Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Mr Apples]

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.

[Rusty]

[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.

[Bullseye]

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.

[Bullseye]

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

[faithlilly]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Bullseye]

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

[Rusty]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Mr Apples]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[KenMair]

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.

[Bullseye]

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!

[Bullseye]

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.

[Bullseye]

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?