Luke Mitchell Is Innocent - Detective Scott Forbes Tells All

[Leslie Aalders]

Regarding the finding of Jodi's body,again this needs a bit of explaining.
I mean,the search parties set out about 11.00,Luke and Mia from the Newbattle area, and Alice Walker,Janine Jones and Steven Kelly from the Easthouses end.

Now they all meet up near the end of Roans Dyke path at the East end.Now this means that Luke and mia have already passed Jodi's body, albeit on the other side of the dyke among the trees,so why didn't Mia climb up on the wall at that time[or did it?]
Anyway,what was the discussion after they all met up? Wasn't it odd to go back along the path that Luke had just walked? What was the reason for this,and where exactly were they headed for? Anyhow,what happened next is crucial,Jodi's family say Luke more or less headed straight for the body,through the V point and streight to her.But lets just sit back and think about that for a minute,the police describe Luke as'calculating,clever and dishonest',yet if guilty,he sets up the whole scenario to actually point to himself as the killer of Jodi.Especially if the murder was premeditated.

I mean it was a 100% fact that Jodi left her mothers house at 4.50 to meet Luke,so he must have known that this fact alone would make him a prime suspect,no doubt about it.Now,to top that off with leading Jodi's family to her dead body,well,doesn't that beat all?

Now.I am not saying that Luke is innocent,I do not know.But if he did kill Jodi wouldn't he have done his uttmost to steer clear of her body? And just think about this,if Lukes dog Mia did not climb the wall and get the scent of the murder scene,why did Luke go through the V break to look for Jodi? What reason would Luke or anyone else have to believe Jodi could be somewhere in the woods?

Apparently Luke handed Mia to the granny to hold when he went through the break in the wall,so what did he say to the search party members? Either he told them he had a hunch that Jodi may be in the woods for some unknown reason,which seems to be what Jodi's family eventually told the police,or he told them that Mia had picked up the scent of someone.
Either way,it seems Luke found the body about 13.6 metres west of the V break in the wall,either innocently with Mia the dogs help or because he knew where the body was.

Somehow,common sense tells me that it is more likely that Luke found Jodi innocently as he said with Mia's help.For me,if he was guilty,he would have tried to leave Mia at home incase she drew attention to Jodi's body,but if he was told to take the dog with him,I think he would have tried to keep her as far away from the wall as possible and get her past the murder scene as fast as possible.Besides,wasn't the Gino break in the wall first going from East to West,so if guilty,why didn't Luke go through into the woods at that point to make it look better?
I just think Luke finding Jodi's body points more to innocence than guilt from a logical point of view.
Surely Luke leading Jodi's family to her body was a one way ticket to the slammer if he was indeed guilty,far from 'calculating and clever',isn't it?

Oh well,just a few more thoughts.

[Leslie Aalders]

Thanks Rob,then I will simply disregard the polygraph test and look at the possible crime scene scenarios.Although this is a difficult task as there is no real crime scene photos to look at,and there is only a basic description of it,ie,Jodi being naked appart from her socks, with her hands tied behind her back with her trousers,the rest of her clothes strewn around her and a description of her wounds.There is no mention of whether Jodi or her clothes are blood soaked,not that I have seen yet anyway.
I still cant work out how and why Jodi was naked or why her hands were tied behind her back after her arms were slashed.
Did the prosecution give a detailed scenario of the killing Rob? Indeed,are there any scenarios available to read on any of the web sites? Must be surely! How do they explain Luke being unwashed and free of any DNA evidence?
I will have a go at a Luke Mitchell scenario soon anyway Rob.

[Leslie Aalders]

Have just seen in an interview with Sandra Lean that Jodi's clothes were indeed cut off after she was dead.
Although Jodi's hands must have been tied behind her back prior to death otherwise it was a pointless exercise,hence the assailand must have pulled off her trousers and tied her up in the middle of the attack.
Not an easy task when someone is fighting for their life.

[Leslie Aalders]

Seems there are a lot of odd things about the crime scene.Apparently Jodi's bra strap was cut,but when it was removed someone folded it up neatly like only a woman would do,very strange.Does this suggest that Jodi was at ease at this time,possibly undressing in front of her boy friend and folded the bra herself?
Yet Sandra Lean says her clothes were cut off after she was dead,so did she undress before the attack started or not? Very confusing.But as I say,these issues will probably have been discussed many times before,so my appologies to those of you who have studdied the case for years,However,those reading this who are new to the case can learn along with me.

[Leslie Aalders]

One suspect that I think we can rule out is Mark Kane the guy with the scratched face.I mean lets look at his story,he's in the woods intoxicated on the day of the murder and cant remember anything,but fears he may have committed the crime.
But isn't it obvious that if he had killed Jodi he would have woken up next day covered in blood?
Did Scott Forbes or any of the other students ask him about this? Surely this would have proved if he killed Jodi right away.No need to take him to the police till they looked at the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murder.Even if Mark Kane had washed his clothes by then he would have known if they were covered in blood and would therefore have known without a doubt if he had carried out the crime or not,surely?


What was the point of Forbes taking Kane to the police station without the clothes he was wearing on the day Jodi was killed? Pointless! The scratches could have been made by anything and probably were.
And what about a murder weapon,did Kane carry a large knife around with him? Was it missing?
In fact,it was the very next morning after the murder that Kane went to see Forbes,so very unlikely the clothes he was wearing the night before would have been washed.
No,I think even I could have worked out if Kane was guilty or not in a very short time,and no doubt the police did too.Not guilty!

[Leslie Aalders]

Let us take a look at a Luke scenario.
But first I will print the charges against Luke Mitchell for reference to Jodis injuries and the order they were inflicted.

'On 30 June 2003 at a wooded area near Roan's Dyke between Easthouses Road,Easthouses and Newbattle Road,both,Dalkeith,Midlothian,you did assault Jodi Catherine Jones..,and did repeatedly strike her on the head and body,compress and constrict her neck and restrict her breathing,cause her to fall to the ground,APPLY A LIGATURE AROUND HER ARMS,repeatedly strike her on the head, mouth and body with a knife or other similar instrument and you did murder her and further you did strike her head and body with a knife or similar instrument and in particular her face,ear,mouth,breast and abdomen.'

I have highlighted when the ligature was applied to her arms,because it doesn't make full sense to me for a number of reasons.It should read 'he then pulled off her trousers and used them as a ligature around her arms. Also,it is unclear if the knife had been used at this point,if not,as I have already stated,when were all the defensive wounds inflicted?
Some argue that Jodi was tied up after death,including some detectives,to make it look like a stranger was responsible.I suppose this is a possibility but illogical,why would anyone tie up someone after they were dead ? That argument doesn't really work for me because it wouldn't take a genius to work out that the defensive wounds had to be inflicted before she was bound.You could say Jodi was defending herself so the assailant turned her onto her back and put his weight on her back to hold her down and tie her hands,but why not just stick the knife in her back and kill her,why struggle to bind her?
No,the fact that Jodi's hands were tied behind her back is the biggest mystery I can see about the crime scene.
Oh well,the fact is that her hands were indeed bound,maybe I am simply making a big deal about nothing.
As I said before,the only other reason I can think of tying her hands with her trousers could be as an aid to move her body to a different location,ie,she may have been killed beside the V gap but moved to a more secluded spot for the post mortem wounds.Still,if she was killed beside the 'v' there would have been gallons of blood there obvious to all.

Oh well,never mind you can wrack your own brains about why and when Jodi's hands were bound and if it is in the least bit significant.

So,let us look at how Luke could possibly have carried out the killing.Surely it must have been premeditated because of the lack of forensic evidence linking Luke to the crime.So how did he pull it off?
I have read various suggestions on the forum here,from wearing two layers of clothing to Luke washing in the river Esk or even carrying out the attack undressed.Problem is,if he was undressed and got covered in blood he would have needed to was thoroughly either in the river or once he went home,this obviously goes against the statement from the police that he was dirty and unwashed later that night.
Anyway,lets set the scene,its around 4.00 o'clock and Jodi has just arrived home from school,but it is claimed that Luke may not have gone home from school and may have headed straight to Roan's Dyke path in preparation for the hideous task,would this mean that he had his school bag with him?

Anyway,whether he went home first or not he was talking to Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at about 4.55.
Strangely,Jodi is at the end of the path and Luke is further in,did Jodi want to 'muck about' as she put it in the Easthouses area but was lured into the path by Luke? Is that what they were discussing?

Anyway,we know they ended up somewhere in the woods behind the dyke.It seems Luke[If guilty of course] severely beat Jodi and choked her before cutting her throat.Now,again he needed to be careful not to bruise his knuckles so may have mainly used a blunt instrument for the beating,but the main thing was to protect himself from blood spatter once he started using the knife.
So might Luke have rendered Jodi unconcious then put on a plastic throw away boiler suit with a hood for protection.He may have had this planted at the scene with a plastic bucket,and this may be why he went straight to the woods after school,to check that the boilersuit was still there and fill the bucket from the nearby burn to wash up after the deed.

This would keep Luke's clothes and hair blood free and he could simply throw everything into the river when finised,the knife,the bucket and the plastic boilersuit.The knife would sink and the bucket and boilersuit simply float away.Who knows,the knife may still be at the bottom of the river to this day.

So then a blood free Luke sneaks back up the path to be witnessed at the Newbattle end around 5.50.
Could this be possible?

[Leslie Aalders]

Please forgive me if the boilersuit idea has been put forward before.I imagine it has.

[Leslie Aalders]

Of course Lukes hands and feet would have needed to be covered too,without wearing gloves his hands and fingernails would have needed to be scrubbed.Again this goes against the fact that dirt was found under his nails that night and his boots would have been tested too.
No,it really is amazing that Luke had no blood or any other DNA from the crime scene on him if guilty.He must have literally been covered from head to toe in order to carry out the murder,boilersuit gloves and plastic bags tied round his boots.No way he could trample about the crime scene without getting blood on the soles of his boots,not without something covering them.Very strange.

What about the other suspects being covered in blood? Well lets just suppose Mark Kane killed Jodi and had planned it,as described in his essay about killing someone in the woods.Well,Kane was a student and did not know Jodi I presume,so he must have simply been waiting to ambush the first suitable victim to pass by and this just happened to be Jodi on her way to meet Luke. Now as far as I know he was still staying at his college flat on the day of the murder.

Trouble is,if he is guilty,it must have been Kane that was seen talking to Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at 4.55,therefore he must have somehow lured Jodi onto the path rather than ambush her as she was walking along.Anyhow,would he have had some form of outer clothing with him to protect him from blood spray? Whatever,we are told he had to simply cross a field to get to the college grounds and going by Scott Forbes it was the end of the semester or term,as Forbes had gone home to Leith.So the college may have been quite quiet and Kane could have slipped in to his flat unnoticed? I presume he resided alone?

But the thing is with Mark Kane,he went to Forbes house the day after the murder to tell him he was scared that he had carried out the murder in a drink/drug stupor,he said he had no recollection of killing Jodi but his face was scratched.But as I have pointed out,this does not make sense,if Kane carried out the killing he would have been drenched in blood and known he was guilty,and if it was premeditated and he KNEW full well that he killed Jodi and remembered doing so why did he tell Scott Forbes and allow himself to be taken to the police? Did he want to get caught? Anyway,all that Kane had to do was hand over the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murder and this would clear things up one way or another.I cant believe that the police didn't question Kane at the time and rule him out,not if he handed himself in voluntarily.

So I dont personally see Kane as a likely suspect,but I dont know all the facts.
Now what about the stalky man,well Forbes claims that he was taken away/escaped the crime scene on the back of the bike.This does seem plausable,but you have to accept that the moped boys made a snap decision to help a lunatic escape rather than inform the authoriyies.Would they really help a nutter who had just butchered a young girl get away?Who knows,but no one would notice any blood on an assailant going past on the back of a moped,and neither of the moped boys came forward untill about five days later so plenty of time to get cleaned up.
As for the stalky man,I am not sure if the police have ever interviewed him to this day.
Anyway,maybe the alleged DNA evidence that hasn't been tested yet will shed further light on just who was or wasn't present at the crime scene that day.
 

[Rob Garland]

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.

[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?

[Rob Garland]

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.
 

[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.
 

Thanks Rob.Take your time to view the latest developments,Erik has most of the info on the forum here,although trying to understand what Scott Forbes is saying is a task in its self [no offence if your reading this Scott,besides you will probably agree]

[Leslie Aalders]

If I was a police officer investigating the case I would be concentrating on what the usual course of events were and if they differed in any way on the day of the murder.I mean things like which end of the path did Luke and Jodi meet? Always the Easthouses end,sometimes the Easthouses end or never that end.That is a very important question for me and would have been the first thing to get clarrified,after all Sandra Lean keeps repeating that Luke was waiting for Jodi to turn up at the Newbattle side.You will also read that Jodi was not aloud to walk along the path on her own,so this would rule out Jodi going to meet Luke at the Newbattle end.
So this is the first vital question that I would have needed clarrified by interviewing both Lukes family and friends and also Jodi's.
The question is obviously vital because the defence have to claim that Luke was not at the Easthouses side of the path at 4.55 or any other time that day,that he was at the Newbattle side all evening.

Now the second vital question,again which family and friends should have been asked is,was it normal for Luke and Jodi to meet up BEFORE supper/tea time? What was the norm?
Well,from personal experience as a child/school boy,we all went home from school changed into our old clothes to play in [does that bring back memories,did you do that?] Then wait till the supper was ready,we never went out to play till after we had our supper,your parents wouldn't allow this surely.
In my day,you may remember,there was always something on TV from 5.40-6.00,sometimes it was Laurel and Hardy or Harold Lloyd,and quite often it was an old black and white seriel like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers,remember?

Anyway,the point I am making is from personal experience we went home from school had supper then went out with our friends about 6.00 o'clock.Of course Luke may have been eager to see Jodi earlier that day,but you still need your supper dont you? You still have to eat.So,from my point of view it was an odd time to be seen with Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path ie,4.55 just before supper time.
Of course we know Jodi left her house about 4.50,so is this also odd you may ask.Well I suppose it depends what the arrangements were in the Jones house,did her mother work? If not,maybe she had the supper made slightly earlier.
We know that Luke and Jodi exchanged texts sometime around 4.30=4.45 to arrange things,now there are two possibilities of what was said,If guilty Luke told Jodi he would meet her at the Easthouses end of the path,or if innocent he told her that he wouldnt be able to meet her till about 5.30 after he had his supper.Now,if guilty we know Luke met Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path and subsequently murdered her in the woods about 5.15.Now apparently 5.15 was normally about the time he would be at home eating his supper,so what happened when Luke arrived home about 5.30-5.45? Or did he go home at all?
I say this because he was seen by some boys at the Newbattle end before 6.00 0'clock.
So had Luke actually time to kill Jodi at 5.15,get home and walk back down to the Newbattle end of Roans Dyke path by 6.00 o'clock? Tight,very tight! So did he go home at all?
We know he was with friends from that time on that evening.
So lets take a closer look at the possibilities of what happened after the murder,ok,if Luke
 decided to go back home he would arrive no earlier that 5.30.Now what was his condition and what was said? According to the prosecution Luke's mum aided and abetted him by burning his Parka jacket,so what was said between Luke and his mum? Did Luke simply say 'the reason that I missed supper was because I decided to murder Jodi instead' ? And did his mum make the snap decision to help him get away with the crime there and then?
Must have,must have been something like that,then within minutes Luke is off out again for the evening. 
This is getting outrageous!
The time frame here is very tight,kill Jodi,walk home,discuss crime with mother,clean up? and walk back down to the Newbattle end of Roans Dyke,all within 45 minutes MAX.
I think it was Erik that said,doesn't Luke being at the Newbattle end of the path give him an alibi?
I am inclined to agree.
But what if he didn't go home at all after the murder you say,well lets look at that possibility.
OK he walks to the Newbattle end of the path after the murder,what is he wearing? Is he still wearing his Parka? What did the witnesse's say,the two boys and his friends he was mucking about with at the Abbey?
This must be documented.Did he leave his blood stained jacket in the woods to be picked up later? Very dodgy,Jodi's body could have been found at any time and the police would be there searching the area.
Was the Parka allegedly burned on the night of the murder? What time? This should let us know if Luke returned home immediately after the murder or not.He was apparently out with his friends till about nine,so was the Parka allegedly burned before or after this time?

Anyway,if Luke didn't go home after the murder and stayed out till after nine,wasn't this absolute stupidity? If he wanted to secure an alibi with his mother,why leave it till after nine? How did he know she would help him at all? And worse,how did he know when Jodi's body would be found? She could have quite easily been found while Luke was out with his friends for heavens sake and the police could have tracked him down before he got home to burn the Parka or secure an alibi.Doesn't make any sense.
So what we are left with is either Luke killed Jodi,went home,cleaned up,told his mum that he had just carried out a brutal murder and ask her to secure an alibi for him, arrange for his jacket to be burned,then walk 600 metres to the end of Roans Dyke path.As I say,if this is the case he could only have been home for about 15 minutes.Fifteen minutes to explain to your mother what had happened before going on your way to meet friends,really?

Or,if he didn't go home after the murder till 9.00,risk Jodi's body being found and duly being apprehended by the police before he got home to clean up,burn the Parka and arrange an alibi.
Personally,I dont think either of the two possibilities stand up very well at all!

The thing is,Luke couldn't have killed Jodi later on because he was with friends and he couldn't have carried it out much earlier because she didn't leave her house till about 4.50.
So,there you are,a credible Luke Mitchell scenario doesn't seem to hold up very well,does it?

[Leslie Aalders]

In the 2008 appeal it is stated that Andrina Bryson sees Luke and Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at 4.50-55 and then two female wittnesse's see Luke at the Newbattle end about 50 minutes later,5.40-45.
This means that Luke was at the Newbattle end half an hour after the murder.
It is also claimed there was about 12 people in the woods at the time of the murder as well as those on the path eg.,the moped boys,so for Luke to negotiate a path home quickly without being seen would have been tricky.Even after he left the path or the woods he had to pass many houses in full view to get back home,even if he knew any short cuts.
It is also claimed that for the first week after the murder the newspapers claimed Jodi left her house at 5.30,it would be interesting to get access to contemporary newspapers to check this out.
There is also quite a few references to 'they have just left',Scott Forbes claims that this means the stalky man left with Jodi.Now a lot of posters refer to him as the stockey man as in well built or stout,this is not what Forbes is saying,he is saying stalky as in stalker,someone seen behind Jodi stalking her.I dont know what the evidence is regarding this claim,but I believe there are witnesse's.

[Leslie Aalders]

Now,you may be asking yourself,if both Jodi and the stalky man left the house at the same time then how can he be stalking her? Well,I presume Scott Forbes means Jodi left first then the stalky man about 30 seconds later. I presume it is all clearly explained in his book.