Luke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells All

[Leslie Aalders]

Mark Kane never wrote an essay Leslie it was a stunt by Forbes to try and make £50000 pounds. This is confirmed in a statement from the lecturer.

I don't understand all this DNA stuff, it was agreed at trail that DNA evidence would not be used as Luke and Jodie were in a relationship.

If Luke is innocent he has some serious questions to answer: Why did he phone the talking clock if he was supposedly home at the time, where did his coat go, and where was his knife which closely matched the description that the pathologist described as the murder weapon.

Hi Rob.If you watch the podcast that Tom posted at the start of this thread Forbes claims the essay's were found.I suppose the main things about the DNA is why Jodi's sisters boyfriends DNA was found on her T-shirt,and of course the lack of Jodi's blood on Luke,just how did he carry out the murder without getting a drop of blood on his clothes or his boots? Did it only land on the Parka jacket?

Forbes and Lean claim that Luke didn't even own a Parka jacket till after the murders anyway.I dont know what is fact and what is fiction at this stage Rob.It is claimed he phoned the speaking clock because his mobile phone was cracked obscuring the time,but as you rightly say if he was at home why not just look at the clock on the wall or whatever.
I think he had what is called a skunting knife with a four inch blade,would this be capable of inflicting such damage? His hands would have been close to the body and covered in blood,do you think he wore protective clothing and gloves Rob?
I just dont know what to think,but I definately have some doubt of his guilt at the moment.
And what do you make of the destruction of evidence Rob,echoes of the Bamber case?

It was a while ago that I looked at this case and to be honest my verdict was the jury's decision was correct.

I don't agree with destruction of evidence especially in a case where someone is protesting their innocence.

The coat Luke was wearing on the day (very distinctive) was never found, him mum bought him a identical one latter. I never knew this was now being challenged? The podcast is too long for me to watch though I watched the first bit.

From memory the pathologist said the knife was short stout etc. which I would say is similar to the shunting knife Luke had and again has not been found. I have seen pictures of the sheath.

I might look at the case again but the circumstantial evidence to me is quite strong.
 

According to Dr Lean the police had the knife from the start and that it was forensicly tested Rob.
Apparently the pathologist said it was too small to inflict the injuries anyway.

[Leslie Aalders]

As for the injuries,they were certainly the work of a maniac.Beating,strangulation,stabbing and finally mutilation.So by no means a simple argument gone wrong.
But was Luke Mitchell really devious enough to pursue a girlfriend for the sole purpose of using her for a sick copycat type of killing?
The thing is,if he wanted to kill someone,wouldn't it have been wiser to kill a complete stranger in a different local/neighbourhood? I mean would you really let everyone around you know that you are going to meet your girl friend then kill her? Just doesn't seem to make much sense if he didn't want to get caught.
Then you could say why did someone else risk killing Jodi on her way to meet Luke eg,the stalky man? Mightn't Luke have caught HIM in the act? Unless of course Jodi was abducted and killed elsewhere of course,this would explain why there was apparently so little blood at the crime scene and no one heatd any screaming despite several witnesse's being present in the woods at the time.Could her body have been
dumped behind the wall later on when fewer people were about?
Unlikely I suppose,but just what did the police conclude about the lack of blood at the scene? The pathologist said she had lost most of her blood,almost five litres.Did it just seep into the ground?