Luke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells All

[Tom Rogers]

Luke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells All

[Leslie Aalders]

Luke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells All

What is your view of the case Tom? Do you think Jodi's brother was the killer, and was helped to escape the scene of the crime by the moped boy's?

Or do you think Mitchell is indeed guilty? I haven't a great knowledge of the case,but Forbes and Lean put up a believable case for innocence dont they?

[Leslie Aalders]

A lot of the statements dont make sense,on one hand it seems Luke was waiting for Jodi at the Newbattle end of the path,yet we are told that Jodi was not allowed to walk the path on her own.So,if Luke knew Jodi was not allowed to use the path on her own why did he phone Jodi's house to say she hadn't arrived?
How could Jodi get to Luke if she wasn't allowed to use the path on her own?

Is this a fact,did Luke always walk the path to the Easthouses end of the path when he was meeting Jodi?
If so,why didn't Jodi's step dad Ovens ask Luke if he had walked to the usual place at the Easthouses end of the path to meet her,why wasn't things clarrified between Luke and Ovens regarding everyones whereabouts at that time?

Then we are told that Luke was making the supper at about 5.00-5.15 and that his mum gets home around this time,yet Luke leaves his house to meet Jodi about 5.30-5.40,that isnt very long to eat your supper is it?
But probably long enough I suppose.And again Luke goes to sit on the wall at the Newbattle end of the path waiting for Jodi instead of walking the path to the Easthouses end to meet Jodi,why? if he knew she wasn't allowed to use the path on her own.

Still,as I say,I am new to the case and maybe this is just a myth,besides a fifteen year old is unlikely to obey everything her parents tell her,she may have used the path all the time,especially in daylight without her parents knowledge and Luke would have known this.

The funny thing is,if Jodi didn't turn up on the Newbattle side,why didn't Luke go along the path to look for her?
I believe most of the texting between Luke and Jodi was done before 5.00,and indeed Jodi left her house about 4.50,so why was Luke sitting on a wall at the Newbattle end of the path about an hour later waiting for her?
The thing is, the Mitchell family seemed to have a pretty regular supper time roughly between 5.00 and 5.30 when Corrinne got home from her work at the caravan park,so why would Luke arrange to meet Jodi just before five o'clock?
Just what time DOES Luke claim he arranged to meet Jodi? And more importantly,which end of the path?

What was said and done by everyone from about 4.30 to 5.30 is obviously what we need to know,especially what was exchanged between Luke and Jodi.What arrangements/plans they made I mean.
 

[Leslie Aalders]

And why was Jodi's hands tied behind her back? What was the purpose of this,wouldn't she have been dead at this time?
I thought maybe it was done to copy the Black Dahlia murder if Luke was guilty,but it doesn't look as if Elisabeth Short had her hands tied behind her back,not in the crime scene photos anyway.

The thing is,Jodi had severe defensive wounds on her arms,so it wasn't as if she was simply knocked out and bound before being butchered,was it?

So what did happen? Was she slashed in the arms and beaten unconcious before being undressed and bound for the final stabbing?If Jodi was beaten unconcious,why not just kill her,instead of waiting untill she is undressed and tied up?
I just dont see a logical reason for tying up Jodi.Am I missing something obvious here?

[Leslie Aalders]

Lets just take a look at things.I mean when was Jodi undressed? What does forensics show? If Jodi was fully dressed when she had her arms and throat cut,her clothing would have been blood soaked,but if she was undressed beforehand then they would not be,right?
So was her clothing blood soaked? Will have to check up on this.

If the killer forced Jodi to undress at knife point,why didn't he tie her hands behind her back at this time?
One thing is for sure,Jodi must have been undressed before her hands were tied behind her back,you cant take jumpers and t-shirts off once your hands are tied,that is impossible unless the clothing was cut up.
Was the clothing cut up?

It just seems strange to be slashed in the arms and THEN tied up,just doesn't make sense to me.
Its like half carrying out the murder then tying her up.Does that make sense?

[Leslie Aalders]

It has also puzzled me as to why the killer used Jodi's trousers to tie her hands behind her back,a strange item of clothing to use for this purpose.
But lets just look at what supporters say,they claim Jodi was killed and then moved to the spot she was found.So how about this,after Jodi was killed someone tied her hands with the jeans in order to pull the body? Although you wouldn't tie her arms behind her to do this would you?
Of course,if there was more than one person moving the body,who knows how this would have been done.
No one would want to carry her and get blood all over their clothing,so who knows,maybe tying her hands behind her back made it easier to move her in some way.

[Leslie Aalders]

Of course,if Jodi was fully dressed when her arms were slashed,not only would there be blood on her clothing but also cuts.Was there?
She was wearing a loose fitting sort of  zipped up jacket and baggy flared looking trouser bottoms.

[Leslie Aalders]

I suppose the point I am trying to make is,the sequence of events doesn't seem very logical.
That is,arms slashed then arms tied behind back before throat being cut.I mean its pointless tying her hands behind her back once her throat is cut,so her hands must have been tied first.
Was her hands tied to simply stop her struggling? If so couldn't the killer just have stabbed her in the chest or stomach? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to tie-up a hysterical person fighting and struggling for their life?
In effect,the killer starts stabbing his victim to death but stops in the middle of this to tie them up.
I mean,you could argue that he rendered Jodi unconcious before tying her up,but if so,why not just slit her throat,no need to tie her up.
I just think the logical thing to do,would be to tie her up first,not in the middle of the stabbing.

[Leslie Aalders]

And think about this,you have just slashed someones hands and arms to pieces,imagine the amount of blood you would get on your own arms and body.The blood would simply be squirting out of the wounds if the victim was still alive,all over the killers hands and arms at least.It would be like tying up a burst water pipe!
Blood everywhere.

And once tied up,the blood would have oozed out all over the victims back until her throat was cut to finish her off.
But as I say,I have no idea what the pathologists report says,or if indeed it is available for viewing,this would no doubt answer a lot of questions.
Indeed,they have probably all been argued about and answered before,as I say,I am new to the case.

[Leslie Aalders]

Of course it must be stated in the autopsy if Jodi was tied up before or after death.

[Leslie Aalders]

I see professor David Wilson now believes Luke Mitchell to be innocent.

[Rob Garland]

I see professor David Wilson now believes Luke Mitchell to be innocent.

The missing knife and coat are pretty hard to explain away, he was seen wearing the coat on the night by several witnesses which was never found. To me the verdict is safe?

[Leslie Aalders]

Well,I suppose the Luke Mitchell case is a bit like the Jeremy Bamber case now,with two petential suspects,that is, Luke and the stalky man.Although the moped boy's were indeed suspects at Mitchells trial and openly asked by Findlay if they killed Jodi.
Anyway for our scenarios we will concentrate on Luke and the stalky man,I wont name the stalky man because there is no firm evidence against him in the mean time,but he is named in the above video.
Now,as far as I can see,there isn't much autopsy or pathologist reports to look at on the web,well not that I can find anyway,maybe there is some info here on the Forum and I haven't found it yet.My skill with computers is very limited as you may know.

So,with the limited info I have found regarding the crime scene and the Autopsy/pathology report I will look at a possible scenario for both Luke and the Stalky man.

You may think it is too late to look into the case if you think the lie detector test and the new evidence prove Mitchell is indeed innocent,but obviously many remain sure that he is guilty.

Ok,lets look at the Stalky man theory.Jodi Jones leaves her house about 4.55-5.00 o'clock to meet Luke.
I have not been able to find out which end of Roan's Dyke path they agreed to meet.Anyway,a witness allegedly saw Jodi being followed and later pointed him out at Jodi's funeral.I think it was about 250 metres from Jodi's house to the end of Roan's path,so roughly a 5 minute walk or thereabouts.So where was this witness to the stalky man and why did they think he was indeed stalking Jodi?
Was the stalky man acting suspicious? Was he stopping and starting again to keep a certain distance,was he ducking behind a street light?

Anyway the Stalker could only be watched for about 5 minutes before Jodi reached the path,whatever he was doing.Now we are told that Adriana Bryce[or her husband] saw Jodi talking to someone resembling Luke at the entrance to the path,so for this scenario we will accept that it was Mitchells lookalike Mark whats his name,the guy with the face scratches,and that he simply moved on and Jodi continued along the path.[although some may think he is indeed a viable suspect and actually followed Jodi and ambushed her]

OK,Jodi walks along the path,which is 550 metres long,roughly half a mile.Now,I read somewhere that the 'v' in the dyke was two thirds in from one end of the path,but I cant remember which,so lets just say it was about the middle.That means it would have taken Jodi roughly 10-15 minutes to reach this point,depending of course how long she talked to Mark at the entrance.So the attack must have happened sometime after 5.10-5.15.

So how did it kick off? Well the Stalky man had to get Jodi off the path and over to the other side of the dyke among the trees to carry out the hideous deed,so obviously he would have attacked her at a break in the wall.So he creeps up and bangs her over the head or uses the ligature to grab her and drag her into the woods out of sight.

Now this is where the lack of crime scene photos and autopsy reports makes it hard to understand what happened next.The main question being,why was Jodi naked,and when did she undress? If the Stalky man was guilty,why did he want Jodi naked,was this important for mutilation purposes? That is,full access to the body to butcher it?
And this takes us back to the question of who undressed Jodi and when were her hands tied behind her back?
Remember she knew her assailant,would she undress at knife point if he told her to? Well,it is alleged that he had already beaten up Jodi at a previous time and stabbed her mother,so I suppose it is reasonable to assume that Jodi knew what he was capable of and therefore do exactly what she was told,no matter how uncomfortable and demeaning.
Although,it must be remembered that the Stalky man must have already manhandled and hurt Jodi quite a bit to get her off the path and into the trees.
The problem is,why doesn't the Stalky man tie Jodi's hands behind her back at this stage? The thing is,we know Jodi had extensive defence cuts to her arms,so they must have been cut before she was tied up.
Wouldn't the assailant also want to gag her to stop her screaming?

I think at this point we have to introduce the moped boys,because it is a fact that the moped was seen against the 'v' in the wall around this time.Is it possible that they were driving the noisy moped up and down the path to blot out any screams from Jodi? The fact is we know the moped boys were on Roan's dyke path at the time of the murder,what part they played will no doubt come out in the wash if the stalky man is ever charged with the crime.

So,back to the killing,well without knowing the state of Jodi's body and her clothes bloodwise,it is hard to work out a scenario.If Jodi's clothing was strewn about the scene or LOCUS [locus is a new word to me,I wondered what the heck they were talking about until it finally clicked.Shows you how ignorant I am] yes,if Jodi's clothes were strewn about the crime scene virtually blood free,then she must have undressed before the stabbing started,but if they were bloodsoaked,Jodi must have been clothed for at least part of the assault on her.

Obviously if Jodi was naked when her jugular was cut,then her body must have been absolutely drenched in blood.But alas,I cant find many details about the scene of the crime and Jodi's condition.

Anyway,it is claimed that the Stalky man killed Jodi,and tied her hands behind her back at some time after she received the defensive wounds[Which doesn't really make much sense to me].Then the assailant calls the moped boys who help him flee the scene on the back of the bike.One of the moped boys flee the scene on foot across fields.

Now,here's another part of the Forbes scenario that I dont quite understand,he claims that the dad of one of the moped boys goes back to the crime scene to move Jodi's body.WHY? If all the blood was spilled somewhere else,wouldn't it be easilly found? Especially if there was about five litres of it,wouldn't it be over dozens of branches and leaves? But again,why move the body? Did they think the assailants DNA would be readilly found there? i.e,their saliva and whatever amongst the blood? Quite possibly I suppose.

Oh well thats a few thoughts about a Stalky man scenario,will have a look at a possible Luke Mitchell scenario later.

[Leslie Aalders]

I see professor David Wilson now believes Luke Mitchell to be innocent.

The missing knife and coat are pretty hard to explain away, he was seen wearing the coat on the night by several witnesses which was never found. To me the verdict is safe?

Thanks Rob,as I say,I am new to the case so undecided.Strange that both Luke and his mum passed a polygraph though isn't it?

[Rob Garland]

I see professor David Wilson now believes Luke Mitchell to be innocent.

The missing knife and coat are pretty hard to explain away, he was seen wearing the coat on the night by several witnesses which was never found. To me the verdict is safe?

Thanks Rob,as I say,I am new to the case so undecided.Strange that both Luke and his mum passed a polygraph though isn't it?

A polygraph is very accurate when used on people not trained in countermeasures, but someone who knows how to beat them it's not hard.