Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Rusty]

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.

[Bullseye]

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.

[Bullseye]

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

[faithlilly]

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.

[KenMair]

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.

[Bullseye]

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.

[Rusty]

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..

[faithlilly]

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?

[Bullseye]

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.

[KenMair]

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.

[Parky41]

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?

[faithlilly]

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?

[faithlilly]

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?

[Bullseye]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?