guilter like yourself.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 28, 2023, 10:01:34 PM
Luke’s dna was taken also, nothing incriminating found either.

We only have family’s word Joseph was sleeping.

Why could it not have been Joseph that did it?

I’m not saying he did, all I’m saying is his circumstantial case in court would be as strong as Luke’s was.

If it had went to court then it would matter that the gran and sister wanted to recheck to path, it may point to them knowing where the body was, same as it did for Luke and the dog finding her.

There were markers found that matched the markers in LM's genetic profile. So, not exactly true. And, further tests by the sccrc revealed more partial profiles of his were found on Jodi's trousers at the locus.  Besides, what happened to that big parka that was proved he owned prior to the murder? Did this have incriminating dna on it? Rhetorical question, methinks.

Well, he certainly wasn't out searching with Alicev& co. And it's been proven he wasn't seen following jodi earlier -- that was a different man who was on that road innocently and traced and eliminated.

Common sense.

Rubbish. 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence were used to convict LM. Where is the similar amount of circumstantial evidence against JOSJ?

It was LM who initiated the search of west of the RDP. Even if he didn't, it was he who introduced the woodland strip to the search party. Firstly at the first break in the wall at the gino spot. Why did he shine his torch into the woodland so quickly? Very cunning, imo. Then he sealed his own fate by next going directly to that v break in the wall. No hesitation. Right there and over it .. and BOOM! He says he's spotted something. Even managed to identify all the clothing and intricate details in the pitch black of night with only a standard family torch! How could he manage all this in such record time? He had guilty knowledge and knew the terrain like the back of his hand. Guilty as sin.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 28, 2023, 10:19:31 PM
There were markers found that matched the markers in LM's genetic profile. So, not exactly true. And, further tests by the sccrc revealed more partial profiles of his were found on Jodi's trousers at the locus.  Besides, what happened to that big parka that was proved he owned prior to the murder? Did this have incriminating dna on it? Rhetorical question, methinks.

Well, he certainly wasn't out searching with Alicev& co. And it's been proven he wasn't seen following jodi earlier -- that was a different man who was on that road innocently and traced and eliminated.

Common sense.

Rubbish. 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence were used to convict LM. Where is the similar amount of circumstantial evidence against JOSJ?

It was LM who initiated the search of west of the RDP. Even if he didn't, it was he who introduced the woodland strip to the search party. Firstly at the first break in the wall at the gino spot. Why did he shine his torch into the woodland so quickly? Very cunning, imo. Then he sealed his own fate by next going directly to that v break in the wall. No hesitation. Right there and over it .. and BOOM! He says he's spotted something. Even managed to identify all the clothing and intricate details in the pitch black of night with only a standard family torch! How could he manage all this in such record time? He had guilty knowledge and knew the terrain like the back of his hand. Guilty as sin.

Stocky man is an interesting player in the whole saga.

Two witnesses saw Jodi being followed by a man of similar stature and wearing similar clothing. One witness identified an individual who was out of the country at the time and therefore was eliminated from the investigation. That doesn’t however mean that that witness didn’t see Jodi being followed but merely that he’d misidentified Stocky man. The sighting was still relevant.

The second witness identified a member of Jodi’s family from footage of her funeral. That individual was never formally eliminated from the enquiry.

Two witnesses describing the same man…witnesses who were simply dropped from the enquiry.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 28, 2023, 10:33:28 PM
Long walk to justice - Scott Forbes
James English interview with Scott Forbes
Innocents Betrayed - Dr Sandra Lean

There has not been a shred of evidence to back up the claim Luke had a parka, it was Luke at top of path, anything was burnt in back garden, Luke was not home making tea, Luke was at the crime scene or that Luke killed Jodi. All word of mouth

JE interview with SF is hardly a cite. Two ex-criminals chewing the fat and going all over the place on YouTube is hardly a reasoned argument. Both SL & SF's books contradict each other on a number of issues and are drawn from the defence papers so cannot be taken as verbatim as to what was said in court. We simply do not know if it was proved in court if LM had a parka as neither of the authors were there.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 10:41:21 PM
Predictable, do you want me to cite you a book to prove god is real. It is embarrassing.

The evidence was presented in court in front of a jury, if you were not at the trial, then tough. The crown is under no obligation to provide this evidence to some internet conspiracy theorists 18 years later.

The cites you ask for relate to Joseph mental health, and you ask me not to believe Both Sandra and Scott who are Luke’s legal representatives, that have seen the evidence, his medical records

Yet ask me to believe some random people who may or may not have seen Luke at the top of the path. May or may not have seen him in a parka, without a shred or evidence and you call me embarrassing. Ok then.

By the way I’m not asking the court to provide me evidence, some random internet person. I’m asking them to have provided it to the jury at the time. What evidence was there Luke had a parka, other than hear say. Photos, cctv? Nope not that I’m aware. What evidence was there Luke was at top or bottom of the path other than hearsay, people that saw someone that may or may not be Luke, not evidence it was him.

2 people that have seen [Name removed] medical records, that’s evidence is it not. That or they are both getting sued!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 10:46:56 PM
JE interview with SF is hardly a cite. Two ex-criminals chewing the fat and going all over the place on YouTube is hardly a reasoned argument. Both SL & SF's books contradict each other on a number of issues and are drawn from the defence papers so cannot be taken as verbatim as to what was said in court. We simply do not know if it was proved in court if LM had a parka as neither of the authors were there.

They were not there but they have Luke’s defence papers, with the evidence included.

The cite was regards Joseph mental state, which Sandra and Scott have seen medical record. No matter yours or my opinion of them or other things in their books, if they have seen the medical records then it’s either true or they are in trouble.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 10:53:14 PM
There were markers found that matched the markers in LM's genetic profile. So, not exactly true. And, further tests by the sccrc revealed more partial profiles of his were found on Jodi's trousers at the locus.  Besides, what happened to that big parka that was proved he owned prior to the murder? Did this have incriminating dna on it? Rhetorical question, methinks.

Well, he certainly wasn't out searching with Alicev& co. And it's been proven he wasn't seen following jodi earlier -- that was a different man who was on that road innocently and traced and eliminated.

Common sense.

Rubbish. 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence were used to convict LM. Where is the similar amount of circumstantial evidence against JOSJ?

It was LM who initiated the search of west of the RDP. Even if he didn't, it was he who introduced the woodland strip to the search party. Firstly at the first break in the wall at the gino spot. Why did he shine his torch into the woodland so quickly? Very cunning, imo. Then he sealed his own fate by next going directly to that v break in the wall. No hesitation. Right there and over it .. and BOOM! He says he's spotted something. Even managed to identify all the clothing and intricate details in the pitch black of night with only a standard family torch! How could he manage all this in such record time? He had guilty knowledge and knew the terrain like the back of his hand. Guilty as sin.

The markers also could not rule out many others in this case, police officers in the case or ‘half’ of Dalkeith , so therefore means nothing.

Luke had come up the path, the granny initiated the search back down, not Luke. The dog indicated something behind the wall, like went over the v and back in the direction the dog indicated, why would he go any other way?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 28, 2023, 11:33:08 PM
2 people that have seen [Name removed] medical records, that’s evidence is it not. That or they are both getting sued!

There is no evidence to suggest they have seen anything of the sort. Based on their word? Mind-boggling. These so-called medical records have never been a part of any appeals, why not if they are so dammed important?

I find it insane, that people will blindly follow the words of others, but hey over 900 people died in 1978 in Jonestown, because they followed the words of a nutter, so what do i know.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 11:42:45 PM
There is no evidence to suggest they have seen anything of the sort. Based on their word? Mind-boggling. These so-called medical records have never been a part of any appeals, why not if they are so dammed important?

I find it insane, that people will blindly follow the words of others, but hey over 900 people died in 1978 in Jonestown, because they followed the words of a nutter, so what do i know.

There is no evidence to suggest the witnesses seen Luke near path or in a parka before the murder but you are willing to accept it as fact on their word, what is the difference?

They explained why they were not part of the appeal, they were available to the defence at time of the trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 28, 2023, 11:50:49 PM

Rubbish. 20 adminicles of circumstantial evidence were used to convict LM. Where is the similar amount of circumstantial evidence against JOSJ?


Luke was under investigation and a case was being made against him, of course there is going to be circumstantial evidence against him. But where is any hard evidence, any?

Im not saying the brother did it, I’m saying a circumstantial case can be made against most people related to the case I’m sure. But [Name removed] was not in court, under investigation etc yet we still have a lot of circumstantial evidence against him that looks as bad as Luke’s does
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 12:28:26 AM
There is no evidence to suggest they have seen anything of the sort. Based on their word? Mind-boggling. These so-called medical records have never been a part of any appeals, why not if they are so dammed important?

I find it insane, that people will blindly follow the words of others, but hey over 900 people died in 1978 in Jonestown, because they followed the words of a nutter, so what do i know.

We know from Judith’s own statements that she had cancelled her son’s home visit from one of his mental health care team in order for him to smoke cannabis. Why do you think her son had a mental health care team? Why do you think he was desperate to hide his use of cannabis from them?

Did he give evidence in court and if not why not? His testimony would certainly have been valuable.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 29, 2023, 02:01:59 PM
They were not there but they have Luke’s defence papers, with the evidence included.

The cite was regards Joseph mental state, which Sandra and Scott have seen medical record. No matter yours or my opinion of them or other things in their books, if they have seen the medical records then it’s either true or they are in trouble.

Given Lean & Forbes history of lies and deception, I think this is relevant to their current views. Bringing someone's medical records up for discussion as a way of implying blame is a desperate move and wouldn't be surprised if there is legal action against them at some point given the way Forbes is shooting his mouth off at any opportunity.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 29, 2023, 03:48:45 PM
Given Lean & Forbes history of lies and deception, I think this is relevant to their current views. Bringing someone's medical records up for discussion as a way of implying blame is a desperate move and wouldn't be surprised if there is legal action against them at some point given the way Forbes is shooting his mouth off at any opportunity.

I totally agree, if what they are saying is not true or illegal to share with public I’d expect some legal action to be taken.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 29, 2023, 04:21:54 PM
There is no evidence to suggest the witnesses seen Luke near path or in a parka before the murder but you are willing to accept it as fact on their word, what is the difference?

I understand your tactic here is whataboutism. I have already explained, evidence was used in court in front of a jury. They overwhelmingly returned a guilty verdict. The crown or whoever are not obliged to provide that evidence to you, me or any other internet pseudonym. There are bits and bobs of news reports from journalists that were at trial in the public domain. I understand the tactic, is to claim all these hacks were in on it, as well as the police, the crown, 100's of witness's, the whole of Scotland and their dogs, to protect a family and their son, and they have all kept silent since. Unfortunately, we get back to the real world, and nothing will ever change the fact, Luke's very own brother failed to collaborate his alibi. Game over..
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 06:32:36 PM
Given Lean & Forbes history of lies and deception, I think this is relevant to their current views. Bringing someone's medical records up for discussion as a way of implying blame is a desperate move and wouldn't be surprised if there is legal action against them at some point given the way Forbes is shooting his mouth off at any opportunity.

What history of lies and deception? Forbes has a colourful past but as far as I’m aware his crimes were not fraudulent in nature. Perhaps you know different?

As to Dr Lean apart from a rather unfortunate error in her first book I have never seen her claim anything that has subsequently been proved to be false. Perhaps if you have evidence of her duplicity you can post it here?

As to legal action, if the individual being discussed does not sue either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes will you accept that their claims were correct?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 29, 2023, 06:48:39 PM
I understand your tactic here is whataboutism. I have already explained, evidence was used in court in front of a jury. They overwhelmingly returned a guilty verdict. The crown or whoever are not obliged to provide that evidence to you, me or any other internet pseudonym. There are bits and bobs of news reports from journalists that were at trial in the public domain. I understand the tactic, is to claim all these hacks were in on it, as well as the police, the crown, 100's of witness's, the whole of Scotland and their dogs, to protect a family and their son, and they have all kept silent since. Unfortunately, we get back to the real world, and nothing will ever change the fact, Luke's very own brother failed to collaborate his alibi. Game over..


No tactics here, you have completely missed my point. I’m not sure how you get any of that from my post. I was clearly saying you are asking me not to believe Scott and Sandra have seen the medical records based solely on their word, without evidence or proof they have seen it.
But yet you are asking me to take as fact people saw Luke near the path or in a parka before the murder based solely on their word, no evidence to back it up (like photos or cctv) or proof they have seen it.
How are the 2 any different?
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.
As for Scott and Sandra tactics I have no idea what they are and to be honest I’m not sure I agree with some of the information being put out there but it’s out now.
I also don’t believe there was any conspiracy going on and ‘everyone’ was in on it I simply believe the police did a poor job of investigating the case due to the seemingly unanswered questions there seems to be.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 29, 2023, 07:36:24 PM
What history of lies and deception? Forbes has a colourful past but as far as I’m aware his crimes were not fraudulent in nature. Perhaps you know different?

As to Dr Lean apart from a rather unfortunate error in her first book I have never seen her claim anything that has subsequently been proved to be false. Perhaps if you have evidence of her duplicity you can post it here?

As to legal action, if the individual being discussed does not sue either Dr Lean or Scott Forbes will you accept that their claims were correct?

Forbes was a convicted armed robber who put a gun to someone to obtain money - possibly not fraud but he has contradicted himself and SL on numerous"facts" almost every time he opens his mouth and in his book.

SL's books and internet campaign are riddled with lies and deception. From backing convicted killers who confessed to deliberately misleading people by omission of key facts in response to questions or refusing to answer questions that challenge her version, to using numerous false usernames to spread her views on forums then join these forums to agree with the false usernames, to whipping up unjustified claims against the Jones family and dragging MK's name throught the dirt for years without the slightest care for anyone but LM.

At the moment she's blatantly behind a FB campaign that encourages no accusations or speculation but clearly names the Jones family and praises Forbes for "naming the killer" on a James English podcast pontificating when he himself was charged for assault and spitting in a woman's face not so long ago. An armed robber and a woman beater accusing a dead girl's brother of murder 20 years later. Ye couldnae make it up.

Just because someone doesn't sue doesn't mean anything - there could be so many reasons.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 29, 2023, 09:10:49 PM
I totally agree, if what they are saying is not true or illegal to share with public I’d expect some legal action to be taken.

When someone is intentionally set upon striving to produce a reaction - Do people do exactly what that intent is aimed at? Such as these futile bleats repeatedly throughout time, of 'It all must be true' as no one has done the exact thing intended?

Without any doubt knowing and seeing that intellectually inept people will swallow that alone to claim 'it must all be true' - Bollocks.

Where people fail to see the puppeteer in this, do they not? These people, CM, SL and SF's are representatives of Mitchell, the latter two who have been given access to something with one intention only, and it has never been about proving anything, at all.

SF's is stating who he wants to apply killer to and not for the first time - Does that make it true, no of course it doesn't, but certainly, intellectually inept people such as yourself apply this "truth" at the drop of a hat - Have a word.

What actual intellectual people do is look at what is being said, then they analyse it and apply logic - It is not at all difficult to do.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Dr Frankenstein's monster with the bonus extras from her accomplice, for and on behalf of their creator, Mitchell.

This is how you spot the lies - The monster is said to ramble aimlessly about, carrying a back pack with a whopping big bowie knife inside. He bangs his head repeatedly against lampposts with blood pouring from his eyes. He has killed X amount of people to date, inclusive of his younger sister. He battered his granny or repeat, he beat, battered and rag dolled his sisters, repeatedly. He knifed his mother to the point of near death. Used as a guard dog to set upon people, when he is not aimlessly wandering about, banging his head off lampposts with blood pouring from his eyes. Just about everyone has had restraining orders placed against the monster and his family. He has, to suit, grown ginger curly hair and placed as stocky at a time when he was not, probably all that extra clothing to carry the extra bowie knives in.

The monster has never had any serious charges made against him, if any charges at all. He has never been in prison nor indeed Carstairs. The reason none of this has happened is because the family is made up of high ranking police officers, doctors, who have and are protecting "one of their own" Just not the granny, the mother, this sisters nor the the public in general, just the monster. And of course no thought nor care for that  poor young girl murdered, also one of their own. Just the "local weirdo" not the monster.

The family who one moment are being beaten senseless, knifed and all else, are also covering for the monster to protect "one of their own" but not Jodi, the one who was murdered. The defence where full disclosure of the monster was made, also decided to do nothing, for they too wanted to protect the monster, they did not want to be upsetting any Jury -----------

That is how you spot liars, manipulators, who will and are doing anything to try and evoke a response from those they are abusing. Meanwhile the monster and all these others are not given the creator of it all that satisfaction, where they know that sadly on an earth that is not flat, nor the moon made of cheese, they carry on with their lives, in a world were actual intellectual people reside ------ In my humble opinion of course.

Sadly, these actions may have grave consequence, we have already seen JH being threatened, many others with those underlying threats of what is going to be done, by the intellectually inept brainless who are intentionally being whipped into a furor of hatred - By enablers who are acting for and on behalf of Mitchell, carrying this out for him. Innocent you say? Sadly, I like many others do not place this as the actions of someone truly wrongfully accused, do you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 09:16:37 PM
Forbes was a convicted armed robber who put a gun to someone to obtain money - possibly not fraud but he has contradicted himself and SL on numerous"facts" almost every time he opens his mouth and in his book.

SL's books and internet campaign are riddled with lies and deception. From backing convicted killers who confessed to deliberately misleading people by omission of key facts in response to questions or refusing to answer questions that challenge her version, to using numerous false usernames to spread her views on forums then join these forums to agree with the false usernames, to whipping up unjustified claims against the Jones family and dragging MK's name throught the dirt for years without the slightest care for anyone but LM.

At the moment she's blatantly behind a FB campaign that encourages no accusations or speculation but clearly names the Jones family and praises Forbes for "naming the killer" on a James English podcast pontificating when he himself was charged for assault and spitting in a woman's face not so long ago. An armed robber and a woman beater accusing a dead girl's brother of murder 20 years later. Ye couldnae make it up.

Just because someone doesn't sue doesn't mean anything - there could be so many reasons.

Forbes has paid for his past and bettered himself. Don’t you believe in redemption? As to the ‘numerous facts he's contradicted himself’ on a list would be helpful.

As to false user names I myself have been accused of being Dr Lean on more than one occasion so please forgive me if I take your claim of Dr Lean using false usernames with a pinch of salt. Further please spare me your faux outrage with regard to dragging individuals reputations through the mud. Didn’t you only last week accuse Shane Mitchell of ‘knowing more about Jodi’s murder than he has ever let on”? Weren’t you doing exactly what you accuse Dr Lean and Scott Forbes of doing?

Unfortunately you can’t discuss this case without mentioning the Jones’s. As to James English I know nothing about him but I’m not sure if his guilt or innocence in anything he is accused of has anything to do with the truthfulness of Dr Lean or Forbes.

Your last point is totally correct but I’d sue if I’d been accused of murdering my sister, wouldn’t you?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 09:37:10 PM
When someone is intentionally set upon striving to produce a reaction - Do people do exactly what that intent is aimed at? Such as these futile bleats repeatedly throughout time, of 'It all must be true' as no one has done the exact thing intended?

Without any doubt knowing and seeing that intellectually inept people will swallow that alone to claim 'it must all be true' - Bollocks.

Where people fail to see the puppeteer in this, do they not? These people, CM, SL and SF's are representatives of Mitchell, the latter two who have been given access to something with one intention only, and it has never been about proving anything, at all.

SF's is stating who he wants to apply killer to and not for the first time - Does that make it true, no of course it doesn't, but certainly, intellectually inept people such as yourself apply this "truth" at the drop of a hat - Have a word.

What actual intellectual people do is look at what is being said, then they analyse it and apply logic - It is not at all difficult to do.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Dr Frankenstein's monster with the bonus extras from her accomplice, for and on behalf of their creator, Mitchell.

This is how you spot the lies - The monster is said to ramble aimlessly about, carrying a back pack with a whopping big bowie knife inside. He bangs his head repeatedly against lampposts with blood pouring from his eyes. He has killed X amount of people to date, inclusive of his younger sister. He battered his granny or repeat, he beat, battered and rag dolled his sisters, repeatedly. He knifed his mother to the point of near death. Used as a guard dog to set upon people, when he is not aimlessly wandering about, banging his head off lampposts with blood pouring from his eyes. Just about everyone has had restraining orders placed against the monster and his family. He has, to suit, grown ginger curly hair and placed as stocky at a time when he was not, probably all that extra clothing to carry the extra bowie knives in.

The monster has never had any serious charges made against him, if any charges at all. He has never been in prison nor indeed Carstairs. The reason none of this has happened is because the family is made up of high ranking police officers, doctors, who have and are protecting "one of their own" Just not the granny, the mother, this sisters nor the the public in general, just the monster. And of course no thought nor care for that  poor young girl murdered, also one of their own. Just the "local weirdo" not the monster.

The family who one moment are being beaten senseless, knifed and all else, are also covering for the monster to protect "one of their own" but not Jodi, the one who was murdered. The defence where full disclosure of the monster was made, also decided to do nothing, for they too wanted to protect the monster, they did not want to be upsetting any Jury -----------

That is how you spot liars, manipulators, who will and are doing anything to try and evoke a response from those they are abusing. Meanwhile the monster and all these others are not given the creator of it all that satisfaction, where they know that sadly on an earth that is not flat, nor the moon made of cheese, they carry on with their lives, in a world were actual intellectual people reside ------ In my humble opinion of course.

Sadly, these actions may have grave consequence, we have already seen JH being threatened, many others with those underlying threats of what is going to be done, by the intellectually inept brainless who are intentionally being whipped into a furor of hatred - By enablers who are acting for and on behalf of Mitchell, carrying this out for him. Innocent you say? Sadly, I like many others do not place this as the actions of someone truly wrongfully accused, do you?

It is not enough to ‘monster’ those who believe Luke innocent in order to wash an individual who should have been a obvious suspect clean. Only the truth will do that….and you’re not willing to countenance that.

There is really no way around it. If Donald Findlay had been able to introduce the medical records of an individual very close to Jodi this case would have had a very different outcome. Everything that the judge accused Luke of is there….excessive use of cannabis which brought on prolonged episodes of paranoia and psychosis
…a detachment from any kind of morality or indeed reality….excessive violence. A mother you enables his behaviour rather than addresses it. I’ve heard it said that his family were afraid of this individual and for his mother to cancel the visit from the individual’s mental health team when she knew the consequences seems to suggest that this is true. Why else would a concerned mother do that?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 29, 2023, 09:54:10 PM
It is not enough to ‘monster’ those who believe Luke innocent in order to wash an individual who should have been a obvious suspect clean. Only the truth will do that….and you’re not willing to countenance that.

There is really no way around it. If Donald Findlay had been able to introduce the medical records of an individual very close to Jodi this case would have had a very different outcome. Everything that the judge accused Luke of is there….excessive use of cannabis which brought on prolonged episodes of paranoia and psychosis
…a detachment from any kind of morality or indeed reality….excessive violence. A mother you enables his behaviour rather than addresses it. I’ve heard it said that his family were afraid of this individual and for his mother to cancel the visit from the individual’s mental health team when she knew the consequences seems to suggest that this is true. Why else would a concerned mother do that?

That’s just the info we have from the medical records, if they had investigated the brother who knows what else could have been used or twisted into ‘evidence’ if they had gone down that route. A strong circumstantial case I’m sure, could have been him in jail not Luke. Again I’m not saying it was him but that’s my point, he could have easily been found guilty on the circumstantial evidence like Luke did. I suppose that’s the danger of a case solely on circumstances rather than a shred of hard evidence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 10:07:55 PM
That’s just the info we have from the medical records, if they had investigated the brother who knows what else could have been used or twisted into ‘evidence’ if they had gone down that route. A strong circumstantial case I’m sure, could have been him in jail not Luke. Again I’m not saying it was him but that’s my point, he could have easily been found guilty on the circumstantial evidence like Luke did. I suppose that’s the danger of a case solely on circumstances rather than a shred of hard evidence.

Indeed. Compare the identification of Luke by Andrina Bryson with that of the witness who identified Jodi’s brother at her funeral.

As a jury member what sighting would you have found more credible ….a individual following Jodi down Easthouses Road, seen by two witnesses, one it is believed who knew Jodi or Bryson’s who not only could not produce a photo fit to the police’s satisfaction but failed to identify Luke in court?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 29, 2023, 10:56:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 29, 2023, 11:00:14 PM
who will and are doing anything to try and evoke a response from those they are abusing.


 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 29, 2023, 11:18:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 30, 2023, 12:00:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 30, 2023, 03:07:21 AM
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.



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 30, 2023, 10:24:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 30, 2023, 12:42:38 PM

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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 30, 2023, 01:49:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 30, 2023, 09:02:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 30, 2023, 10:12:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on January 31, 2023, 02:41:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 31, 2023, 09:51:46 AM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 31, 2023, 11:17:12 AM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 31, 2023, 11:28:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 31, 2023, 01:52:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 02:19:12 PM
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.

It would be interesting to know the exact numbers but I believe it’s against the law to talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even when the trial is over.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 31, 2023, 02:48:43 PM
If it was as many as 7 I'm surprised she hasn't mentioned it.

That's exactly what I was thinking, although I don't know if she'd be allowed to publicly divulge that info. Don't see why not, though.

Btw, I definitely read on another forum (probably on the blue jeremy bamber forum) that the verdict was 9/6. The person on the other forum who posted this information indicated that it was what they had heard, so the info should obviously not be taken at face value.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 31, 2023, 03:52:34 PM
Shall we have the point again? - It is not about washing clean, it is about washing over the point. It is not about the tactics being accepted, the lies and manipulation to illicit whatever response, and in this instance there are several at play to evoke. One being, to add whatever else to the creation of monsters, guns, dynamite, more limbs - The more that is added to the monsters, only serves to show how strong the evidence against Mitchell was, and not its weakness. That these many others investigated were eliminated, but not Mitchell.

Now we deal with investigated, which is very much the point around tactics, the deception and the manipulation. For in that point, there is that it is all tactical, with the only intent to deceive. The liars, the manipulators who do it at will, are the very ones telling you that no other person was investigated, that is the point - Spinning a yarn. That when a murder happens, and as highlighted, many of the public contact the police, some valid and some "crazies" Which and again around the monsters, only serves to show what was investigated and eliminated at the time.

Now we place these many others that have suspect applied to them, by the liars, the manipulators who do this with ease. They are not suspects, they are people who were caught up in some young girl being murdered. Who at the point of all being suspect, were investigated and eliminated. They are now only applied as imaginary suspects, by the people who have spun a yarn, the very people, who with such ease, can and do lie and manipulate at will with their tactics.

You are told there was no evidence, by the people who are spinning a yarn, the very people who you boast are getting response around tactics used, when the yarn in itself is a tactic. From the people who do it across the board, the liars and manipulators who are spinning a yarn.

This case built upon evidence where a substantial amount came from a compulsive liar/s- Who attempted to spin a yarn themselves. In turn to be heard, to have a voice, needs like minded people, kindred spirits, to spin that yarn on repeat. What people do do, when they see a lie, another, then another, is they place one mighty big ? around everything, starting right from those three words "I am innocent"


It is not "Why would I lie to risk a dangerous killer back on our streets?" It poses no risk at all. It is, why do you? A brief example, 2003 and Mitchell spun a yarn to the local mouthpiece (her description, not mines). The 'rushing up a path' - Access gained to defence papers and saw without any doubt those lies, that is not up for debate. So, one changed the narrative more to spin further yarn, to cover the lies on repeat from Mitchell ---------- Having spent years putting out a false narrative, one without doubt sought only to back that, by using whatever to keep that spinning going.

That direction of the Judge around accepting a strong majority saw the Jury return in no time. Because people are spun a yarn they live under an illusion, that had there been insufficient evidence in law to convict equates to Mitchell not having killed Jodi Jones - Not true in the slightest, the truth is a far cry from the yarn spun. He would have become (like thousands more) a statistic of an offender getting off. The factually guilty walking free.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 05:07:28 PM
That's exactly what I was thinking, although I don't know if she'd be allowed to publicly divulge that info. Don't see why not, though.

Btw, I definitely read on another forum (probably on the blue jeremy bamber forum) that the verdict was 9/6. The person on the other forum who posted this information indicated that it was what they had heard, so the info should obviously not be taken at face value.

Perhaps because it’s against the law? The jurors are not allowed to discuss deliberations.

Strangely Parky posted that the Nimmo said he would not accept a verdict of less than 13/2 so someone’s telling porkies.


Ah here it is.

“And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13. In circumstantial cases there is always going to be room for doubt upon those who need direct evidence. ”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 31, 2023, 05:19:44 PM
So for all we know there was just one juror who didn’t agree with the rest.  Anything else is speculation and this argument should not therefore  be a consideration when discussing  the strength or otherwise of the jury’s conviction.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on January 31, 2023, 05:34:51 PM
So for all we know there was just one juror who didn’t agree with the rest.  Anything else is speculation and this argument should not therefore  be a consideration when discussing  the strength or otherwise of the jury’s conviction.

Still be interesting to know the split though.
We may never know but for me the point is not all were convinced so can we be blamed for also not being convinced.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 31, 2023, 05:44:40 PM
Still be interesting to know the split though.
We may never know but for me the point is not all were convinced so can we be blamed for also not being convinced.
No one is blaming you for having an opinion.  Let’s not forget some juries have not been convinced by the evidence against those who actually did commit crimes and criminals have walked free.  In fact even if a jury were all 100% convinced of guilt  it doesn’t necessarily mean the perpetrator actually did it.  It’s an imperfect system but what else is there?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 05:50:35 PM
Shall we have the point again? - It is not about washing clean, it is about washing over the point. It is not about the tactics being accepted, the lies and manipulation to illicit whatever response, and in this instance there are several at play to evoke. One being, to add whatever else to the creation of monsters, guns, dynamite, more limbs - The more that is added to the monsters, only serves to show how strong the evidence against Mitchell was, and not its weakness. That these many others investigated were eliminated, but not Mitchell.

Now we deal with investigated, which is very much the point around tactics, the deception and the manipulation. For in that point, there is that it is all tactical, with the only intent to deceive. The liars, the manipulators who do it at will, are the very ones telling you that no other person was investigated, that is the point - Spinning a yarn. That when a murder happens, and as highlighted, many of the public contact the police, some valid and some "crazies" Which and again around the monsters, only serves to show what was investigated and eliminated at the time.

Now we place these many others that have suspect applied to them, by the liars, the manipulators who do this with ease. They are not suspects, they are people who were caught up in some young girl being murdered. Who at the point of all being suspect, were investigated and eliminated. They are now only applied as imaginary suspects, by the people who have spun a yarn, the very people, who with such ease, can and do lie and manipulate at will with their tactics.

You are told there was no evidence, by the people who are spinning a yarn, the very people who you boast are getting response around tactics used, when the yarn in itself is a tactic. From the people who do it across the board, the liars and manipulators who are spinning a yarn.

This case built upon evidence where a substantial amount came from a compulsive liar/s- Who attempted to spin a yarn themselves. In turn to be heard, to have a voice, needs like minded people, kindred spirits, to spin that yarn on repeat. What people do do, when they see a lie, another, then another, is they place one mighty big ? around everything, starting right from those three words "I am innocent"


It is not "Why would I lie to risk a dangerous killer back on our streets?" It poses no risk at all. It is, why do you? A brief example, 2003 and Mitchell spun a yarn to the local mouthpiece (her description, not mines). The 'rushing up a path' - Access gained to defence papers and saw without any doubt those lies, that is not up for debate. So, one changed the narrative more to spin further yarn, to cover the lies on repeat from Mitchell ---------- Having spent years putting out a false narrative, one without doubt sought only to back that, by using whatever to keep that spinning going.

That direction of the Judge around accepting a strong majority saw the Jury return in no time. Because people are spun a yarn they live under an illusion, that had there been insufficient evidence in law to convict equates to Mitchell not having killed Jodi Jones - Not true in the slightest, the truth is a far cry from the yarn spun. He would have become (like thousands more) a statistic of an offender getting off. The factually guilty walking free.

Yep….we get it. You think Dr Lean is a liar and is being controlled by Luke who is also a liar. All the people who think that there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice are either fools or liars. Only those who think Luke is guilty have any credibility because…spookily….it agrees with your view.

BTW….if there is ‘reasonable doubt’ then the defendant is innocent. Had there been ‘ insufficient evidence’ to convict then the defendant is innocent in law.  You may not accept that…but your acceptance really isn’t necessary.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 31, 2023, 06:07:03 PM

Ah here it is.

“And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13. In circumstantial cases there is always going to be room for doubt upon those who need direct evidence. ”

^ Is the above a direct verbatim quote from official guidelines and directives that all Scottish judges are to adhere to? Or was it a quote from Lord Nimmo Smith himself after the closing speeches from the defence and prosecution? Can you clarify?  Sorry, I'm a tad confused.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 31, 2023, 06:14:04 PM
Yep….we get it. You think Dr Lean is a liar and is being controlled by Luke who is also a liar. All the people who think that there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice are either fools or liars. Only those who think Luke is guilty have any credibility because…spookily….it agrees with your view..

At what point will Mitchell's defenders start calling SL, "Dear Leader"? Is there a reason she calls herself "Dr Lean, leading criminologist" apart from vanity? I know she technically is an academic Dr but the ones I know never mention it and have research and academic affiliations or peer recommendations. Forbes at least got a work placement as a trainee lawyer.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 06:32:19 PM
At what point will Mitchell's defenders start calling SL, "Dear Leader"? Is there a reason she calls herself "Dr Lean, leading criminologist" apart from vanity? I know she technically is an academic Dr but the ones I know never mention it and have research and academic affiliations or peer recommendations. Forbes at least got a work placement as a trainee lawyer.

Sorry I’m not sure what point you are trying to make but as you’ve made it twice now I thought it deserved an answer.
Dr Lean has worked hard for her title therefore I think she deserves to be called it. I have never heard her call herself a leading criminologist….other people tend to call her that, when she appears on television or in the print media and such. Do you blame her for that too?

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 31, 2023, 06:46:21 PM
Sorry I’m not sure what point you are trying to make but as you’ve made it twice now I thought it deserved an answer.
Dr Lean has worked hard for her title therefore I think she deserves to be called it. I have never heard her call herself a leading criminologist….other people tend to call her that, when she appears on television or in the print media and such. Do you blame her for that too?

Being hard working and being a recognised expert in your field are not the same thing. Like the football manager sacked after a string of bad results is usually defended by his friends in the media as hard working even though he wasn't very good at his job.

SL calls herself a "leading criminologist" on her FB page but there is no evidence to support this, particularly given the spectacular errors of judgement she made in earlier cases.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 07:01:41 PM
Being hard working and being a recognised expert in your field are not the same thing. Like the football manager sacked after a string of bad results is usually defended by his friends in the media as hard working even though he wasn't very good at his job.

SL calls herself a "leading criminologist" on her FB page but there is no evidence to support this, particularly given the spectacular errors of judgement she made in earlier cases.

I’m afraid you are absolutely wrong about Dr Lean calling herself ‘ a leading criminologist’ on her Facebook page and I’m not sure where you are getting your information from.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on January 31, 2023, 07:09:35 PM
^^^^^^^^...
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 31, 2023, 07:19:52 PM
Thanks Myster, I was just about to do that. Sorry Faithlily, you really are too far gone to discuss this case.

And to reiterate whether she is a leading criminologist - there is no evidence to support that whether she or someone else calls her that.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 07:44:41 PM
Thanks Myster, I was just about to do that. Sorry Faithlily, you really are too far gone to discuss this case.

And to reiterate whether she is a leading criminologist - there is no evidence to support that whether she or someone else calls her that.

Ah so not her personal Facebook page…apologies. I’d never seen that page before….but then again I don’t need to stalk Dr Lean and as every newspaper that mentions her refers to her as a criminologist I think that puts that obvious bugbear of yours to rest.

And to be fair what you’re doing can in no way be described as discussing this case….unless by ‘discussing the case’ you mean attacking Dr Lean as often as possible. It really does demean you.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on January 31, 2023, 08:09:16 PM
Ah so not her personal Facebook page…apologies. I’d never seen that page before….but then again I don’t need to stalk Dr Lean and as every newspaper that mentions her refers to her as a criminologist I think that puts that obvious bugbear of yours to rest.

And to be fair what you’re doing can in no way be described as discussing this case….unless by ‘discussing the case’ you mean attacking Dr Lean as often as possible. It really does demean you.

Dr SL (FB page) is the first Google search result, hardly stalking. My bugbear as you call it, is she calls herself a "leading criminologist" but you overlooked that again. And when SL is out there supporting a convicted child killer and blaming the victim's brother while deceptively encouraging a witch hunt via social media then I will continue to criticise her (& Forbes).


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on January 31, 2023, 08:22:21 PM
What have been this leading criminologist’s key successes?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on January 31, 2023, 08:39:23 PM
Faith - Behave, it is nothing to do with the person and everything to do with their actions. I could be married to the woman and I would still highlight the wrong!

I, as have stated many times, make no bones in the slightest with wilful liars and manipulators, especially in something so serious, that plays with the lives of many others.

You continuously apply the personal to it, at points, with what is an overbearing, sickly sweet protection of someone doing wrong. In one hand you agree fully with the latest tactics, the lies and manipulation in play for this greater good! But do no like it being pointed out that is works across the board. You mimic her and instantly apply you knew nothing of the "leading criminologist" behave. Again, dishonest.

The point of the post was not attack - It was about using ones loaf! That false narrative touted out, does not match at all to actual reality! It only serves on repeat to highlight the strength of the evidence against Mitchell. The greater the lie the more obvious the truth!

Finding a body, hidden some 43ft from that break in the wall, completely obstructed and hidden. From a start point on a path and not in those woods, in around 6mins of actively walking off together. This is reason, solid founded reason, as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, not this feeble - 'a policeman wrote something wrong' To knowing this, then pushing out lies around others! is morally wrong, which you, who have shown repeatedly, have that same immoral stance, accept without batting a eye. To over-ride and erase Mitchell's lies. For the most part to try and score some imaginary point to make you appear correct - Behave.

I mentioned that 'rushing up a path' as a prime example of over riding on repeat the lies directly from Mitchell. He rushed up no path, and again, it takes little, if actually clearing ones mind from the mire, to work that out all by oneself. My slight to those who do not do this, who blindly accept without question the actions of deceitful people - And again, naff all to do with anything else other than truth, the actual evidence and so forth. It has always been why I have posted, the very reason I took to studying around this case intricately was due to that deception at play!

Taken no side, and I am not interested in any bloody side, it is about highlighting why suspicion fell upon him, why he could not be eliminated and subsequently convicted. That this does not change in the slightest the very reason why I applied, that had he walked free from court there would have been no search for any alternate killer. That is simple fact.

Could he be innocent? Does it matter, of course it does. It would take someone to step forward and say 'it was me!' which would still not place Mitchell home, it would still not disprove that without any doubt he knew that girl was dead and he knew where her body was. That if there is some slim chance he found her like this, then it is by fault of his own,  no one else that he has always been far from bloody honest!

This claim of innocence around ST. a frenzied knife attack, stabbing someone repeatedly everywhere but mainly their head! Seriously! This bleat of a nice lad gone wrong, that he did not make that fatal wound to the heart - To making monsters of every Tom, Dick and bloody Harry without a bloody snifter of evidence of being involved, at all - Have a word!



Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 08:42:36 PM
Dr SL (FB page) is the first Google search result, hardly stalking. My bugbear as you call it, is she calls herself a "leading criminologist" but you overlooked that again. And when SL is out there supporting a convicted child killer and blaming the victim's brother while deceptively encouraging a witch hunt via social media then I will continue to criticise her (& Forbes).

I’m sorry but I don’t intend to feed your obsession with Dr Lean any longer.

If however you are truly interested in discussing the case can I invite you to join the debate on the Two Mothers thread where Luke and Jodi’s brother’s alibis are being compared and contrasted.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 31, 2023, 08:47:34 PM
Perhaps because it’s against the law? The jurors are not allowed to discuss deliberations.

Strangely Parky posted that the Nimmo said he would not accept a verdict of less than 13/2 so someone’s telling porkies.


Ah here it is.

“And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13. In circumstantial cases there is always going to be room for doubt upon those who need direct evidence. ”

FL, do you have a cite for what Lord Nimmo Smith said (ie, the last part in your post above)? That would be a big help.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 08:54:36 PM
Faith - Behave, it is nothing to do with the person and everything to do with their actions. I could be married to the woman and I would still highlight the wrong!

I, as have stated many times, make no bones in the slightest with wilful liars and manipulators, especially in something so serious, that plays with the lives of many others.

You continuously apply the personal to it, at points, with what is an overbearing, sickly sweet protection of someone doing wrong. In one hand you agree fully with the latest tactics, the lies and manipulation in play for this greater good! But do no like it being pointed out that is works across the board. You mimic her and instantly apply you knew nothing of the "leading criminologist" behave. Again, dishonest.

The point of the post was not attack - It was about using ones loaf! That false narrative touted out, does not match at all to actual reality! It only serves on repeat to highlight the strength of the evidence against Mitchell. The greater the lie the more obvious the truth!

Finding a body, hidden some 43ft from that break in the wall, completely obstructed and hidden. From a start point on a path and not in those woods, in around 6mins of actively walking off together. This is reason, solid founded reason, as to why suspicion fell upon Mitchell, not this feeble - 'a policeman wrote something wrong' To knowing this, then pushing out lies around others! is morally wrong, which you, who have shown repeatedly, have that same immoral stance, accept without batting a eye. To over-ride and erase Mitchell's lies. For the most part to try and score some imaginary point to make you appear correct - Behave.

I mentioned that 'rushing up a path' as a prime example of over riding on repeat the lies directly from Mitchell. He rushed up no path, and again, it takes little, if actually clearing ones mind from the mire, to work that out all by oneself. My slight to those who do not do this, who blindly accept without question the actions of deceitful people - And again, naff all to do with anything else other than truth, the actual evidence and so forth. It has always been why I have posted, the very reason I took to studying around this case intricately was due to that deception at play!

Taken no side, and I am not interested in any bloody side, it is about highlighting why suspicion fell upon him, why he could not be eliminated and subsequently convicted. That this does not change in the slightest the very reason why I applied, that had he walked free from court there would have been no search for any alternate killer. That is simple fact.

Could he be innocent? Does it matter, of course it does. It would take someone to step forward and say 'it was me!' which would still not place Mitchell home, it would still not disprove that without any doubt he knew that girl was dead and he knew where her body was. That if there is some slim chance he found her like this, then it is by fault of his own,  no one else that he has always been far from bloody honest!

This claim of innocence around ST. a frenzied knife attack, stabbing someone repeatedly everywhere but mainly their head! Seriously! This bleat of a nice lad gone wrong, that he did not make that fatal wound to the heart - To making monsters of every Tom, Dick and bloody Harry without a bloody snifter of evidence of being involved, at all - Have a word!

It’s not going as expected, is it Parky?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 08:57:03 PM
FL, do you have a cite for what Lord Nimmo Smith said (ie, the last part in your post above)? That would be a big help.

It was a claim by Parky so perhaps he can provide you with a cite?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on January 31, 2023, 09:07:06 PM
Perhaps because it’s against the law? The jurors are not allowed to discuss deliberations.

Strangely Parky posted that the Nimmo said he would not accept a verdict of less than 13/2 so someone’s telling porkies.


Ah here it is.

“And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13. In circumstantial cases there is always going to be room for doubt upon those who need direct evidence. ”

Maybe you missed my previous post? Parky41 never posted a quote from LNS -- you did (above .... the last part). Where did you cite this quote from? I asked you in a previous post. Maybe you missed it?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2023, 09:22:50 PM
Maybe you missed my previous post? Parky41 never posted a quote from LNS -- you did (above .... the last part). Where did you cite this quote from? I asked you in a previous post. Maybe you missed it?

Parky posted this. He did not provide any evidence.

‘ And upon very good authority I will leave you with that direction to the jury, of the acceptance of a strong majority of no less than 13. In circumstantial cases there is always going to be room for doubt upon those who need direct evidence. ‘

Only LNS could have directed the jury in such a way.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on February 01, 2023, 01:29:12 PM
I see someone claiming to the brother has message on YouTube to say he will go on James English and do the lie detector. I doubt it is the real brother but very interesting if it is.
I have to say I don’t agree with the naming of him and medical records being exposed after all is that not the complaint about Luke, trial by media. This is really trial by society media. Also I’m sure Luke had said he did not want anyone named as that’s what happened to him.
I understand why he did it but was it really necessary? Could be putting innocent people in danger also.
I hope it is the brother and although he has absolutely no reason to go on James English it would be great to hear the other side ‘of the story’ so to speak.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on February 01, 2023, 04:44:46 PM
I see someone claiming to the brother has message on YouTube to say he will go on James English and do the lie detector. I doubt it is the real brother but very interesting if it is.

I would take anything posted on YouTube with a pinch of salt. It is very easy to switch account's, update names etc. It's a haven for trolls.


This is really trial by society media.

Jane Hamilton, described them perfectly.




I understand why he did it but was it really necessary? Could be putting innocent people in danger also.

I have already seen in messages, towns and address getting branded about, of those being accused. There is obviously an element amongst the keyboard warriors that want to or egg on others to confront those individuals. Mr Forbes himself said in comments on YouTube that he will trace down the trolls and confront them. What this would achieve, i don't know. Mr Mothersole claimed that a group will be zoning in on those accused, highlighted in Nicolas blogs. Again, what this will achieve, i don't know. There are other comments that are cause for concern. Again comments, pinch of salt. But it only takes one idiot to take matters into their own hands, based on lies preached without any evidence provided whatsoever. Can you imagine, one of those accused, wife, kids, neighbours. Having a nice quiet night in, all of a sudden a gang of clowns coming knocking start screaming all sorts of nonsense at them? Not very nice, based on lies, with no evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2023, 04:52:22 PM
I would take anything posted on YouTube with a pinch of salt. It is very easy to switch account's, update names etc. It's a haven for trolls.

Jane Hamilton, described them perfectly.



I have already seen in messages, towns and address getting branded about, of those being accused. There is obviously an element amongst the keyboard warriors that want to or egg on others to confront those individuals. Mr Forbes himself said in comments on YouTube that he will trace down the trolls and confront them. What this would achieve, i don't know. Mr Mothersole claimed that a group will be zoning in on those accused, highlighted in Nicolas blogs. Again, what this will achieve, i don't know. There are other comments that are cause for concern. Again comments, pinch of salt. But it only takes one idiot to take matters into their own hands, based on lies preached without any evidence provided whatsoever. Can you imagine, one of those accused, wife, kids, neighbours. Having a nice quiet night in, all of a sudden a gang of clowns coming knocking start screaming all sorts of nonsense at them? Not very nice, based on lies, with no evidence to back it up.

Leaving what are lies and not aside, the law should be allowed to take its course. Nothing should be done to prejudice that. Unfortunately the behaviour described above is displayed by both sides of the divide. It really does need to stop.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on February 01, 2023, 05:14:24 PM
It does kind of reflect the treatment of Luke when he was still not arrested. Reporters outside his house, news reports putting him and family in danger etc. Now a days things are so much worse with social media. Nobody should really be named.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on February 01, 2023, 05:39:03 PM
It does kind of reflect the treatment of Luke when he was still not arrested. Reporters outside his house, news reports putting him and family in danger etc.

The Mitchell's invited most of them round. Psychopaths like to be the centre of attention.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 01, 2023, 05:59:59 PM
The Mitchell's invited most of them round. Psychopaths like to be the centre of attention.

I'm surprised they never brought one of Corinne's caravans round to use as a media tearoom. Inviting Sky TV for an interview and vigil on the funeral day was unbelievably insensitive. I'm sure others may think it as just naive.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2023, 06:17:39 PM
The lack of self awareness displayed by some on this thread beggars belief.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on February 01, 2023, 06:20:28 PM
I'm surprised they never brought one of Corinne's caravans round to use as a media tearoom. Inviting Sky TV for an interview and vigil on the funeral day was unbelievably insensitive. I'm sure others may think it as just naive.

As long as the caravan had a genuine safety certificate.

Many psychopathic murderers love to go on national TV, Philpotts springs to mind. It is all about them.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 01, 2023, 06:42:27 PM
As long as the caravan had a genuine safety certificate.

Many psychopathic murderers love to go on national TV, Philpotts springs to mind. It is all about them.

And the Soham freak, Ian Huntley. SF vibes there inserting himself into the crime at an early stage.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: TruthSeeker2003 on February 03, 2023, 06:27:59 AM
And the Soham freak, Ian Huntley. SF vibes there inserting himself into the crime at an early stage.

I couldn’t agree more SF creepy.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 02, 2023, 09:45:40 AM
According to Scott Forbes to Sonia Poulton

“Yes, Sonia, listen 20 years nearly I’ve been here involved, 2006 I accessed the court papers, the case papers, I've never once found any trace of mental illness, violence, or criminal activity from Luke Mitchell. I've never come across and vindictiveness or cruelty to animals, NOTHING!! He had an ear-piercing a funny haircut and an attitude, please, he had an attitude in the police interview, they wound him up!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Rusty on March 16, 2023, 04:50:17 PM
Seems like Forbes is deleting his comments on the JE podcast, not only under his own name, but also under his many aliases. Probably not a bad idea, considering the nonsense he was coming out with.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2023, 05:58:05 PM
Seems like Forbes is deleting his comments on the JE podcast, not only under his own name, but also under his many aliases. Probably not a bad idea, considering the nonsense he was coming out with.

How would you even know that?

That’s stalking per excellence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 16, 2023, 06:08:20 PM
I dont think checking YT every day or two is stalking. There's some amount of comments vanished from his numerous accounts by the look of it.

According to some wag, SF has been headhunted for the Bible John case as they want someone to crack it in 20 years or less.

Just checked his FB page for his book is also removed so sounds like a legal warning/advice.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2023, 06:15:01 PM
I dont think checking YT every day or two is stalking. There's some amount of comments vanished from his numerous accounts by the look of it.

According to some wag, SF has been headhunted for the Bible John case as they want someone to crack it in 20 years or less.

Just checked his FB page for his book is also removed so sounds like a legal warning/advice.

Still on Amazon and they’re very proactive when it comes to legal threats.

I think checking a particular person’s YT page every other day could be called rather odd behaviour. Remembering what comments a particular person has posted does stray into the realms of obsession.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 16, 2023, 06:35:26 PM
Possibly, however falsely accusing various people of murder for almost 20 years, writing a book about it and appearing on TV may also be considered an obsession. If I was new to the case and didn't know better I would probably have SF as no.1 suspect.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2023, 06:55:42 PM
Possibly, however falsely accusing various people of murder for almost 20 years, writing a book about it and appearing on TV may also be considered an obsession. If I was new to the case and didn't know better I would probably have SF as no.1 suspect.

You do make me laugh sometimes.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 20, 2023, 05:43:54 PM
The former Scotts Caravans building burnt down over the weekend with much finger pointing and even the suggestion of a fund raiser for CM from people who thought she still lived there, over 5 years since it was sold on.

Not sure if it is connected to the case as suggested by SL & Co or just random arson.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 20, 2023, 05:59:05 PM
The former Scotts Caravans building burnt down over the weekend with much finger pointing and even the suggestion of a fund raiser for CM from people who thought she still lived there, over 5 years since it was sold on.

Not sure if it is connected to the case as suggested by SL & Co or just random arson.

Random arson would be my guess.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 21, 2023, 09:00:43 PM
The former Scotts Caravans building burnt down over the weekend with much finger pointing and even the suggestion of a fund raiser for CM from people who thought she still lived there, over 5 years since it was sold on.

Not sure if it is connected to the case as suggested by SL & Co or just random arson.

Sandra Lean
Carol Rice Mcmillan My thoughts exactly, Carol - I could hear the gas bottles exploding and I'm a good bit away, up the hill. Right next to a petrol station - and the firefighters whose lives are put in danger because they have no idea where all of the gas bottles are.

These alleged gas bottles Sandra Lean refers to as ‘exploding’ - do they link back to Corinne Mitchell?

And if so - why weren’t they disposed of safely before she left the premises?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 21, 2023, 10:17:08 PM
These alleged gas bottles Sandra Lean refers to as ‘exploding’ - do they link back to Corinne Mitchell?

And if so - why weren’t they disposed of safely before she left the premises?

Sandra Lean
Inka Oldmoot That was a very serious concern - there were a number of gas bottles in the caravan place (you could hear them exploding) and both businesses shared the same entrance - that's how close together they are. Also, there are houses directly across the road and the firefighters had to go in there, not knowing how many gas bottles there might be - or where they were. It was a very, very dangerous situation all round
In my opinion, there can be no way this was started "accidentally" - after the ghouls broke in several months ago, the place was open to the elements - we've had so much rain, snow and frost here, it would have been dripping with dampness inside and, of course, there was no power in the building. Also, the speed with which such a damp building, with no source of fire ignition, went up, indicates deliberate firestarting using an accelerant.
This is not speculation, just basic logic regarding the start and spread speed of fire in different conditions.


Why were these alleged gas bottles left behind ‘in the caravan place’ ?

And who will be responsible for leaving them behind?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on March 21, 2023, 10:19:03 PM
Sandra Lean
Carol Rice Mcmillan My thoughts exactly, Carol - I could hear the gas bottles exploding and I'm a good bit away, up the hill. Right next to a petrol station - and the firefighters whose lives are put in danger because they have no idea where all of the gas bottles are.

These alleged gas bottles Sandra Lean refers to as ‘exploding’ - do they link back to Corinne Mitchell?

And if so - why weren’t they disposed of safely before she left the premises?

Ok, the property inclusive of gas bottles is that of the previous tenant. Procedure is to correspond with the tenant and ask them to dispose of such property. If they fail to comply with this then they face being billed by the landlord if having to do this for them. So, until something can be produced that says the landlord had taken on responsibility for the disposal of shed, gas bottles, and everything else, then the fault lies with the previous tenant who may actually face a fine for this?

A tenant who erects out buildings in their garden can be fined if they fail to dismantle and take the outbuildings with them - No different from that shed on rented land and everything within it, or on that land. Still a caravan that the night watchman used to use there also?

The fire was deemed to not be arson - Something ignited and caused that shed to combust all at once, indicative of leaking gas perhaps over a period of time into a contained area? Certainly the locals speak of the whole thing ablaze at once?

So, perhaps Ms Lean can give people the full run down on who was supposed to deal with the shed, caravan, gas bottles and any other property? Was CM supposed to dispose and remove this and failed, or was she being billed by the landlord for them having to arrange this? In brief, was there an agreement in place?  - Then a fire destroys the lot??

Extremely lucky that NO one was hurt, not the emergency services, nor some unlucky youngsters should they have taken the notion to wander in there before it went boom? - What does one imagine would have happened then? Would it be the owner of the property or the landlord to be held liable? - Just a thought.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 21, 2023, 10:36:19 PM
Ok, the property inclusive of gas bottles is that of the previous tenant. Procedure is to correspond with the tenant and ask them to dispose of such property. If they fail to comply with this then they face being billed by the landlord if having to do this for them. So, until something can be produced that says the landlord had taken on responsibility for the disposal of shed, gas bottles, and everything else, then the fault lies with the previous tenant who may actually face a fine for this?

A tenant who erects out buildings in their garden can be fined if they fail to dismantle and take the outbuildings with them - No different from that shed on rented land and everything within it, or on that land. Still a caravan that the night watchman used to use there also?

The fire was deemed to not be arson - Something ignited and caused that shed to combust all at once, indicative of leaking gas perhaps over a period of time into a contained area? Certainly the locals speak of the whole thing ablaze at once?

So, perhaps Ms Lean can give people the full run down on who was supposed to deal with the shed, caravan, gas bottles and any other property? Was CM supposed to dispose and remove this and failed, or was she being billed by the landlord for them having to arrange this? In brief, was there an agreement in place?  - Then a fire destroys the lot??

Extremely lucky that NO one was hurt, not the emergency services, nor some unlucky youngsters should they have taken the notion to wander in there before it went boom? - What does one imagine would have happened then? Would it be the owner of the property or the landlord to be held liable? - Just a thought.

Someone called ‘Ali’ has made the following comment on this news articles https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/police-investigate-blaze-caravan-site-26504784#comments-wrapper

Ali
3 DAYS AGO
It didn't belong to her, it was rented from the council. And, she hasn't been near it for about ten years.


According to a Mags Wilson they believe Corinne Mitchell ‘still owned the premises’
👇

Shock video shows huge fire at caravan site once owned by evil killer Luke Mitchell’s mum
‘Video captured by local Mags Wilson shows the flames crackling in the dark night sky as citizens stand across the road from the mayhem unfolding, which all happened shortly after 7:30pm.
Gas canisters can be heard exploding in the video as the heat of the fire intensifies, sending plumes of smoke which were seen billowing as far as Edinburgh.
With concerns growing that the blaze may spill over to the petrol station across the road, Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service rushed to the scene.
Scottish Fire and Rescue eventually opted to utilise a large mechanical ladder to fight the blaze from above and eventually managed to bring the three-hour-long fire under control.
Police have now confirmed there were no suspicious circumstances involved.
Speaking today Mags said: “I was standing opposite and was filming as it happened, it was once the office where Corrine Mitchell lived for a few years after Luke was convicted.
It was used as a caravan park and I believe she still owned the premises.
“I was very worried that the fire might spread across to the petrol station, eventually they [Scottish Fire and Rescue] brought in this massive ladder to tackle it.
“The police were just moving people back to keep them away from the fire and it was extremely lucky that nobody was hurt.”
Speaking today a Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Following enquiries into a fire at a disused building on Mayfield Road, Dalkeith, on the evening of Friday 17 March 2023, we can confirm that there were no suspicious circumstances.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/10399750/fire-caravan-park-once-owned-luke-mitchell-mum/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 21, 2023, 10:55:28 PM
Ok, the property inclusive of gas bottles is that of the previous tenant. Procedure is to correspond with the tenant and ask them to dispose of such property. If they fail to comply with this then they face being billed by the landlord if having to do this for them. So, until something can be produced that says the landlord had taken on responsibility for the disposal of shed, gas bottles, and everything else, then the fault lies with the previous tenant who may actually face a fine for this?

A tenant who erects out buildings in their garden can be fined if they fail to dismantle and take the outbuildings with them - No different from that shed on rented land and everything within it, or on that land. Still a caravan that the night watchman used to use there also?

The fire was deemed to not be arson - Something ignited and caused that shed to combust all at once, indicative of leaking gas perhaps over a period of time into a contained area? Certainly the locals speak of the whole thing ablaze at once?

So, perhaps Ms Lean can give people the full run down on who was supposed to deal with the shed, caravan, gas bottles and any other property? Was CM supposed to dispose and remove this and failed, or was she being billed by the landlord for them having to arrange this? In brief, was there an agreement in place?  - Then a fire destroys the lot??

Extremely lucky that NO one was hurt, not the emergency services, nor some unlucky youngsters should they have taken the notion to wander in there before it went boom? - What does one imagine would have happened then? Would it be the owner of the property or the landlord to be held liable? - Just a thought.

Inka Oldmoot
Sandra Lean I googled and discovered there’s no offence of arson in Scotland but there is reckless/ intentional fire raising which has a maximum life sentence. It’s alarming that these buildings were so close together. As you point out there was a tangible risk to those close by- risk to life and property. Anyone responsible for setting the fire must have been aware of these risks. That’s very disturbing to think about. The blaze required five fire appliances. I’m not entirely sure casual vandalism could produce something on this scale. The media are reporting that police are investigating. They need to get these person into custody because based on their behaviour they have no concern for life. Anyone prepared to go to this extent is dangerous to the public.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 21, 2023, 11:31:08 PM
Ok, the property inclusive of gas bottles is that of the previous tenant. Procedure is to correspond with the tenant and ask them to dispose of such property. If they fail to comply with this then they face being billed by the landlord if having to do this for them. So, until something can be produced that says the landlord had taken on responsibility for the disposal of shed, gas bottles, and everything else, then the fault lies with the previous tenant who may actually face a fine for this?

A tenant who erects out buildings in their garden can be fined if they fail to dismantle and take the outbuildings with them - No different from that shed on rented land and everything within it, or on that land. Still a caravan that the night watchman used to use there also?

The fire was deemed to not be arson - Something ignited and caused that shed to combust all at once, indicative of leaking gas perhaps over a period of time into a contained area? Certainly the locals speak of the whole thing ablaze at once?

So, perhaps Ms Lean can give people the full run down on who was supposed to deal with the shed, caravan, gas bottles and any other property? Was CM supposed to dispose and remove this and failed, or was she being billed by the landlord for them having to arrange this? In brief, was there an agreement in place?  - Then a fire destroys the lot??

Extremely lucky that NO one was hurt, not the emergency services, nor some unlucky youngsters should they have taken the notion to wander in there before it went boom? - What does one imagine would have happened then? Would it be the owner of the property or the landlord to be held liable? - Just a thought.

Perhaps you can firstly explain to us why you think it is any of your business? If Corrine failed to act within the law that is for her and the authorities. Neither you nor anyone else is entitled to ‘the full run down’ as you call it. You conceal your identity and poke from a safe distance. Coward.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 26, 2023, 08:19:22 PM
Detective Fibs back in various Sunday papers this weekend as "lawyer Scott Forbes". Even Dalkeith's leading criminologist confirmed he didn't finish his traineeship or attain the necessary diploma to practice law.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 26, 2023, 08:44:02 PM
Detective Fibs back in various Sunday papers this weekend as "lawyer Scott Forbes". Even Dalkeith's leading criminologist confirmed he didn't finish his traineeship or attain the necessary diploma to practice law.

According to Ashlie McAnally for the mail on Sunday

The jury heard evidence that Mitchell had bought a knife online, which was never found

Is she referring to the black handled knife Corinne Mitchell bought her killer son for Christmas from a catalogue or is Ashlie McAnally claiming the missing brown handled Jack Pyke knife was purchased ‘online’ ?

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 26, 2023, 08:47:39 PM
Detective Fibs back in various Sunday papers this weekend as "lawyer Scott Forbes". Even Dalkeith's leading criminologist confirmed he didn't finish his traineeship or attain the necessary diploma to practice law.

Excerpt by Sarah Peddie for the Scottish Sun

The stored forensic items include at least 10 swab samples taken from Jodi's face, hands, breasts and back - the places confirmed as having the presence of bodily fluids.

Criminologist Dr Sandra Lean said: "We expect fairness from our justice system. In this case, we've seen everything but fairness.

"To discover now that there were samples which could have identified the real murderer is beyond comprehension.

"A 14-year-old girl was murdered and, rather than concentrate their efforts on finding who was responsible, they focused on her boyfriend - failing, as a result, to pursue forensic evidence that could not only have identified the real killer but exonerated Luke Mitchell."


 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 29, 2023, 07:17:00 PM
Excerpt by Sarah Peddie for the Scottish Sun

The stored forensic items include at least 10 swab samples taken from Jodi's face, hands, breasts and back - the places confirmed as having the presence of bodily fluids.

Criminologist Dr Sandra Lean said: "We expect fairness from our justice system. In this case, we've seen everything but fairness.

"To discover now that there were samples which could have identified the real murderer is beyond comprehension.

"A 14-year-old girl was murdered and, rather than concentrate their efforts on finding who was responsible, they focused on her boyfriend - failing, as a result, to pursue forensic evidence that could not only have identified the real killer but exonerated Luke Mitchell."


 *&^^&

How would any of the samples ‘have identified the real murderer’ ?

 *&^^&

Sandra Lean has never mentioned any of the jogger witnesses in the area around the time as far as I’m aware

The Sunday Mail can reveal that the samples were the reason joggers were asked to provide DNA samples last week ~ 2003.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 12:11:56 AM
Ruddy McCleod: “I have led a sheltered lifeI have however I have never heard anyone walking 500 metres putting a condom on to crack one off”

This above all came from creep Roddy’s mind

Sandra Lean: “well the following morning when he heard that a girls body had been found behind the wall he goes back out on the path behind another tree and does the same again”

They (Roddy & Sandra) are creeps - as is Scott Forbes
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on April 01, 2023, 12:19:20 AM
Ruddy McCleod: “I have led a sheltered lifeI have however I have never heard anyone walking 500 metres putting a condom on to crack one off”

This above all came from creep Roddy’s mind

Sandra Lean: “well the following morning when he heard that a girls body had been found behind the wall he goes back out on the path behind another tree and does the same again”

They (Roddy & Sandra) are creeps - as is Scott Forbes

Aren’t they simply stating facts?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 12:23:05 AM
Ruddy McCleod: “I have led a sheltered lifeI have however I have never heard anyone walking 500 metres putting a condom on to crack one off”

This above all came from creep Roddy’s mind

Creep 👆🏽

James Falconer appears to have been having sexual intercourse with A N Other

No one has seen what he said in his witness statement and Sandra Lean is NOT a trusted source

There was however a valid reason why Donald Findlay dropped James Falconer like a hot potatoe in 2006

Mitchell witness 'get-rich scheme'.

“Yesterday, Mr Findlay told judges that he was dropping any further claims about Mr Falconer.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mitchell+witness+%27get-rich+scheme%27.-a0174739290
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 12:30:27 AM
Sandra Lean: “well the following morning when he heard that a girls body had been found behind the wall he goes back out on the path behind another tree and does the same again”

There is no evidence that James Falconer even knew psychopathic sadist Luke Mitchell had murdered by ‘the following morning’
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on April 01, 2023, 12:35:01 AM
James Falconer appears to have been having sexual intercourse with A N Other

No one has seen what he said in his witness statement and Sandra Lean is NOT a trusted source

There was however a valid reason why Donald Findlay dropped James Falconer like a hot potatoe

Why?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on April 01, 2023, 12:36:31 AM
There is no evidence that James Falconer even knew psychopathic sadist Luke Mitchell had murdered by ‘the following morning’

Are you really saying that he couldn’t see the police activity from his house the next morning?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 12:45:29 AM
Ruddy McCleod: “I have led a sheltered lifeI have however I have never heard anyone walking 500 metres putting a condom on to crack one off”

This above all came from creep Roddy’s mind

Creep Roddy McCleod ~ “the granny was cuddling her granddaughter as you would expect”

“Expect’ to see in a movie

 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 12:55:47 AM
Ruddy McCleod: “I have led a sheltered lifeI have however I have never heard anyone walking 500 metres putting a condom on to crack one off”

This above all came from creep Roddy’s mind

Sandra Lean: “well the following morning when he heard that a girls body had been found behind the wall he goes back out on the path behind another tree and does the same again”

They (Roddy & Sandra) are creeps - as is Scott Forbes

And Scott Forbes banging on about the police going to Reed drive

James Falconer lived in reed drive

Where did  Sandra Lean say the wall was from James falconers house ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 01:01:30 AM
Are you really saying that he couldn’t see the police activity from his house the next morning?


Roddy McCleod, Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes said the police had to go ‘diagonally across a ploughed field’ from Reed drive

Why would James Falconer have seen anything on the morning of 1st July 2003 ?

What time exactly was a police car parked in Reed drive ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 01:49:21 AM
Why would James Falconer have seen anything on the morning of 1st July 2003 ?

And a fox for example could have moved the condom from where it was originally thrown
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 01:58:02 AM
Sandra Lean: “well the following morning when he heard that a girls body had been found behind the wall he goes back out on the path behind another tree and does the same again”

What time exactly was the first news article published on 1st July 2003?

This one 👇 says it was published 17:29

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/01/ukcrime
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 04:14:57 AM
Fraudster Scott Forbes couldn’t instruct a barrister because he’s not a real lawyer

 @)(++(*

So is this who instructed Roddy Dunlop

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20141203/281565174083375
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 01, 2023, 02:04:48 PM
So is this who instructed Roddy Dunlop

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20141203/281565174083375

Did Fraser McCready instruct Roddy Dunlop?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 02, 2023, 06:13:13 PM
Remember, KT testified in court that she still thought she was LM's girlfriend right up until she read reports in newspapers about his relationship with Jodi. She said she was upset when she found out Luke had been dating Jodi behind her back. We know LM was serious about KT, because: he'd met her in the summer of 2002 whilst on holiday in Kenmore; he'd phoned her 70-80 times between Jan 03 and June 03 (call logs as evidence in court) and she had stayed at his house over Christmas time 02 and again on St Valentine's day 03.

Did killer Luke Mitchell show off his new brown handled Jack Pyke knife to Kim T - bought for him for Christmas 2002

What did she say about the missing knife in her witness statement and during his trial ?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2023, 07:24:44 PM
Did killer Luke Mitchell show off his new brown handled Jack Pyke knife to Kim T - bought for him for Christmas 2002

What did she say about the missing knife in her witness statement and during his trial ?

Context is everything. Luke didn’t start going out with Jodi until March. Luke had had no physical contact with Kimberley since Valentine’s Day and didn’t seem too bothered when his mother cancelled their planned holiday to Kenmore. Further of those 70-80 calls…an average of 13 every month….how many happened before Luke started going out with Jodi and more importantly what did they talk about in those conversations? We know that Kimberley thought Luke was her boyfriend but what did Luke believe was the status of their relationship?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 02, 2023, 07:33:01 PM
Context is everything. Luke didn’t start going out with Jodi until March. Luke had had no physical contact with Kimberley since Valentine’s Day and didn’t seem too bothered when his mother cancelled their planned holiday to Kenmore. Further of those 70-80 calls…an average of 13 every month….how many happened before Luke started going out with Jodi and more importantly what did they talk about in those conversations? We know that Kimberley thought Luke was her boyfriend but what did Luke believe was the status of their relationship?

What did Kimberly T tell the police and trial about killer Luke Mitchell’s brown handled Jack Pyke knife and leather pouch (which he kept like a ‘trophie’) he had for Christmas 2002?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on April 02, 2023, 07:38:08 PM
What did Kimberly T tell the police and trial about killer Luke Mitchell’s brown handled Jack Pyke knife and leather pouch (which he kept like a ‘trophie’) he had for Christmas 2002?

You tell me?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 02, 2023, 07:48:47 PM
You tell me?

Did  Sandra Lean write anything in her second book about killer Luke Mitchell’s other convictions?

He also faces charges of being in possession of a knife or knives in public places, including St David's high school, on occasions between January and June 2003.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 03, 2023, 10:35:25 PM
Did  Sandra Lean write anything in her second book about killer Luke Mitchell’s other convictions?

He also faces charges of being in possession of a knife or knives in public places, including St David's high school, on occasions between January and June 2003.

Or of the evidence that helped convict him of these other criminal offences
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 26, 2023, 12:11:13 PM
He was certainly part of the Glasgow legal firm which represented Mitchell.

He was never a ‘legal’ anything!

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 26, 2023, 12:39:16 PM
They are all so stupid that they will all be exposed. No one has to even do much work. Please allow me to give you just one of many examples? It's all in the public domain.
https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc

About 5.29 into the video, SL addresses Janine did it's question. She doesn't call him Janine did it though.

Judith Jones text killer LM at 10:20pm
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on April 26, 2023, 12:40:40 PM
In her latest YouTube video Sandra Leans states,

”Oh yeah trolls on YouTube.
Now I can’t say too much about this but can I ask please that you don’t make reference to particular trolls at the minute all will become clear but for now please don’t make reference to actual trolls whether they are real names or fake names or whether you know or you don’t know just for now please erm again there’s stuff going on”



She appears to label anyone who has a differing view to her or who calls out her nonsense a ‘troll’

What possible ‘stuff’ can be ‘going on’ because someone has an opposing view or differing opinion

Will this come to anything or is this yet another of Sandra Leans empty, bs comments to add to all of her other numerous  empty statements she’s made over the years that also went no where ?

Did  Sandra Lean ever say what happened with this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 15, 2023, 09:30:03 PM
*LATEST* Killin’ time 7 - Building on the lie
Luke Mitchell, teen killer!

👇
https://youtu.be/_9J9b-1ozNU
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on July 17, 2023, 08:38:16 PM
“UPDATE*
Liar Scott Forbes, Premeditated Patter & Roddy MacLeod Aka Barrheadboy

👇
https://youtu.be/1_GlGF1i2bc
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on August 17, 2023, 07:22:05 PM
Shifty Forbes live on YouTube after a media break. It's like murder lingo bingo ticking off the phrases from him and fans if it wasn't so tragic. Bowie knife, wee laddie, the killer walks among us, police corruption, Masons, destroying evidence, DNA etc.

Proceed with caution, it's like a village idiots convention and SF actually comes out as one of the smarter ones.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXG5n_o0b0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SXG5n_o0b0)
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 07:34:19 PM
Mark McKeown - 25th March 2021
Guys, Scott Forbes has made a claim on Twitter that he was Luke’s lawyer for 6 years between 2010-2016!!! Can someone please confirm or deny this for me?

Gordon Graham
Of course he wasn’t!!

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham Why do you say that? He's making open claims that he was and he's very specific about the dates

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown I remember all of Luke’s official legal teams and he was never one of them

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham He's making some really outlandish claims then Gordon...and these claims won't do Luke 1 wee bit of good so they need nipped in the bud immediately

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown strange to be fair!! He always did weigh in with big claims though

Mark McKeown - 25th March 2021
Guys, Scott Forbes has made a claim on Twitter that he was Luke’s lawyer for 6 years between 2010-2016!!! Can someone please confirm or deny this for me?

Gordon Graham
Of course he wasn’t!!

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham Why do you say that? He's making open claims that he was and he's very specific about the dates

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown I remember all of Luke’s official legal teams and he was never one of them

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham It needs to be addressed regardless Gordon, it's not conducive to what we're trying to achieve here.

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown how would we do that. I could claim that I was and in silence I could achieve the same effect as he has.

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham Something like that is very easy to find out Gordon. I could find out right now if he was at Uni with Sandra if I knew which uni that was. You can find anything out if you dig hard enough

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown  if he was indeed part of the legal establishment it only goes a short way in terms of his claims! He may have been able to have been Luke’s lawyer but that’s one point that needs to be clarified. I have never heard of this person being part of Luke’s legal team ever!

Mark McKeown
Sandra can clarify it in 2 minutes if she sees this thread

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham Sandra has just clarified that he was

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown he was a student or he was part of the legal team?

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham He was part of the legal team

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham And he was at Uni with Sandra right enough. Sandra has just confirmed this

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown where did she confirm this?

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham I think whoever made the decision to have him on board needs to have a serious word with themselves. I would employ Lionel Hutz first...If you don't know who he is google him

Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown I agree we have a massive conflict of interests here

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham She confirmed it on this thread just a few minutes ago

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham Sandra Lean
Mark McKeown Scott Forbes worked with the legal team handling Luke's case (and another) as a trainee solicitor for a number of years - I'd have to check exact dates but that is absolutely true. He wasn't a "witness" at the time of the murder because the police ignored him. He was studying at Stirling University at the same time I was doing my PhD there, so yes, we were both at Stirling university at the same time! This was a couple years after he had contacted Corinne in 2006


Gordon Graham
Mark McKeown wow!! After 17 years things still come up that amazes me

Mark McKeown
Gordon Graham I just think that's a crazy decision Gordon, don't you?

Lauren Anderson
I never trusted his intentions after seeing him on the documentary. Very shifty in my opinion.

Mark McKeown
Dolly Mix How can you make those claims AND be Luke's lawyer? Surely that's a conflict of interests?

Lauren Anderson
Mark McKeown he’s made that many claims the guys wired to the moon I think. Doesn’t know his arse from his elbow 🤦🏼‍♀️

Mark McKeown
Look it's one thing to bullshit that he was maybe part of his legal team for 5 minutes, but something completely different if he's saying he was his lawyer for 6 years!!!
Surely even on a pro bono basis we could find someone better equipped to fight Luke's case than SF?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on October 28, 2023, 07:54:01 PM
Mark McKeown - 25th March 2021
Guys, Scott Forbes has made a claim on Twitter that he was Luke’s lawyer for 6 years between 2010-2016!!! Can someone please confirm or deny this for me?

Gordon Graham
Of course he wasn’t!!

Sandra can clarify it in 2 minutes if she sees this thread

Of course he wasn't. He may have studied Law at Stirling University but there is no proof he even graduated. He would then have do a work placement, become a trainee solicitor then a fully qualified criminal solicitor with years of experience before he got anywhere near a case of this stature.

Stick to pretending to be a Detective on YouTube Forbes.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 07:57:06 PM
Of course he wasn't. He may have studied Law at Stirling University but there is no proof he even graduated. He would then have do a work placement, become a trainee solicitor then a fully qualified criminal solicitor with years of experience before he got anywhere near a case of this stature.

Stick to pretending to be a Detective on YouTube Forbes.

I wasn’t aware of this until today  @)(++(*

Imagine Sandra Lean telling yet another bare faced lie like this “a trainee solicitor for a number of years

 @)(++(*

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on October 28, 2023, 08:11:02 PM
I wasn’t aware of this until today  @)(++(*

Imagine Sandra Lean telling yet another bare faced lie like this “a trainee solicitor for a number of years

 @)(++(*

He did claim he did a placement at Manns but that was probably part of his Uni course work pre-graduation, probably as a messenger delivering letters. He didn't graduate and he wasn't employed as a lawyer in any capacity. It's all in his mind.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 08:13:18 PM
He did claim he did a placement at Manns but that was probably part of his Uni course work pre-graduation, probably as a messenger delivering letters. He didn't graduate and he wasn't employed as a lawyer in any capacity. It's all in his mind.

Or some kind of dodgy dealings MOJO were involved in

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn it had something to do with their funding

Scott Forbes never graduated - as you say !!

 “The guys wired to the moon

And probably got a couple of his mates to write witness statement to support his claims about innocent Mark Kane 
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on October 28, 2023, 08:23:30 PM
Or some kind of dodgy dealings MOJO were involved in

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn it had something to do with their funding

Scott Forbes never graduated - as you say !!

 “The guys wired to the moon

And probably got a couple of his mates to write witness statement to support his claims about innocent Mark Kane

I spoke to  MK about that. He said he had a tiny scratch on his face that night and Forbes bullied him relentlessly if he didn't go along with his plan. Threatened Mark's mum etc after Lean put Forbes up to it. He's a liar and a bully and SL "fact checked" his book says it all.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 08:23:56 PM
Scott C Forbes
@AuldM
That's a very good point. I'm positive I read she claimed she was a trainee solicitor and now doing a solicitors job while claiming to be a para legal ....
7:30 PM · Aug 3, 2023
https://twitter.com/AuldM/status/1687169080392867840
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 08:27:19 PM
I spoke to  MK about that. He said he had a tiny scratch on his face that night and Forbes bullied him relentlessly if he didn't go along with his plan. Threatened Mark's mum etc after Lean put Forbes up to it. He's a liar and a bully and SL "fact checked" his book says it all.

She knows he’s a liar and a bully - the pair of them have a lot in common!

Nothing this pair of sleazy weasels (Lean and Forbes) claim should be trusted and every single thing they state should be fact checked!

Lots of people are finally questioning scammer Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 08:44:15 PM
https://twitter.com/AuldM/status/1716909428711297384

So killer Luke Mitchell gave the other fraudster Scott Forbes power of attorney after Sandra Lean was called out
 and booted out - again - in June 2021

Transcript of Hoaxer Sandra Lean’s 27th June 2021 ‘Exit’ Speech Re: Factually Guilty Killer Luke Mitchell & The Infighting
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 09:42:00 PM
Sandra Lean
Mark McKeown Scott Forbes worked with the legal team handling Luke's case (and another) as a trainee solicitor for a number of years - I'd have to check exact dates but that is absolutely true. He wasn't a "witness" at the time of the murder because the police ignored him. He was studying at Stirling University at the same time I was doing my PhD there, so yes, we were both at Stirling university at the same time! This was a couple years after he had contacted Corinne in 2006


”Scott Forbes came forward 18 months after Mitchell had been given a life sentence for the murder of Jodi Jones, pointing to a possible "suspect".

“Defence counsel, Donald Findlay QC, said Mr Kane, "ticked all the same boxes" as Mitchell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7243068.stm

He didn’t!

Fraudster Scott Forbes fabricated stories about Mark Kane 

It’s what he does
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 10:03:23 PM
What exactly was said during the trial about those abrasions on killer Luke Mitchell’s shins?

Were the jury ever shown photographs of these abrasions or were photographs never taken?

I’m guessing the latter
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2023, 11:06:45 PM
He may have studied Law at Stirling University

He didn’t!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on October 28, 2023, 11:27:10 PM
He didn’t!

He may have? There is no conclusive proof but he claims he met SL there. It doesn't mean he was there for long but think he may have started a course before realising what hard work was. Was his time at NB Abbey College not a drug rehab/access learning course?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 29, 2023, 04:08:53 PM
He may have? There is no conclusive proof but he claims he met SL there. It doesn't mean he was there for long but think he may have started a course before realising what hard work was. Was his time at NB Abbey College not a drug rehab/access learning course?

Did fraudster Scott Forbes approach MOJO to help him with his conviction/s when he was in prison or could he have approached them/or Graham Mann for help in relation to a civil claim when the Daily Record referred to him as a suspect in relation to killer Luke Mitchell’s murder?

It appears any claim was settled out of court

Daily Record however appear to have the receipts regarding Scott Forbes attempting to get £50k for a story - did he get his idea off Ruby Guetta?

It’s possible Scott Forbes may have started some law course when he gave up uni but he’s never been registered with the law society!

Questions For Warped Minded Abuser, Gaslighter, Con Artist & Hypocrite Scott C Forbes (Part 1)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on October 30, 2023, 01:19:53 PM


Daily Record however appear to have the receipts regarding Scott Forbes attempting to get £50k for a story - did he get his idea off Ruby Guetta?


What evidence do daily mail have for the £50k story, out of interest? Where can I find this information?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2023, 01:30:52 PM
What evidence do daily mail have for the £50k story, out of interest? Where can I find this information?

What evidence are you looking for?

”Lawyer” Scott Forbes never took any newspaper to court over their £50k story

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on October 30, 2023, 01:41:46 PM
What evidence are you looking for?

”Lawyer” Scott Forbes never took any newspaper to court over their £50k story

Luke Mitchell Witness Wanted £50K For His Story, Court Hears
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-witness-wanted-50k-968845

So because Scott didn’t take them to court means he is lying? And also means daily mail must have info to prove otherwise? So you don’t have anything, you are just guessing?

I’ve not seen anyone take Scott or Sandra to court for the things they have said over and over again? Is that also because these people are lying and Scott and Sandra have info to prove it??
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2023, 01:51:36 PM
I’ve not seen anyone take Scott or Sandra to court for the things they have said over and over again?

Yet -

you’ve “not seen anyone take Scott or Sandra to court” yet
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2023, 01:55:01 PM
I’ve not seen anyone take Scott or Sandra to court for the things they have said over and over again? Is that also because these people are lying and Scott and Sandra have info to prove it??

What gives you the impression the Jones family have read scammer Sandra Lean’s book or watched any of her videos or that TV show, for example?

What are you claiming “these people” have lied about?

And what have fraudsters Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes proved, other than they don’t even know the basic facts of the case
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on October 30, 2023, 02:11:16 PM
What gives you the impression the Jones family have read scammer Sandra Lean’s book or watched any of her videos or that TV show, for example?

What are you claiming “these people” have lied about?

And what have fraudsters Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes proved, other than they don’t even know the basic facts of the case

I have no impression they read the book or seen any of her videos etc, I did not say they did??

I’m not claiming they lied about anything I’m using the same scenario you used with Scott and the daily mail.

I’m not saying Sandra or Scott have anything to prove people are lying I’m saying the exact same thing you did about the daily mail and Scott.

Works both ways.

You do love to put words in peoples mouths don’t you. Maybe just stick to facts.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2023, 02:26:41 PM
You do love to put words in peoples mouths don’t you.

 @)(++(*

In reality as Janet Docherty has stated “their house of cards is coming down”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on October 30, 2023, 02:35:40 PM
@)(++(*

In reality as Janet Docherty has stated “their house of cards is coming down”

You may be right. If the samples are going to be independently tested it might come back as Luke. I for one hope it does cause if not then an innocent young life may have been destroyed. Then another house of cards should be coming down, the Scottish justice system.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on October 30, 2023, 02:58:26 PM
Yet -

you’ve “not seen anyone take Scott or Sandra to court” yet

I recall SK (I think) stating he took legal advice on SL & SF's lies and was told as they had no assets a claim would be a waste of time (financially).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on October 30, 2023, 03:00:44 PM
You may be right. If the samples are going to be independently tested it might come back as Luke. I for one hope it does cause if not then an innocent young life may have been destroyed. Then another house of cards should be coming down, the Scottish justice system.

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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on October 30, 2023, 03:04:41 PM
I recall SK (I think) stating he took legal advice on SL & SF's lies and was told as they had no assets a claim would be a waste of time (financially).

Plus, when there is SF's whose sole intention which he made/makes very clear is to incite some form of action from his multiple others?! A tactic, where you are correct, 'not a pot to p**s in' and there really is no stopping social media once the horse has bolted.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2023, 03:04:48 PM
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?

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; also referred to as “whores of the court”
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on October 30, 2023, 03:08:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Bullseye on October 30, 2023, 04:11:12 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on October 30, 2023, 11:22:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 01, 2023, 10:49:25 PM
‘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!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on November 04, 2023, 11:51:06 PM
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!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on November 05, 2023, 05:08:36 PM
He didn’t!

He was lying!

Why would he lie?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on November 06, 2023, 11:40:54 AM
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23623709/ (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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 04, 2023, 08:02:16 PM
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?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 24, 2023, 03:02:37 AM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on December 24, 2023, 04:09:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 27, 2023, 05:54:08 AM
Much quicker route - List what is actually true.

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 27, 2023, 09:01:25 PM
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

🙄
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on December 27, 2023, 11:43:48 PM
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
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 05, 2024, 12:52:12 AM
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.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 05, 2024, 05:25:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 06, 2024, 11:04:12 AM
Lord have mercy, that is exceptionally bad. I only skimmed through it but SF

Still waiting for Scott Forbes to explain whether or not he gave scammer Sandra Lean access to confidential and sensitive  court documents whilst “training” with Graham Mann solicitors
👇🏼
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/19/warped-minded-abuser-con-artist-scott-forbes-his-lies/

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 06, 2024, 06:52:51 PM
What They Found’s last video 4 weeks ago 28 likes on YouTube.
The latest video featuring Scott Forbes posted 2 days ago 161 likes.

Good to see that those who believe in Luke’s innocence are still winning the PR war.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 06, 2024, 07:40:36 PM
What They Found’s last video 4 weeks ago 28 likes on YouTube.
The latest video featuring Scott Forbes posted 2 days ago 161 likes.

  @)(++(*

“161 likes” made by about 10 people

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 06, 2024, 11:39:56 PM
  @)(++(*

“161 likes” made by about 10 people

A a whole % difference in ratio with WTF above. Not to forget this has a lot to do with Fivo, his entertainment channel, and not at all to do with truth.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 07, 2024, 12:39:41 AM
A a whole % difference in ratio with WTF above. Not to forget this has a lot to do with Fivo, his entertainment channel, and not at all to do with truth.

But 28 likes. That’s simply embarrassing. Makes you wonder why you bother?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 07, 2024, 07:41:18 AM
What They Found’s last video 4 weeks ago 28 likes on YouTube.
The latest video featuring Scott Forbes posted 2 days ago 161 likes.

Good to see that those who believe in Luke’s innocence arel winning the PR war.

Christ, Faithlilly, you really are boring. Is that all you can come up with? If you were a supermarket product you'd be Value Range -- or even a box of Special K!

Anyway, quality over quantity. Those 28 likes, I surmise, are from people who've taken the time to research the case carefully and objectively, and drawn an inference of guilty beyond reasonable doubt (ie, the logical and correct conclusion). Scott Forbes, PP, JE, et al, are straight from Mouthbreathing 101 school; semiliterate adult neds trying desperately to make a name for themselves. SF is the ultimate Walter Mitty character -- an absolute joke, with no presence, insight, charisma or class, and certainly no clue on how to be an effective communicator and interviewee.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 07, 2024, 08:24:14 AM
But 28 likes. That’s simply embarrassing. Makes you wonder why you bother?
Oh dear, still fixated by “likes” at your age as if that was a measure of anyrhing at all apart from the level of fanaticism some causes or personalities  attract.  How many “likes” does Donald Trump get everytime he opens his gob?  Does that mean he’s in the right?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 07, 2024, 11:32:27 AM
Is this that fivo man or is it someone else?
👇🏼
https://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/9492967.youth-is-detained-for-knife-attack/

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9488140.keighley-man-locked-up-for-sex-knife-attack/

Fivo aka Jordan Robertson https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1832850/scotland-notorious-jail-hmp-barlinnie-spt
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 07, 2024, 12:14:48 PM
Is this that fivo man or is it someone else?
👇🏼
https://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/9492967.youth-is-detained-for-knife-attack/

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9488140.keighley-man-locked-up-for-sex-knife-attack/

Fivo aka Jordan Robertson https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1832850/scotland-notorious-jail-hmp-barlinnie-spt

I doubt it. Keighley's in West Yorkshire and that fivo guy's from Govan. It's probably just a guy with the same name and around the same age. Of course, maybe fivo lived in Keighley when he was younger, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 07, 2024, 08:41:09 PM
Christ, Faithlilly, you really are boring. Is that all you can come up with? If you were a supermarket product you'd be Value Range -- or even a box of Special K!

Anyway, quality over quantity. Those 28 likes, I surmise, are from people who've taken the time to research the case carefully and objectively, and drawn an inference of guilty beyond reasonable doubt (ie, the logical and correct conclusion). Scott Forbes, PP, JE, et al, are straight from Mouthbreathing 101 school; semiliterate adult neds trying desperately to make a name for themselves. SF is the ultimate Walter Mitty character -- an absolute joke, with no presence, insight, charisma or class, and certainly no clue on how to be an effective communicator and interviewee.

Shall I list the professional individuals from every sphere of the legal community who have voiced their very real concerns that this case is a miscarriage of justice? Not Forbes or Dr Lean but those with a very deep understanding of the law and forensics.

From your posts it obvious that you are truly out of your depth when it comes to objectively studying a case like this and unfortunately insulting those you disagree with doesn’t make you appear any less tunnel-visioned. BTW is it really wise to cut and paste your posts from here to youtube where they are, quite rightly, ripped to pieces. It’s easy to preach to the converted as you no doubt have learned in recent days.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 07, 2024, 09:44:34 PM
What They Found’s last video 4 weeks ago 28 likes on YouTube.
The latest video featuring Scott Forbes posted 2 days ago 161 likes.

Good to see that those who believe in Luke’s innocence are still winning the PR war.

The PR war? Are you serious? Remember the petition that 29,000 people signed that LM admins were recently exposed as signing multiple times. Wahey, we're winning the YouTube 'likes' war.

If you want a serious discussion please don't mention the complete moron and walking contradiction that is Forbes. A man that spends all day and night on social media abusing anyone with a different viewpoint.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 07, 2024, 10:41:32 PM
Shall I list the professional individuals from every sphere of the legal community who have voiced their very real concerns that this case is a miscarriage of justice? Not Forbes or Dr Lean but those with a very deep understanding of the law and forensics.

From your posts it obvious that you are truly out of your depth when it comes to objectively studying a case like this and unfortunately insulting those you disagree with doesn’t make you appear any less tunnel-visioned. BTW is it really wise to cut and paste your posts from here to youtube where they are, quite rightly, ripped to pieces. It’s easy to preach to the converted as you no doubt have learned in recent days.
shameless and breath-taking pot-calling.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2024, 10:35:54 AM
The PR war? Are you serious? Remember the petition that 29,000 people signed that LM admins were recently exposed as signing multiple times. Wahey, we're winning the YouTube 'likes' war.

If you want a serious discussion please don't mention the complete moron and walking contradiction that is Forbes. A man that spends all day and night on social media abusing anyone with a different viewpoint.

I’m afraid I’m not interested in Forbes the way you appear to be. He is a mere sideshow. He does however get people talking and questioning the perceived narrative, which can never be bad.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 08, 2024, 02:33:58 PM
I’m afraid I’m not interested in Forbes the way you appear to be. He is a mere sideshow. He does however get people talking and questioning the perceived narrative, which can never be bad.
Yes it can be bad, if the stuff he is pumping out is pure propaganda based on lies and misinformation.  Just look at any bunch of conspiracy theorists questioning official narratives, such as on Sandy Hook or the Holocaust for example.  Do you think whatthey do can never be considered bad?  Shame on you if so.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 08:07:53 AM
By the way Faithlilly, don’t send me insulting PMs and then block my response - that’s just cowardly.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 09, 2024, 11:58:54 AM
By the way Faithlilly, don’t send me insulting PMs and then block my response - that’s just cowardly.

I will answer you just this once and then you will be back on ignore as I don’t think it’s wise to feed your unhealthy obsession with me. I have no choice when it comes to you following me all over the MOJ forum, sniping at my every post but if you think that I will allow you to PM me too then you are wrong. That’s why I’ve blocked you.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 09, 2024, 12:04:27 PM
Yes it can be bad, if the stuff he is pumping out is pure propaganda based on lies and misinformation.  Just look at any bunch of conspiracy theorists questioning official narratives, such as on Sandy Hook or the Holocaust for example.  Do you think whatthey do can never be considered bad?  Shame on you if so.

Scammers Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean are similar to Richard Hall https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68240937
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 01:34:40 PM
I will answer you just this once and then you will be back on ignore as I don’t think it’s wise to feed your unhealthy obsession with me. I have no choice when it comes to you following me all over the MOJ forum, sniping at my every post but if you think that I will allow you to PM me too then you are wrong. That’s why I’ve blocked you.
8)><(
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 02:45:57 PM
Scammers Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean are similar to Richard Hall https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68240937
  These people have no care about the damage they do to victims and their families and all because they believe that it can never be a bad thing to question the official narrative.  Sinister is an apt word to describe the actions of those who support convicted murderers while also seeking to point the finger of blame at innocent victims. Cowardly is another apt description because they cannot bear to be challenged or to have their hypocrisy exposed and so they try and shut down discussion in any pathetic way that they can whilst continuing to pump out their propaganda and surround themselves with sycophants.  Sinister, cowardly, and in Hall’s case at least - criminal.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 09, 2024, 05:11:11 PM
For the avoidance of doubt no miscarriage of justice has ever been exposed without those who were willing to challenge the official narrative.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 05:35:36 PM
For the avoidance of doubt no miscarriage of justice has ever been exposed without those who were willing to challenge the official narrative.
There are ways and means of exposing miscarriages of justice.  One way is to not victim blame and inflict untold hurt on victims and their families.  Another way is to uncover some actual serious and meaningful evidence of a miscarriage of justice.  It seems to me in this case there has been a large amount of victim blaming and hurt caused but not much if any serious and meaningful evidence uncovered.  Another way is to not to withold information or lie about the information you have to suit your agenda. Then, when you overlay that with a vigorous propaganda campaign on behalf of the murderer led by a bunch of conspiracy kooks and ex-cons with extremely questionable judgement, then it starts to look very suspect indeed. 
Good to know you’re still reading my posts btw even if you haven’t the courage to reply directly.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 09, 2024, 06:32:11 PM
Lean is now petitioning for convicted child killer Lucy Letby appeal/re-trial. So far the LM Cult have been slow on the pick up to back her.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 08:21:38 PM
Lean is now petitioning for convicted child killer Lucy Letby appeal/re-trial. So far the LM Cult have been slow on the pick up to back her.
OMG, for real??  Incredible, but further evidence of her appalling judgement.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 09, 2024, 09:43:57 PM
OMG, for real??  Incredible, but further evidence of her appalling judgement.

In a way it's not a surprise. She craves attention and has no understanding of how her actions affect victims families.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 09, 2024, 10:07:18 PM
In a way it's not a surprise. She craves attention and has no understanding of how her actions affect victims families.
*%87 - that was for the attachment  not your comment!  Her championing of this latest cause appears to have attracted a whole 5 signatures in a week.  Obviously not that popular a cause amongst her fan club.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 09, 2024, 10:52:03 PM
Lean is now petitioning for convicted child killer Lucy Letby appeal/re-trial. So far the LM Cult have been slow on the pick up to back her.

I believe Luke Mitchell is innocent. I believe that Lucy Letby is guilty. I’ll bet that plays havoc with your rather basic understanding of human nature.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 10, 2024, 08:29:44 PM
In a way it's not a surprise. She craves attention and has no understanding of how her actions affect victims families.

What does scammer Sandra Lean know about the investigation?

🙄

She’s spent the past two decades pretending she knows all about the investigation into sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell
 *&^^&
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 11, 2024, 10:05:14 AM
Any chance of James Easton uploading Andrina Bryson's transcript next on his blog? Then possibly David Tulloch's and the other guy's who met LM at the abbey on 30.06.03??
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 12, 2024, 01:40:30 PM
For your delectation:
https://youtu.be/ZPZ_XcvPZPA?feature=shared
(edited)
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.
Did you read SF's transcript?
EDT:  I meant SK's transcript.  Sorry about the typo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 12, 2024, 03:29:35 PM
Did you read SF's transcript?

SF's?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 13, 2024, 01:27:03 AM
Did you read SF's transcript?
EDT:  I meant SK's transcript.  Sorry about the typo.

Yes. It was a bit of a train wreck, imo. I don't think, however, he had anything to do with Jodi's murder. Also, him and the other two from the search party (Janj & aw) changing their statements wasn't incriminating or sinister. SK had a sound alibi from his father Robert Kelly and his girlfriend at the time was Jodi's older sister (JanJ); JANJ and Jodi were close, so there is no way in hell that she would lie if SK had anything to do with her younger sister's murder. More importantly, JANJ & SK split up not long after the murder, and JANJ still alibis him in the present day -- otherwise she would have surely said something by now. I also understand that JANJ has been employed as a police officer for a few years now.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 13, 2024, 03:27:58 AM
Yes. It was a bit of a train wreck, imo. I don't think, however, he had anything to do with Jodi's murder. Also, him and the other two from the search party (Janj & aw) changing their statements wasn't incriminating or sinister. SK had a sound alibi from his father Robert Kelly and his girlfriend at the time was Jodi's older sister (JanJ); JANJ and Jodi were close, so there is no way in hell that she would lie if SK had anything to do with her younger sister's murder. More importantly, JANJ & SK split up not long after the murder, and JANJ still alibis him in the present day -- otherwise she would have surely said something by now. I also understand that JANJ has been employed as a police officer for a few years now.
There was a good deal he claimed that he could not remember.  However regarding Mia he said, "Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."  This stands in opposition to a major plank in the prosecution's case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 13, 2024, 03:29:04 AM
duplicate post
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 13, 2024, 09:31:00 AM
There was a good deal he claimed that he could not remember.  However regarding Mia he said, "Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."  This stands in opposition to a major plank in the prosecution's case.

But not once during any of the search trio's testimonies did they say that LM ever walked by that V-break in the wall. They were all consistent with their statements that LM had went straight to the V-break in the wall. Very significant.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 13, 2024, 10:42:31 AM
Yes. It was a bit of a train wreck, imo. I don't think, however, he had anything to do with Jodi's murder. Also, him and the other two from the search party (Janj & aw) changing their statements wasn't incriminating or sinister. SK had a sound alibi from his father Robert Kelly and his girlfriend at the time was Jodi's older sister (JanJ); JANJ and Jodi were close, so there is no way in hell that she would lie if SK had anything to do with her younger sister's murder. More importantly, JANJ & SK split up not long after the murder, and JANJ still alibis him in the present day -- otherwise she would have surely said something by now. I also understand that JANJ has been employed as a police officer for a few years now.

I think a prison sentence would be enough of a deterrent to have stopped Janine Jones coming forward. How long do you think that she’d get for perjury not to mention the loss of her career? Think Angela Psaila who was jailed for perjury after giving false evidence at the Cardiff 3 trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 13, 2024, 11:18:39 AM
There was a good deal he claimed that he could not remember.  However regarding Mia he said, "Obviously it was fresh in my mind when I gave my statement."  This stands in opposition to a major plank in the prosecution's case.

Excellent, it is so refreshing to finally have that full acceptance that the dog was only and ever up against the wall, pulling to it, taken its master to it, directly to the V break from the east, after going to the Gino break as well of course.

Luke Mitchell was simply mistaken. "They" had not been some distance past, he had not returned to any break to enter the woods, his map was wrong, it was not them on the path with the victim directly over that wall. None of it happened. He entered that woodland exactly as was said by the others, we know they were always telling the truth, adopted the same truth at the trial.

So we have erased everything from Mitchell, we only and will always just have ' dog and wall' at the V break. So he climbs over that wall, he all but does not move, he has no view point, he has no idea the victims body is 43ft west of where he is, the dog had not alerted him to it, remember, no dog, no him, no they past that break in the wall, no only LM returning with dog to greet AW, none of that happened, only and always directly to the V break and over the wall.

So he is standing over that wall - Clearly just looking around him for those brief seconds, wondering to himself, what was Mia alerting to here? There is nothing here, It has to be something directly to the back of that V break, I mean not several feet in North. Not NE slightly a few feet. Then his magic torch picks up something, sees through greenery, overgrowth, and right through that "large oak tree" 40ft away. When he briefly changed directions as to where he was looking to see what Mia was alerting to from over 43ft away. Turned that torch W and bingo, what a torch that was.

So yes Chris, you are correct, We are still at this dog and wall fiasco. Bent and twisted, manipulated to hell and back, full circle, to having to say that everything that Luke Mitchell said was wrong. He was mistaken, it is only about the dog being up against that wall at the V break.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 13, 2024, 11:25:03 AM
But not once during any of the search trio's testimonies did they say that LM ever walked by that V-break in the wall. They were all consistent with their statements that LM had went straight to the V-break in the wall. Very significant.

Scraping and clawing, desperately trying to make it all fit somehow Mr Apples. Not when 'freshest in mind' to their testimony in court did they ever agree with LM's version of events. No timings, no accounts, absolutely nothing fitted with the cock and bull fairy story that Mitchell came out with. Desperately trying to explain why he knew where the body was. The BS of his dog alerting to where the body lay over that wall, where he had left that poor girls body hidden earlier in the evening. Of only him returning to the break to gain access whilst Kelly with Jaj's just kept on walking on.

JaJ's was correct in sticking to the absolute fact that LM had not been in hysterics.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 13, 2024, 11:32:41 AM
Scraping and clawing, desperately trying to make it all fit somehow Mr Apples. Not when 'freshest in mind' to their testimony in court did they ever agree with LM's version of events. No timings, no accounts, absolutely nothing fitted with the cock and bull fairy story that Mitchell came out with. Desperately trying to explain why he knew where the body was. The BS of his dog alerting to where the body lay over that wall, where he had left that poor girls body hidden earlier in the evening. Of only him returning to the break to gain access whilst Kelly with Jaj's just kept on walking on.

JaJ's was correct in sticking to the absolute fact that LM had not been in hysterics.

Once that scraping and clawing is complete to try and match the dog and wall to fit somehow, anyhow with LM's blatant lies. We can revert back to the magic torch again. Overloading the police with only that which the killer could know, such as that bobble. Excellent point made on X, of the victims position, facing up. He was without a  doubt relating information from earlier in the evening?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 13, 2024, 08:15:56 PM
Scraping and clawing, desperately trying to make it all fit somehow Mr Apples. Not when 'freshest in mind' to their testimony in court did they ever agree with LM's version of events. No timings, no accounts, absolutely nothing fitted with the cock and bull fairy story that Mitchell came out with. Desperately trying to explain why he knew where the body was. The BS of his dog alerting to where the body lay over that wall, where he had left that poor girls body hidden earlier in the evening. Of only him returning to the break to gain access whilst Kelly with Jaj's just kept on walking on.

JaJ's was correct in sticking to the absolute fact that LM had not been in hysterics.

“ Everyone was in hysterics”

Isn’t that what Janine said in her statement?
It must have been because that’s the sentence Findlay read out to her in court.
She signed that statement as a true representation of what she had told the police. Nothing misconstrued and no misunderstanding as if there had been she would have asked the police to amend that statement.
She didn’t.

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 14, 2024, 12:01:18 PM
Luke might have been mistaken about going past the wall, or he might be the biggest liar since Pinocchio, but it makes no difference.  IIUC SK's original statement included this sentence:  "The Dog was sniffing about and then pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall."  Given that Mia led him to the wall, one of the prosecution's main planks is gone.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 14, 2024, 05:44:24 PM
Given that Mia led him to the wall, one of the prosecution's main planks is gone.

It would seem that the jury placed more credit in the dismantling of CM & SM's court testimonies about where LM claimed to be than supposition about possible minor inconsistencies from someone who had just found a dead body.

LM was not where he claimed to be and CM's court testimony in particular shows the extent of how much she would lie to protect him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 14, 2024, 06:14:12 PM
Ken Mair,

You are mischaracterizing the importance of Mia's behavior and changing the subject, but OK.  The prosecution did not provide cell phone evidence that LM was not where he claimed, only testimony from AB, and the problems with her testimony are multifaceted.  My recollection is that SM said that he would sometimes access the internet even if other people were in the house, if he thought that they were not coming upstairs.  This contrasts with how his testimony is frequently represented.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 14, 2024, 06:57:47 PM
Ken Mair,

You are mischaracterizing the importance of Mia's behavior and changing the subject, but OK.  The prosecution did not provide cell phone evidence that LM was not where he claimed, only testimony from AB, and the problems with her testimony are multifaceted.  My recollection is that SM said that he would sometimes access the internet even if other people were in the house, if he thought that they were not coming upstairs.  This contrasts with how his testimony is frequently represented.

LM was witnessed at both ends of the path where his girlfriend's body was found. These sightings were accepted in court - no one else, other than LM, was ever traced or came forward as being that person. Can anyone now defend CM's testimony and the lengths she went to protect her son.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html)




Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 14, 2024, 08:30:15 PM
Luke might have been mistaken about going past the wall, or he might be the biggest liar since Pinocchio, but it makes no difference.  IIUC SK's original statement included this sentence:  "The Dog was sniffing about and then pulling him mainly towards the right into the undergrowth at the wall."  Given that Mia led him to the wall, one of the prosecution's main planks is gone.
"It makes no difference -------" I think in all these years now of studying this case online, that statement goes right to the top of absolute belters Chris.

You have just said, who cares if LM was mistaken or lying, the fact the dog did pull to the wall proves the Crown case wrong with that third key.

The Crown case was that the dog did not alert Mitchell to whereabouts of the body which was bang on. His version of events did not happen. Nothing to do with that forever simplified, but the dog was at the wall, see! 

Ground hog day yet again. We just erase everything to do with Mitchell, we will re-write and explain it for him. - Nothing changes the absolute fact that the dog did no alert LM to the victims body. No dog, no him, no others where LM claimed that wonderous alert took place. But by all means erase it all out. And once you have finished with that you can re-write the rest for him too. - Hilarious.


Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 14, 2024, 08:33:06 PM
It would seem that the jury placed more credit in the dismantling of CM & SM's court testimonies about where LM claimed to be than supposition about possible minor inconsistencies from someone who had just found a dead body.

LM was not where he claimed to be and CM's court testimony in particular shows the extent of how much she would lie to protect him.

It would be that the Jury unlike Chris saw clearly that Luke Mitchells version of events did not take place. Hilarious yet again. Erasing and re-writing the case, to make it fit somehow, anyhow. 20yrs for lying his head off or being mistaken - Belter.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 14, 2024, 08:37:38 PM
LM was witnessed at both ends of the path where his girlfriend's body was found. These sightings were accepted in court - no one else, other than LM, was ever traced or came forward as being that person. Can anyone now defend CM's testimony and the lengths she went to protect her son.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html)

It is only a step up from not having to lie - Let's just re-write it all?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 14, 2024, 11:42:12 PM
It is only a step up from not having to lie - Let's just re-write it all?

Andrina Bryson put the couple she saw at the Easthouses end of RD path somewhere around 5.45pm in her first statements. Is it any wonder that no one came forward when the police made it public that Jodi was killed at 5.15pm? They must have thought that the time ruled them out.

Further it’s strange that the police appealed for stocky man, the moped boys and the girl with the pram yet not the couple at RDP. Why do you think that was? Could it be that up until August 2003 even they believed that Bryson’s initial timings were just too late to have been Luke and Jodi? Could the lack of DNA linking Luke to the body have forced the police to look at any eyewitness testimony, no matter how ill-fitting, again to make a case against him?

Stocky Man was pronounced by the police on the 15th of July to be the first possible credible sighting of Jodi. Why not Bryson’s? They had had her first statement a day after Jodi’s murder. Why wasn’t her sighting believed to be the first credible sighting? Why didn’t the reconstruction show Jodi talking to a male youth at the Easthouses end of the RDP?

Poor Andrina, her evidence manipulated until it was just a contorted parody of what it once was. However even then, even when the sorry tale was repeated in court, Andrina couldn’t quite condemn a child who she must have known was not who she saw to a lifetime of incarceration and igmony.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 15, 2024, 01:09:06 PM
LM was witnessed at both ends of the path where his girlfriend's body was found. These sightings were accepted in court - no one else, other than LM, was ever traced or came forward as being that person. Can anyone now defend CM's testimony and the lengths she went to protect her son.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html)
Even if what Ms. Walsh & Ms. Fleming were exactly correct, it would put LM only a few hundred yards from where he said he was; it would have little probative value.  In addition, their sighting of the jogger throws where they claim to have seen LM into doubt.  That the prosecution got mileage out of this testimony is literally remarkable.  Faithfully has made a good start toward providing the things that are problematic in AB's testimony.  As David Wilson said, "Witness testimony is weak, inconsistent and more than likely wrong, and about the only thing that I could see that needed to be investigated more fully was his part in the initial discovery of Jodi’s body."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 15, 2024, 01:21:03 PM
It would be that the Jury unlike Chris saw clearly that Luke Mitchells version of events did not take place. Hilarious yet again. Erasing and re-writing the case, to make it fit somehow, anyhow. 20yrs for lying his head off or being mistaken - Belter.
Parky41,

A jury in Brooklyn, NY convicted Jonathan Fleming of second degree murder when he was provably in Orlando Florida, roughly 1600 km away, and this is not the only instance in which a jury accepted weak eyewitness testimony while rejecting alibi evidence.  It took twenty three years to undo this particular miscarriage of justice.

Perhaps my reference to Pinocchio was misconstrued.  When two witnesses give accounts that differ, there are many possible explanations: witness A might be lying; witness B might be lying; witness A might be mistaken; or witness B might be mistaken.

Here is an example of what has been presented to the public:  "For while he claimed his dog alerted him to the break in the wall where Jodi's body was found, the family said he found it himself." This quote is from "How Jodi's killer outwitted police" in the Daily Mail.  I have no particular wish to be uncharitable, but it seems to me that you are moving the goalposts.
EDT
The trial was said to be very long, yet the jury in this case took 5 hours to render a verdict.  Therefore, I doubt that they could have considered many aspects of this case in detail.  Using the jury's decision as evidence in a sub-forum about the safety of the conviction does not tell us anything that we do not already know.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 15, 2024, 03:28:22 PM
Parky41,

A jury in Brooklyn, NY convicted Jonathan Fleming of second degree murder when he was provably in Orlando Florida, roughly 1600 km away, and this is not the only instance in which a jury accepted weak eyewitness testimony while rejecting alibi evidence.  It took twenty three years to undo this particular miscarriage of justice.

Perhaps my reference to Pinocchio was misconstrued.  When two witnesses give accounts that differ, there are many possible explanations: witness A might be lying; witness B might be lying; witness A might be mistaken; or witness B might be mistaken.

Here is an example of what has been presented to the public:  "For while he claimed his dog alerted him to the break in the wall where Jodi's body was found, the family said he found it himself." This quote is from "How Jodi's killer outwitted police" in the Daily Mail.  I have no particular wish to be uncharitable, but it seems to me that you are moving the goalposts.
EDT
The trial was said to be very long, yet the jury in this case took 5 hours to render a verdict.  Therefore, I doubt that they could have considered many aspects of this case in detail.  Using the jury's decision as evidence in a sub-forum about the safety of the conviction does not tell us anything that we do not already know.

"Moving the goalposts" - Luke Mitchell told the police a version of events that differed from that of the three other people he was with. It is Luke Mitchell who attempted to move those goalposts. Reason as to why he did this you are fully aware of. And his version of events is what brought suspicion upon him.

Pulling up a media article of how it was portrayed to the public does not alter the actual facts Chris. The media also reported the boys bike was up against a break of which the victims body lay behind. It wasn't, again you know that reporting to be wrong, because the victims body was some 43ft west of the break in the wall. So why are you then trying to mislead, to use something you know is wrong in an attempt to prove some futile point Chris?

Back to the Crown, again you know exactly what they were portraying, which was that Mitchells dog had not alerted him to the whereabouts of where the victims body was, because no dog, no Luke Mitchell were where he claimed the dog alerted at Chris. And you are also aware that he was not blanking or attempting to over ride any dog going to the wall Chris, knowing what would/could be produced in any attempt by the opposing side.

The only moving of goalposts is by yourself, attempting to move them back again to tie in with what could not be clearer, that LM with his dog went to the wall at different points up and inclusive of the V break, stopping there and entering the woodland. There was no going any distance past, of said wonderous alert, of him having to go back to where he said he had noticed a break, because it was the only access point Chris.

I have never moved goalpost, way before the transcripts came out I constantly applied that is was not simply 'dog and wall' It was always about position of where LM claimed the alert had taken place. That the dog could have been doing summersaults to the V break, to any part of the wall prior to it, it doesn't matter, because it is not what LM claimed had taken place.

And this is by no means stand alone in prior knowledge Chris. We have the lead up to this, the time factors, both on path and over that wall. The absolute fact that LM could see nothing and described things which were impossible Chris.

Now and as always, this is about working with truth Chris, not guilt/innocence. Sufficiency of evidence is somewhat different from showing/proving that LM did not and could not murdered that girl. It is about showing clear reasons as to why suspicion fell upon him, remained there, and why he could not be eliminated.  I have found nothing that shows me that LM did not know where the victims body was.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 15, 2024, 09:47:50 PM
Parky41,

In preface, I withdraw my offhand statement about Pinocchio on the basis that it might be misconstrued.  I am having a very difficult time understanding your line of thought.  Let me try to restate what I think your main points might be:  One, Mia neither pulled LM toward the wall nor alerted at the wall.  Two, it is significant that LM said that he went back to the V in the wall, as opposed to proceeding directly to the V.  Three, the jury did not believe LM with respect to what happened after he went over the wall, and this was the true third leg of the stool, regarding the prosecution’s case.

Here is my rebuttal:  One, SK’s initial statements indicate that Mia pulled LM toward the wall, and under cross-examination, he did not contradict this.  I don’t have as detailed a knowledge of JaJ’s statements as I would like, and I may return to this subject later.  Yet from what I have read, there is a statement about Mia’s being on her hind legs at the wall, also.   Two, the crux of the matter is that Mia led LM to the wall, not where LM was when she did this.  Mia’s actions hole the prosecution’s contention (that Luke had guilty knowledge of the where Jodi’s body lay) below the water line, and I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Three, only God knows what happened once LM went over the wall.  The other members of the search party were not with him at that moment, unless I am very mistaken.  If the police have shown any competency in this case, it is in asking leading questions and getting witnesses to change their stories; their questioning of LM about what he did and saw on the other side of the wall deserves to be scrutinized with this in mind (there is a passage from Innocents Betrayed that covers their interview of LM on this matter).  You seem very sure of what was going on in the mind of the jury, but it is just your conjecture.  From the Daily Mail:  “He told the court Mitchell's account of the moment Jodi's body was found conflicted with those of family members. For while he claimed his dog alerted him to the break in the wall where Jodi's body was found, the family said he found it himself.  ‘If the family members are right, it means that he was the killer," Mr Turnbull told the jury.’”  Thus according to Mr Turnbull the supposed conflict between the witnesses, not what LM did over the wall is a key issue.  This has to relate to points one or two above, not to point three (which they did not see).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 16, 2024, 01:02:23 AM
Parky41,

In preface, I withdraw my offhand statement about Pinocchio on the basis that it might be misconstrued.  I am having a very difficult time understanding your line of thought.  Let me try to restate what I think your main points might be:  One, Mia neither pulled LM toward the wall nor alerted at the wall.  Two, it is significant that LM said that he went back to the V in the wall, as opposed to proceeding directly to the V.  Three, the jury did not believe LM with respect to what happened after he went over the wall, and this was the true third leg of the stool, regarding the prosecution’s case.

Here is my rebuttal:  One, SK’s initial statements indicate that Mia pulled LM toward the wall, and under cross-examination, he did not contradict this.  I don’t have as detailed a knowledge of JaJ’s statements as I would like, and I may return to this subject later.  Yet from what I have read, there is a statement about Mia’s being on her hind legs at the wall, also.   Two, the crux of the matter is that Mia led LM to the wall, not where LM was when she did this.  Mia’s actions hole the prosecution’s contention (that Luke had guilty knowledge of the where Jodi’s body lay) below the water line, and I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Three, only God knows what happened once LM went over the wall.  The other members of the search party were not with him at that moment, unless I am very mistaken.  If the police have shown any competency in this case, it is in asking leading questions and getting witnesses to change their stories; their questioning of LM about what he did and saw on the other side of the wall deserves to be scrutinized with this in mind (there is a passage from Innocents Betrayed that covers their interview of LM on this matter).  You seem very sure of what was going on in the mind of the jury, but it is just your conjecture.  From the Daily Mail:  “He told the court Mitchell's account of the moment Jodi's body was found conflicted with those of family members. For while he claimed his dog alerted him to the break in the wall where Jodi's body was found, the family said he found it himself.  ‘If the family members are right, it means that he was the killer," Mr Turnbull told the jury.’”  Thus according to Mr Turnbull the supposed conflict between the witnesses, not what LM did over the wall is a key issue.  This has to relate to points one or two above, not to point three (which they did not see).

Chris - I know from timings, evidence, that LM was over that wall no more than 15 seconds before he shouted out. That J & K had begun their steps past the V break when he was plonking his into that woodland. 10 -15 "no more than 20 steps" when LM's voice shouted out behind them and next to that of AW. So yes, he had all but not moved beyond that wall. And as you point out whilst erasing what he claimed, he had nothing, that is zero to point him in the right direction to go. For them to haste back those few steps and he is on the other side of that V.

He could see nothing, pointing K where to go, down there x amount of ft in from the wall. Think about it. Remember unfamiliar ground (claimed), never been over that wall before. No dog past the V break, nothing showing him the way, damn the dog that was supposed to be scenting was not taken over the break with him. Count those seconds, those steps. Per my other post, would have someone trying to get their co-ordinations, trying to work out where to go. Was Mia picking something up N, NE, there are those seconds gone Chris. - So yes, far more than just the fact he had not been past the break, there was nothing to guide him as to where Chris, his dog was pulling to the wall before the break and to it.

So whilst the discussion continues, attempting to work out Mia picking up the scent from way back at the V and before it, even though it is not what LM claimed. Then you need to work the rest from there also Chris. For him of course, trying to fathom it all out on his behalf, for he was as you say, mistaken. He could only have been mistaken for we know with those clear, precise details the dog was only up against that wall at the V break. And we see from transcripts, from the 1st to testimony that is how it always was.

And everything else he was to describe, that he most certainly did not see that night, that was impossible to have seen. Then we apply those 5 1/2 mins, shall we run over that also? Setting off together as 4 at approx 11:24pm, for LM to go directly to the Gino break, scaling up and shining his torch, where? Directly to the rear of the wall, a pretence some would say? Surely if looking beyond the wall, to the woodland, it would be over it Chris. The sensible one DF attempted to apply, the only one to think of looking beyond that high wall into the woodland. Not his finest moment but he had little to work with. Wanders a few steps into the field, down the inside of the others to take the lead again? Then directly to the next break as he had with the first. 5 1/2 mins to shouting out he had found something - Behave.

But what of those 20mins alone on the path Chris? On it he claimed by 11pm, speaks with Jodi's mother around 11:17pm, then makes his way to the top of the path, a path that takes around 10mins no more. Holding back until he knew they were near? Or not on it at 11pm as he claimed? Suspicion? Police arrive at the Jones house approx 11:20pm, as the three make their way out the playing fields to the top of that path. They know the 4 had not met by that point, barely had they written anything and a body has been found! - Miracle one would say?

 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 16, 2024, 12:48:07 PM
Robber & Violent Con Scott Forbes & His ”Resentful” Stalking Behaviour & Subtle Threats (Part 319)
👇🏼
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2024/02/16/killer-luke-mitchell-robber-violent-con-scott-forbes-continuous-threats-stalking-part-319/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 16, 2024, 11:39:26 PM
Chris - I know from timings, evidence, that LM was over that wall no more than 15 seconds before he shouted out. That J & K had begun their steps past the V break when he was plonking his into that woodland. 10 -15 "no more than 20 steps" when LM's voice shouted out behind them and next to that of AW. So yes, he had all but not moved beyond that wall. And as you point out whilst erasing what he claimed, he had nothing, that is zero to point him in the right direction to go. For them to haste back those few steps and he is on the other side of that V.

He could see nothing, pointing K where to go, down there x amount of ft in from the wall. Think about it. Remember unfamiliar ground (claimed), never been over that wall before. No dog past the V break, nothing showing him the way, damn the dog that was supposed to be scenting was not taken over the break with him. Count those seconds, those steps. Per my other post, would have someone trying to get their co-ordinations, trying to work out where to go. Was Mia picking something up N, NE, there are those seconds gone Chris. - So yes, far more than just the fact he had not been past the break, there was nothing to guide him as to where Chris, his dog was pulling to the wall before the break and to it.

So whilst the discussion continues, attempting to work out Mia picking up the scent from way back at the V and before it, even though it is not what LM claimed. Then you need to work the rest from there also Chris. For him of course, trying to fathom it all out on his behalf, for he was as you say, mistaken. He could only have been mistaken for we know with those clear, precise details the dog was only up against that wall at the V break. And we see from transcripts, from the 1st to testimony that is how it always was.

And everything else he was to describe, that he most certainly did not see that night, that was impossible to have seen. Then we apply those 5 1/2 mins, shall we run over that also? Setting off together as 4 at approx 11:24pm, for LM to go directly to the Gino break, scaling up and shining his torch, where? Directly to the rear of the wall, a pretence some would say? Surely if looking beyond the wall, to the woodland, it would be over it Chris. The sensible one DF attempted to apply, the only one to think of looking beyond that high wall into the woodland. Not his finest moment but he had little to work with. Wanders a few steps into the field, down the inside of the others to take the lead again? Then directly to the next break as he had with the first. 5 1/2 mins to shouting out he had found something - Behave.

But what of those 20mins alone on the path Chris? On it he claimed by 11pm, speaks with Jodi's mother around 11:17pm, then makes his way to the top of the path, a path that takes around 10mins no more. Holding back until he knew they were near? Or not on it at 11pm as he claimed? Suspicion? Police arrive at the Jones house approx 11:20pm, as the three make their way out the playing fields to the top of that path. They know the 4 had not met by that point, barely had they written anything and a body has been found! - Miracle one would say?

Led to the V break, for LM his claim was indirectly, not led there by his dog, but led to use the break to access the woodland. The others it was always directly from the east, from their 1st account to testimony at trial.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 16, 2024, 11:43:17 PM
Robber & Violent Con Scott Forbes & His ”Resentful” Stalking Behaviour & Subtle Threats (Part 319)
👇🏼
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2024/02/16/killer-luke-mitchell-robber-violent-con-scott-forbes-continuous-threats-stalking-part-319/

He is doing an outstanding Job of having it all turn on its head against him. There is something clearly wrong with anyone who acts in such a manner. Stalking people, calling them, arriving at doors, work places, being reported to the police by several people so far, no doubt that count will rise. My question to Mr Forbes would be, has Luke Mitchell asked you to behave in such a manner to people?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 17, 2024, 01:44:24 PM
Parky41 makes a good point about LM not taking the dog over that wall after it allegedly reacted 16.3 metres west of the v-break (ahem, exactly parallel to where Jodi's body lay on the other side of it . . . now fancy that!). I don't have the time to expand on this as much as I'd like to as I'm going out shortly.

Anyway, surely if the dog had reacted in this way at the wall (i.e., clawing, jumping & sniffing at the wall excitedly), LM would have made a big deal about it by shouting and telling the others about it (for example, "Look everyone, Mia can scent something!"). He didn't say anything about it, apart from telling police when he was interviewed. We know he didn't say anything on the night to the trio, because they've never ever claimed that LM alerted them to Mia reacting at the wall; the trio just mentioned the dog sniffing at the wall and doing what dogs do -- they never ever said the dog reacted like it had found something and never mentioned LM telling them that the dog had reacted. It's significant that the trio never once said that LM said that mia could scent something; it's like LM just added it in as an incidental afterthought, when it should have been very important evidence. He was lying. He never went past the v-break with the dog at any point; the search trio never once said, either in their police statements or under oath, that LM had walked past the v-break with his dog. And, yeah, why the hell didn't he take the dog over the wall? If the dog had reacted in such a strong way at the other side of the wall like he said it did, then surely it stands to reason that you would take the dog over to see what it had smelt literally seconds ago? And, wouldn't a young boy of 14 be scared or intimidated going into that woodland himself in the pitch black of night, knowing his girlfriend was missing? He was hiding behind Mia and using her as a prop. And isn't it just, cough, amazing LM could see all what he claimed to have seen from such a distance away from Jodi's body? Why no emotion or tears? Why did he wipe his entire call history and text messages from his mobile phone just after the police and emergency services arrived? Why did he ignore his mother's phone calls just after the body was found? And on and on it goes. LM had guilty knowledge of where Jodi lay and didn't risk him or his dog getting jodi's blood on them both -- that's why he never went right up to the body at 2340 (he was dna aware; that's why he got rid of the german army parka he'd been wearing between 1640 - 1800). And why didn't LM go straight to Judith's house like he said he would if he didn't see jodi on the way over? Then, tie all of this in with the other 15 adminicles of circumstantial evidence used against LM in court!

Apologies for any typos and repetition and rambling on . . . I'm on my trusty phone on public transport heading into town for some football and pints.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 17, 2024, 09:10:54 PM
Parky41 makes a good point about LM not taking the dog over that wall after it allegedly reacted 16.3 metres west of the v-break (ahem, exactly parallel to where Jodi's body lay on the other side of it . . . now fancy that!). I don't have the time to expand on this as much as I'd like to as I'm going out shortly.

Anyway, surely if the dog had reacted in this way at the wall (i.e., clawing, jumping & sniffing at the wall excitedly), LM would have made a big deal about it by shouting and telling the others about it (for example, "Look everyone, Mia can scent something!"). He didn't say anything about it, apart from telling police when he was interviewed. We know he didn't say anything on the night to the trio, because they've never ever claimed that LM alerted them to Mia reacting at the wall; the trio just mentioned the dog sniffing at the wall and doing what dogs do -- they never ever said the dog reacted like it had found something and never mentioned LM telling them that the dog had reacted. It's significant that the trio never once said that LM said that mia could scent something; it's like LM just added it in as an incidental afterthought, when it should have been very important evidence. He was lying.

 8((()*/

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 17, 2024, 09:12:28 PM
He is doing an outstanding Job of having it all turn on its head against him. There is something clearly wrong with anyone who acts in such a manner. Stalking people, calling them, arriving at doors, work places, being reported to the police by several people so far, no doubt that count will rise. My question to Mr Forbes would be, has Luke Mitchell asked you to behave in such a manner to people?

Sounds like someone may be passing Scott Forbes telephone numbers

And if that someone is the person who has behaved like this in the past - then it will link back to the murderer
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 17, 2024, 09:24:43 PM
Sounds like someone may be passing Scott Forbes telephone numbers

And if that someone is the person who has behaved like this in the past - then it will link back to the murderer

Indeed it does Nicholas, all the way back to LM. Every action carried out and sanctioned by him. One can never retract now from the lawyer and legal rep claims, applied to both of course. Ms Lean and acting on behalf of him with Mr Forbes doing the same. And people are being asked to believe that LM holds no danger to the public?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 17, 2024, 09:59:17 PM
Indeed it does Nicholas, all the way back to LM. Every action carried out and sanctioned by him. One can never retract now from the lawyer and legal rep claims, applied to both of course. Ms Lean and acting on behalf of him with Mr Forbes doing the same. And people are being asked to believe that LM holds no danger to the public?

Scammer Sandra Lean knows the person who is passing people like Scott Forbes phone numbers

She referred to them in October 2023 as “the mischief makers

Finally, or nearly finally, clearly the mischief makers out there (laughs)…. http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/11/01/killer-luke-mitchell-transcript-of-toxic-abuser-scammer-sandra-leans-29th-october-2023-catch-up-courtesy-of-nicola-brennan-aka-nicky-brendan/

Strongly suspect the police will notify the prison service 

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 19, 2024, 10:07:42 AM
Some of sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s comments to police from his 14th August 2003 interview have been published

See Sgt George Thomson’s testimony
👇🏼
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/12/15/copies-of-full-trial-transcripts-her-majestys-advocate-v-luke-muir-mitchell-part-278/
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Mr Apples on February 19, 2024, 05:02:11 PM
Some of sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s comments to police from his 14th August 2003 interview have been published

See Sgt George Thomson’s testimony
👇🏼
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/12/15/copies-of-full-trial-transcripts-her-majestys-advocate-v-luke-muir-mitchell-part-278/

Read about half of it last night and will probably read the rest later on tonight or tomorrow if I have time. From what I did read I thought it was very telling indeed when LM lost composure and started swearing at the police during the interview, when they repeatedly asked him the question that any normal person would have asked him in those circumstances: "What did you do about it?". LM knew the police had sussed him out and couldn't handle it. A narcissist's cover well and truly blown and not being able to accept it; he didn't like not being in control, being outsmarted or being told what to do. Poor Jodi had no chance
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on February 19, 2024, 07:11:37 PM
Read about half of it last night and will probably read the rest later on tonight or tomorrow if I have time. From what I did read I thought it was very telling indeed when LM lost composure and started swearing at the police during the interview, when they repeatedly asked him the question that any normal person would have asked him in those circumstances: "What did you do about it?". LM knew the police had sussed him out and couldn't handle it. A narcissist's cover well and truly blown and not being able to accept it; he didn't like not being in control, being outsmarted or being told what to do. Poor Jodi had no chance

Comes across as a complete brat with no concern or empathy about what happened to his girlfriend. Not the actions of an innocent person.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 19, 2024, 07:24:28 PM
Comes across as a complete brat

He did and does

Would be interesting to watch the actual video footage of his interview

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Admin on February 26, 2024, 12:31:06 AM
Lean is now petitioning for convicted child killer Lucy Letby appeal/re-trial. So far the LM Cult have been slow on the pick up to back her.

Suppose if she tries often enough she might one day pick a winner. Saint Jude and her would get on well.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on February 26, 2024, 01:49:21 AM
What They Found’s last video 4 weeks ago 28 likes on YouTube.

Have you had a listen to What They Found’s latest video?
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/mk9IjSJm3Yo?si=pC_U8n1BaSEEar2M

Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on February 26, 2024, 06:41:10 PM
Have you had a listen to What They Found’s latest video?
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/mk9IjSJm3Yo?si=pC_U8n1BaSEEar2M

I did try but as with many of WTF videos I found myself slowly losing the will to live.

Did he say something interesting?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 29, 2024, 05:23:07 PM
https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/steven-truscott/?fbclid=IwAR0oIG7XFotvNV8a_E905ZvK4Wj5rKBbGT4iM5Mhe39VPsfRsY4ottXsZyw

In 1959 a teenage girl was killed in Canada. Fourteen year old Steven Truscott, a classmate, was tried and convicted as an adult which led to a death sentence (later commuted).  A physician gave highly dubious evidence regarding stomach contents and time of death. This case is now widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice.  A terrible crime was committed, and the criminal justice system focused on the wrong person, despite other plausible suspects.  Some people in the community confused the heinousness of the crime with the quality of the evidence.  Did something similar occur in the present case?  That is for each person to decide.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 29, 2024, 06:33:43 PM
https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/steven-truscott/?fbclid=IwAR0oIG7XFotvNV8a_E905ZvK4Wj5rKBbGT4iM5Mhe39VPsfRsY4ottXsZyw

In 1959 a teenage girl was killed in Canada. Fourteen year old Steven Truscott, a classmate, was tried and convicted as an adult which led to a death sentence (later commuted).  A physician gave highly dubious evidence regarding stomach contents and time of death. This case is now widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice.  A terrible crime was committed, and the criminal justice system focused on the wrong person, despite other plausible suspects.  Some people in the community confused the heinousness of the crime with the quality of the evidence.  Did something similar occur in the present case?  That is for each person to decide.
It’s a pointless comparison.  I’m sure there are hundreds and thousands of murderers who were correctly convicted on the basis of the evidence against them, what would be  the relevance of any of those many examples to this case?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on February 29, 2024, 07:05:33 PM
It’s a pointless comparison.  I’m sure there are hundreds and thousands of murderers who were correctly convicted on the basis of the evidence against them, what would be  the relevance of any of those many examples to this case?

As are most VS. Opinions with zero relevance to the case at hand.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on February 29, 2024, 09:17:46 PM
It’s a pointless comparison.  I’m sure there are hundreds and thousands of murderers who were correctly convicted on the basis of the evidence against them, what would be  the relevance of any of those many examples to this case?
If the criminal justice system deliberately ignores what went wrong in a previous case, then there will be more wrongful convictions than if the system takes note and puts reforms into place.  The police did exactly the contrary in the present case.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on February 29, 2024, 09:51:33 PM
If the criminal justice system deliberately ignores what went wrong in a previous case, then there will be more wrongful convictions than if the system takes note and puts reforms into place.  The police did exactly the contrary in the present case.
Are you suggesting that the Scottish justice system should have had the foresight to know that a miscarriage of justice was going to be uncovered in Canada two years after the case against Mitchell came to court?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 01, 2024, 08:20:11 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt4-Canary)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/6v_suPadAMk?si=mryq4ft-VQpzoqPV
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 03, 2024, 04:20:08 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt5/Gaslighters)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/Dz1NMp2d-Xk?si=1yszcmE4uxnLsaXn
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 06:17:17 AM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt6/Maniacs)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/0qEukGE7PF8?si=AVXn822E3WPa8OMR
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 07:57:12 AM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt7/Boxes)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/-BXwvOq4EXQ?si=JbVw871f[Name removed]t_ga8F
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Myster on March 04, 2024, 12:32:19 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt6/Maniacs)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/0qEukGE7PF8?si=AVXn822E3WPa8OMR (https://youtu.be/0qEukGE7PF8?si=AVXn822E3WPa8OMR)
Chris will need a Scottish phrase book to translate whilst listening to the fake lawyer's drunken rambling brogue.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:00:30 PM
Killer Luke Mitchell & His Fantasy Lawyer Scott Forbes (Pt9/Key)
👇🏼
https://youtu.be/JA2OkhmiUn8?si=MbKKK07zvl[Name removed]hP3m
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Nicholas on March 04, 2024, 03:11:49 PM
Chris will need a Scottish phrase book to translate whilst listening to the fake lawyer's drunken rambling brogue.

The speed was slowed down to help people like Chris with the fake lawyers brogue
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 15, 2024, 12:13:55 AM
Read about half of it last night and will probably read the rest later on tonight or tomorrow if I have time. From what I did read I thought it was very telling indeed when LM lost composure and started swearing at the police during the interview, when they repeatedly asked him the question that any normal person would have asked him in those circumstances: "What did you do about it?". LM knew the police had sussed him out and couldn't handle it. A narcissist's cover well and truly blown and not being able to accept it; he didn't like not being in control, being outsmarted or being told what to do. Poor Jodi had no chance
LM was an adolescent without counsel in an interrogation that was to determine the course of the rest of his life.  IIUC this was the interview that even a Scottish court called "outrageous."  This incident illustrates a substantial problem in the Scottish criminal justice system that call out for reform, and this case has at least one more example. And all you can comment on is that he lost his composure?!  Even if we agree to focus on that, it can just as easily be taken as evidence of innocence as evidence of guilt.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on March 15, 2024, 10:37:43 AM
LM was an adolescent without counsel in an interrogation that was to determine the course of the rest of his life.  IIUC this was the interview that even a Scottish court called "outrageous."  This incident illustrates a substantial problem in the Scottish criminal justice system that call out for reform, and this case has at least one more example. And all you can comment on is that he lost his composure?!  Even if we agree to focus on that, it can just as easily be taken as evidence of innocence as evidence of guilt.

Reform around such has already been put in place. It is the very essence of why it is applied that LM missed that reform by mere days. The law is constantly adapting, making changes.

The context of the whole time frame merited in a mere fraction with the over zealous behaviour of the police.

The transcripts, the application by AT, showed clearly that LM understood perfectly well his rights. He exercised those rights many times throughout the interview. He was not coerced and bullied into anything. He appealed and lost because of this.

Yet, until the release of the transcripts, the inference swayed heavily upon a boy being bullied for hours by the police - Nothing like it.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 06:53:46 PM
Reform around such has already been put in place. It is the very essence of why it is applied that LM missed that reform by mere days. The law is constantly adapting, making changes.

The context of the whole time frame merited in a mere fraction with the over zealous behaviour of the police.

The transcripts, the application by AT, showed clearly that LM understood perfectly well his rights. He exercised those rights many times throughout the interview. He was not coerced and bullied into anything. He appealed and lost because of this.

Yet, until the release of the transcripts, the inference swayed heavily upon a boy being bullied for hours by the police - Nothing like it.

He was a child. A child who had never had any involvement with the police, had no criminal record and certainly no experience of being questioned by the authorities. They were experienced policeman who had questioned suspects hundreds of times. Are you trying to convince us that those policemen were so incompetent that a CHILD with no previous experience of being questioned was able to run rings around them?

He was an intelligent child but still out of his depth. He was a cheeky, bolshy teenager but obviously unaware what he was up against. If he actually had understood the perilous nature of his predicament perhaps he’d have shown the maturity you seem to think that he possessed and remained silent.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 15, 2024, 07:08:39 PM
He was already known to local CID, not the local bobbies. One of the CID who testified at court stated he was already known to them (see recent transcript).

He was almost 15 - sexually active, dealing drugs, carrying knives (that none of his peers did), sleeping in a room with jars of dead rats and urine - hardly an innocent child. IMO he liked taunting them. NB: see pic of him giving the finger and w....... sign and laughing at the press in CM's car. Hardly the picture of innocence.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 08:54:26 PM
He was already known to local CID, not the local bobbies. One of the CID who testified at court stated he was already known to them (see recent transcript).

He was almost 15 - sexually active, dealing drugs, carrying knives (that none of his peers did), sleeping in a room with jars of dead rats and urine - hardly an innocent child. IMO he liked taunting them. NB: see pic of him giving the finger and w....... sign and laughing at the press in CM's car. Hardly the picture of innocence.

He may have been known to CID but probably many of his peer group were too if they all hung around together and smoked dope. Lest we forget Jodi was only 14 and was sexually active, skipping school and using drugs. Was she ‘hardly and innocent child’? Do our acts as children negate our immaturity?

As to the rude signs….he was a cheeky teenager so really nothing out of the ordinary there.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 15, 2024, 09:22:59 PM
He may have been known to CID but probably many of his peer group were too if they all hung around together and smoked dope. Lest we forget Jodi was only 14 and was sexually active, skipping school and using drugs. Was she ‘hardly and innocent child’? Do our acts as children negate our immaturity?

As to the rude signs….he was a cheeky teenager so really nothing out of the ordinary there.

How do you know his peer group were known to CID? He was the peer group drug dealer and carried knives - his friends didn't. He wasn't a cheeky teenager - do you behave like that when your girlfriend's just been killed or go out with her friend several weeks later. Good bit of victim blaming as usual.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 09:55:48 PM
How do you know his peer group were known to CID? He was the peer group drug dealer and carried knives - his friends didn't. He wasn't a cheeky teenager - do you behave like that when you're girlfriend's just been killed or go out with her friend several weeks later. Good bit of victim blaming as usual.

It’s not victim blaming at all. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. I don’t think Jodi’s lifestyle had anything to do with her murder. Much as Luke’s did not make him a likely murderer.

John [Name removed] was a drug dealer and carried knives too. In fact I believe he had one of Luke’s at one point, or so he said. Does that make him a likely murderer too or is he held to a lower standard of behaviour than Luke?

It never fails to disconcert me that while adults natural reaction should be to protect a child in Luke’s position you and  your ilk appear to relish the cruelty heaped upon him. It really is puzzling.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2024, 10:15:44 PM
It’s not victim blaming at all. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. I don’t think Jodi’s lifestyle had anything to do with her murder. Much as Luke’s did not make him a likely murderer.

John [Name removed] was a drug dealer and carried knives too. In fact I believe he had one of Luke’s at one point, or so he said. Does that make him a likely murderer too or is he held to a lower standard of behaviour than Luke?

It never fails to disconcert me that while adults natural reaction should be to protect a child in Luke’s position you and  your ilk appear to relish the cruelty heaped upon him. It really is puzzling.
Cruelty heaped on him?!  The “innocent cheeky chappy” brutally murdered his 14 year old girlfriend in our ilk’s estimation, what puzzles me is your puzzlement!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 15, 2024, 10:19:51 PM
It’s not victim blaming at all. Just pointing out your hypocrisy. I don’t think Jodi’s lifestyle had anything to do with her murder. Much as Luke’s did not make him a likely murderer.

John [Name removed] was a drug dealer and carried knives too. In fact I believe he had one of Luke’s at one point, or so he said. Does that make him a likely murderer too or is he held to a lower standard of behaviour than Luke?

It never fails to disconcert me that while adults natural reaction should be to protect a child in Luke’s position you and  your ilk appear to relish the cruelty heaped upon him. It really is puzzling.

I don't relish any cruelty but firmly believe LM is where he deserves to be and he should accept why. Was there not a recent quote of "20 years, ach well I expected that". My concern is the hatred and bile vented against the victim's family by SL & SF and Luke's Cult Army (like yourself).
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 10:31:05 PM
I don't relish any cruelty but firmly believe LM is where he deserves to be and he should accept why. Was there not a recent quote of "20 years, ach well I expected that". My concern is the hatred and bile vented against the victim's family by SL & SF and Luke's Cult Army (like yourself).

Luke’s Army! What age are you?

And yes you do appear to relish cruelty and the most abhorrent kind, against a child. I’m sorry but that’s how you come across.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2024, 11:20:33 PM
Luke’s Army! What age are you?

And yes you do appear to relish cruelty and the most abhorrent kind, against a child. I’m sorry but that’s how you come across.
This is a typical example of deflection.  The person relishing cruelty is the one convicted of brutally slaying his girlfriend, not the person agreeing that he was correctly charged and convicted of said crime.  Why do you always have to get atop your moral high horse, it’s very tiresome, indeed quite pathetic really.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on March 15, 2024, 11:33:02 PM
He was a child. A child who had never had any involvement with the police, had no criminal record and certainly no experience of being questioned by the authorities. They were experienced policeman who had questioned suspects hundreds of times. Are you trying to convince us that those policemen were so incompetent that a CHILD with no previous experience of being questioned was able to run rings around them?

He was an intelligent child but still out of his depth. He was a cheeky, bolshy teenager but obviously unaware what he was up against. If he actually had understood the perilous nature of his predicament perhaps he’d have shown the maturity you seem to think that he possessed and remained silent.

Wrong on every point you have attempted to make here - Dressing him up as something he never was. Inventing a nature for him.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Parky41 on March 15, 2024, 11:34:49 PM
This is a typical example of deflection.  The person relishing cruelty is the one convicted of brutally slaying his girlfriend, not the person agreeing that he was correctly charged and convicted of said crime.  Why do you always have to get atop your moral high horse, it’s very tiresome, indeed quite pathetic really.

It is creepily odd. And extremely transparent to boot.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 11:45:29 PM
Wrong on every point you have attempted to make here - Dressing him up as something he never was. Inventing a nature for him.

What did I get wrong?

Legally wasn’t he a child?
Had he ever been involved with the police or questioned by them?
Had he a criminal record?

Wasn’t he intelligent?
Wasn’t he cheeky and bolshy?
What experience did he have of such a situation?

So what did I get wrong….just facts please?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 15, 2024, 11:46:34 PM
It is creepily odd. And extremely transparent to boot.

Ouch! I’m wounded to the core!
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2024, 11:56:47 PM
Just a wee reminder
But at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, advocate depute John Beckett QC said: "It is highly relevant he coped perfectly well, gave as good as he got and was not pressured or deceived into making an admission.

"There doesn't appear to be trickery, bullying or any unfair form of questioning."
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 16, 2024, 12:01:02 AM
What did I get wrong?

Legally wasn’t he a child?
Had he ever been involved with the police or questioned by them?
Had he a criminal record?

Wasn’t he intelligent?
Wasn’t he cheeky and bolshy?
What experience did he have of such a situation?

So what did I get wrong….just facts please?

Legally he was a child.
He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.
I suppose whether he is intelligent or cheeky is subjective. His behaviour post-murder does not suggest an empathic person who wanted to help the police, merely deflect it away from himself.
Legally he is a convicted killer.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2024, 12:23:12 AM
Legally he was a child.
He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.
I suppose whether he is intelligent or cheeky is subjective. His behaviour post-murder does not suggest an empathic person who wanted to help the police, merely deflect it away from himself.
Legally he is a convicted killer.

What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 16, 2024, 12:34:45 AM
What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?

Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/ (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/)

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 16, 2024, 07:25:58 AM
What had the CID questioned Luke about? Cite please?

Your behaviour here doesn’t particularly suggest an empathetic person but that doesn’t make you a murderer and of course Luke wanted to move the focus of the police. What would you expect him to do, help the police to frame him?
Once again I’m astonished by your bare faced hypocrisy. 
You have literally spent years of your life online expressing not one scintilla of empathy or understanding for the innocent parents of a missing child and yet here you are berating forum members for not shedding tears and wringing their hands over some adolescent convicted murderer.  Why the double standards Faith?  Why not try to look at the facts objectively, without the righteous indignation?  It would serve your cause better imo.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2024, 11:47:31 AM
Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/ (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/)

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.

This is what you claimed.

‘He had already been questioned by CID pre-murder.’

Is this true and if so do you have a cite for it?

You advocate for zero tolerance on child murderers. Something we agree on then.
Title: having considered the transcript
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 16, 2024, 02:54:02 PM
Reform around such has already been put in place. It is the very essence of why it is applied that LM missed that reform by mere days. The law is constantly adapting, making changes.

The context of the whole time frame merited in a mere fraction with the over zealous behaviour of the police.

The transcripts, the application by AT, showed clearly that LM understood perfectly well his rights. He exercised those rights many times throughout the interview. He was not coerced and bullied into anything. He appealed and lost because of this.

Yet, until the release of the transcripts, the inference swayed heavily upon a boy being bullied for hours by the police - Nothing like it.
I had forgotten that the reform was put into place; thanks for reminding me.  That reform was implemented indicates that the situation before was unfair to LM and anyone else in the same position.

The Appeals Court wrote, "Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."  The notion of Luke taunting his interrogator is among the more...baffling...elements of a case that does not lack for them.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PSYCHOPATH%3B+Defiant+taunts+of+the+cocky+suspect+that+led+police+to...-a0127488565
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 16, 2024, 03:37:25 PM
I had forgotten that the reform was put into place; thanks for reminding me.  That reform was implemented indicates that the situation before was unfair to LM and anyone else in the same position.

The Appeals Court wrote, "Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored."  The notion of Luke taunting his interrogator is among the more...baffling...elements of a case that does not lack for them.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/PSYCHOPATH%3B+Defiant+taunts+of+the+cocky+suspect+that+led+police+to...-a0127488565
Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Parky41 on March 16, 2024, 04:02:47 PM
Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".

Chris forgets a crucial element of it. The interviews were video recorded. Any appeal, independent review by the SCCRC had it all first hand. The idea to Chris that LM was not capable of taunting the police is ludicrous.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2024, 07:23:17 PM
Chris forgets a crucial element of it. The interviews were video recorded. Any appeal, independent review by the SCCRC had it all first hand. The idea to Chris that LM was not capable of taunting the police is ludicrous.

Taunting? We are talking about policemen with many years of service behind them. The idea that a 14 year old boy with no experience of being questioned by the police was equal in maturity and guile to police officers who had seen the worst in human nature is simply for the birds.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 16, 2024, 08:07:55 PM
Taunting? We are talking about policemen with many years of service behind them. The idea that a 14 year old boy with no experience of being questioned by the police was equal in maturity and guile to police officers who had seen the worst in human nature is simply for the birds.
you don’t need maturity and guile to be a mouthy little gobshite.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 16, 2024, 09:17:19 PM
Cite can be found here in one of the DC testimonies that he was known to CID pre-murder. Unknown what was discussed but the fact it was CID suggests it might not be for cycling on the pavement.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/ (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/)

My online presence is irrelevant as I have never been a murder suspect but I do advocate for zero tolerance on child killers.

Further to my previous post in reply to the claim above, the only mention I can find about any contact between the CID and Luke is from Luke himself when he describes talking to them AFTER the murder of his girlfriend.

I’d be obliged if you could post your cite for any pre-murder contact?
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 16, 2024, 09:59:41 PM
Why so?  We've been reliably and repeatedly informed that Luke was "cheeky".
Repeatedly perhaps, but the source for the taunting claim is Craig Dobbie and therefore not reliable.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 16, 2024, 10:34:48 PM
Repeatedly perhaps, but the source for the taunting claim is Craig Dobbie and therefore not reliable.
Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Parky41 on March 16, 2024, 11:42:19 PM
Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.

Spot on - I do believe Chris needs to refresh himself on what the meaning of taunting actually is. Then apply this to what has been produced so far from his interviews! And that is only seeing fragments of it in black and white.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2024, 12:31:24 AM
Spot on - I do believe Chris needs to refresh himself on what the meaning of taunting actually is. Then apply this to what has been produced so far from his interviews! And that is only seeing fragments of it in black and white.

I think that you’re missing the point here. No matter how Luke behaved HE WAS A CHILD and therefore should not have been subjected to the bullying tactics the police employed.

From Luke Mitchell-v-Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.

‘ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.’
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 17, 2024, 08:49:02 AM
I think that you’re missing the point here. No matter how Luke behaved HE WAS A CHILD and therefore should not have been subjected to the bullying tactics the police employed.

From Luke Mitchell-v-Her Majesty’s Advocate 2008.

‘ Having considered the transcript of the interview, we are driven to the conclusion that some of the questions put by the interviewing police officer can only be described as outrageous. At times the nature of the questioning was such that the questioner did not seem to be seriously interested in a response from the appellant but rather endeavouring to break him down into giving some hoped-for confession by his overbearing and hostile interrogation. Such conduct, particularly where the interviewee was a 15 year old youth, can only be deplored.’
Always wise not to take excerpts out of context, because the next bit says
“However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted”.

So, despite “deploring” Mitchell’s questioning, no miscarriage of justice was said to have taken place, that’s the salient point.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Parky41 on March 17, 2024, 10:25:57 AM
Always wise not to take excerpts out of context, because the next bit says
“However, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the answers to the particular questions, which alone the Crown sought to introduce in evidence, were elicited in such circumstances that the trial judge was bound to hold that they were inadmissible. Having considered the response of the appellant throughout and in detail each of the passages in dispute, we are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to take the course which he did. Moreover, having regard to the context of the questions and responses, many of which related to matters already otherwise properly in evidence, we are not persuaded that on this ground a miscarriage of justice can be said to have resulted”.

So, despite “deploring” Mitchell’s questioning, no miscarriage of justice was said to have taken place, that’s the salient point.

Isn't it just. It has forever been applying things out of context.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 17, 2024, 11:54:47 AM
Further to my previous post in reply to the claim above, the only mention I can find about any contact between the CID and Luke is from Luke himself when he describes talking to them AFTER the murder of his girlfriend.

I’d be obliged if you could post your cite for any pre-murder contact?

Seek and ye shall find. DC Alan Towers CID, transcript Page 36. "Probably once on a one to one basis". This was at his initial police witness statement interview. If only you were so strict in applying the same standards to your own claims.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html
 (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html)

Title: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 17, 2024, 01:18:06 PM
Let’s face it you wouldn’t accept any source for this claim as the only people who would know about it would be those who were questioning him( ie the police) and you don’t appear to trust anything they have to say.  Luke Mitchell was clearly anti-authority, arrogant and liked playing the hard man but you think it highly doubtful he would give his questioners grief?  OK then, believe what you want to believe.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12087.0
Craig Dobbie made statements which are untrue, and his credibility has to be judged with this in mind (see examples within the thread linked above).  The Daily Mail reported: "Mr Findlay said official guidelines said that an ID parade should have been organised instead...Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects."  Either Mr Dobbie is grossly incompetent, or he is deliberately speaking falsely.  You are also tip-toeing around the inconvenient fact that the appeals court called his questioning outrageous.  The passage that you quoted indicates that the police were in command of the interrogation.  The fact that a fifteen year old person can be subjected to this without the benefit of counsel is obviously wrong, yet the pro-guilt commenters cannot bring themselves to say so.
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 17, 2024, 01:40:55 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12087.0
Craig Dobbie made statements which are untrue, and his credibility has to be judged with this in mind (see examples within the thread linked above).  The Daily Mail reported: "Mr Findlay said official guidelines said that an ID parade should have been organised instead...Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects."  Either Mr Dobbie is grossly incompetent, or he is deliberately speaking falsely.  You are also tip-toeing around the inconvenient fact that the appeals court called his questioning outrageous.  The passage that you quoted indicates that the police were in command of the interrogation.  The fact that a fifteen year old person can be subjected to this without the benefit of counsel is obviously wrong, yet the pro-guilt commenters cannot bring themselves to say so.
You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me that everything Dobbie said should be ignored on the basis that it is all likely to be untrue.  I agree Mitchell should have had counsel, why was he denied this?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2024, 04:02:23 PM
Seek and ye shall find. DC Alan Towers CID, transcript Page 36. "Probably once on a one to one basis". This was at his initial police witness statement interview. If only you were so strict in applying the same standards to your own claims.

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html
 (https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/dc-alan-towers-20122004-day-two-of-two.html)

Sorry I shouldn’t laugh. Is this what you mean?

“DF….Well exactly. Because how often have you met the boy before?
DCAT….Probably once on a one to one basis.


Notice the present tense ‘have’, as in before that day in court. The past tense ‘had’ would have been more appropriate if asking about before the murder.


Of course there’s context as well. If DC Thompson had met Luke before the murder we have no information on what basis that meeting took place. Was it as a witness to a crime perhaps or perhaps he was buying caravan accessories from Scott’s caravans? We have no idea but what we do know is that from the brief exchange above you have no basis to claim that not only had Luke come to the notice of the CID but had been questioned by them pre-murder.
Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2024, 04:04:10 PM
Isn't it just. It has forever been applying things out of context.

The outcome of the appeal does not change the opinion of the learned appeal judges.
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Parky41 on March 17, 2024, 04:12:58 PM
You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me that everything Dobbie said should be ignored on the basis that it is all likely to be untrue.  I agree Mitchell should have had counsel, why was he denied this?

He had no legal right to counsel. His legal right then was to be questioned for X amount of hours with an appropriate adult present which is what took place. The law was around having any interview video recorded which it was. This later changed to everyone being entitled to legal representation and the length of being able to hold a person increased? something like up to 6hrs without to then always having legal representation and 48hrs with? Don't quote me on that however!

Thus why I mentioned reform in previous post. The "Cadder ruling" of Peter Cadder in 2010.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 17, 2024, 05:21:30 PM
Sorry I shouldn’t laugh. Is this what you mean?

“DF….Well exactly. Because how often have you met the boy before?
DCAT….Probably once on a one to one basis.

Notice the present tense ‘have’, as in before that day in court. The past tense ‘had’ would have been more appropriate if asking about before the murder.

Of course there’s context as well. If DC Thompson had met Luke before the murder we have no information on what basis that meeting took place. Was it as a witness to a crime perhaps or perhaps he was buying caravan accessories from Scott’s caravans? We have no idea but what we do know is that from the brief exchange above you have no basis to claim that not only had Luke come to the notice of the CID but had been questioned by them pre-murder.

Only the very few could surmise that DF meant after the murder. It's obvious DC Towers (not Thomson) had already met LM as it was him who was taking his statement that night. On a one to one basis suggests it was not a social or informal exchange. Unless he was buying drugs off him? Do you know if DC Towers owned a caravan or that a child worked in Scotts caravan without adult supervision?


Title: Re: having considered the transcript
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 17, 2024, 05:24:38 PM
The outcome of the appeal does not change the opinion of the learned appeal judges.
Aren’t you trying to suggest that the alleged poor treatment of Mitchell by the police in questioning is at least partly responsible for a miscarriage of justice?  Because that’s not what the learned appeal judges decided, so why is it relevant anyway?
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2024, 07:21:10 PM
Only the very few could surmise that DF meant after the murder. It's obvious DC Towers (not Thomson) had already met LM as it was him who was taking his statement that night. On a one to one basis suggests it was not a social or informal exchange. Unless he was buying drugs off him? Do you know if DC Towers owned a caravan or that a child worked in Scotts caravan without adult supervision?

The magic word is ‘have’ rather than ‘had’ and Findlay asked ‘how often have you met the boy before’ not if he had met him before. Once was the answer.

I can’t believe I I have to explain this to you.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: KenMair on March 17, 2024, 07:51:21 PM
The magic word is ‘have’ rather than ‘had’ and Findlay asked ‘how often have you met the boy before’ not if he had met him before. Once was the answer.

I can’t believe I I have to explain this to you.

Thanks for explaining it to me. Maybe you can decipher CM & SM's testimonies and explain why none matched each other or LM's police statement. I can't work them out at all.
Title: Re: Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2024, 08:20:54 PM
Thanks for explaining it to me. Maybe you can decipher CM & SM's testimonies and explain why none matched each other or LM's police statement. I can't work them out at all.

That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 18, 2024, 02:06:43 AM
You’re going to have to do better than that to convince me that everything Dobbie said should be ignored on the basis that it is all likely to be untrue.  I agree Mitchell should have had counsel, why was he denied this?
What evidence would you take?
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 18, 2024, 07:10:28 AM
What evidence would you take?
not isolated quotes from a newspaper interview given post conviction.   Proof that he lied under oath would be a good start.
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Chris_Halkides on March 18, 2024, 11:42:32 AM
not isolated quotes from a newspaper interview given post conviction.   Proof that he lied under oath would be a good start.
The Daily Record reported, "He [Donald Findlay] singled out the man leading the murder hunt, Detective Superintendent Craig Dobbie.  Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects.  Mr Findlay said: "One had to raise one's eyes at the veracity of the statement of a senior officer.""
Title: Re: Dobbie's lack of credibility
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 18, 2024, 04:51:20 PM
The Daily Record reported, "He [Donald Findlay] singled out the man leading the murder hunt, Detective Superintendent Craig Dobbie.  Mr Dobbie told Mitchell's trial that he had not known of ID parades for persons who were only suspects.  Mr Findlay said: "One had to raise one's eyes at the veracity of the statement of a senior officer.""
Is this the sole extent of his alleged lying under oath?  For this we must dismiss his entire testimony?  Does this hold true also for Mitchell and his mother out of interest?