Stocky man - Facts VS speculation?

It has become the narrative of some of Luke Mitchell's supporters, that a stocky man last seen walking closely behind Jodi, was her real killer. Furthermore, it is claimed that this stocky man, was her own brother. Photos of Jodi's brother and family members have been posted online, along with statements like "Jodi's brother, the real killer' and 'Jodi's granny knew, I hope she burns in hell'.

Let's have a look at some of claims that have been made in relation to this accusation, where they come from and how reliable they are.

1. The Stocky man sighting

Where did it come from?

On 16/07/2003, an appeal was released in the press asking for information after two independent witnesses had spotted a girl matching Jodi's description walking along Easthouses Road at around 5pm, towards the entrance to Roan's Dyke path. According the witnesses, she was followed closely by a stocky man. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3070589.stm. The man may also have been carrying a backpack. 

Another article on July 19th explained that one of the witnesses thought they had identified the man, but that this particular individual had been ruled out. It explains that they were still focusing on the sighting and trying to trace the man that had been following Jodi. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3079777.stm

2. The witness accounts

Where did it come from?

The chapter 'stocky man' in Innocents Betrayed explains that the other witness later contacted Police to say that she believed she could identify the man seen following Jodi. She contacted the Police approximately 10 weeks after the murder, to identify a 'family member' of Jodi's - whom Scott Forbes has now confirmed was Jodi's brother:

 https://youtu.be/q_Qkg7e7Noo?si=1We14AGMuKKrtuNL

Although the jury were aware of the 'mystery' man/stocky man walking behind Jodi, according to Innocents Betrayed, they were never made aware that one of the witnesses had identified this mystery man as her own brother.

What did the witness say in her initial statement?

This would appear to be quite important, as the focal point of the accusation:

Page 371 Innocents Betrayed: "The Commission’s treatment of the witness who identified “Stocky Man” back in 2003 is somewhat surprising. In her first statement, the witness was quite vague about the youth she saw but, some weeks later, she saw a man on television and returned to the police to say she was sure he was the stocky man she saw on the evening of the murder. The Commission interviewed this witness ten years later. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she could not remember what she had told police officers at the time. She also appeared, in the commission’s report of the interview, to be distancing herself from the identification she made all those years earlier. That would not be surprising – at the time the original statements were given, the case had not fully developed into the massively prejudicial media coverage of Luke as the sole suspect. Nor, by then, was hostility to those who had reservations about the treatment of the Mitchell family obvious."

*It might be worth noting the attempt on behalf of the author here to give reason for the witness not being able to remember - "she also appeared to be distancing herself" - and introducing the threat of hostility. We can't speak for the witness.

The witness was quite 'vague' in her first statement, but did believe she was sure she had seen the man on television some weeks later. If a statement was made to Police, is there something missing here - did they interview and rule out Jodi's brother at the time? Did they conclude there was no reason to pursue this sighting?

When the witness was interviewed by the SCCRC ten years later, she could not remember what she had told Police.

So we have a vague first statement, then an identification where the witness is 'sure', but at this point nothing appears to happen. There is no explanation provided for this and it's not clear why, unfortunately. The witness is then unable to remember anything after 10 years has past. 

So, we have two witnesses who believed they could identify Stocky man. The first one was mistaken and the second witness was vague, then 'sure', then unable to remember anything. 

As a side note, stocky man's hair colour was described as brown/ginger. Jodi's brother had dark hair, as can be seen in photographs from the funeral.

Reliable? Not enough clarification to confirm that the sighting was Jodi's brother.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/police-seek-youth-who-trailed-jodi-2469971

3. Jodi's brother didn't have an alibi

Where did it come from?

According to the chapter 'Joseph Jones and John Ferris" in Innocents Betrayed: 

"there is nothing reliable to account for Joseph’s movements between lunchtime and “around 10.30pm” on June 30th."

The chapter states that different accounts were given in regards to his movements that evening: 

"A number of different accounts of eating dinner were made - Joseph ate in the living room with Judith and Alan; he took his dinner upstairs and ate in his room and (according to one statement attributed to Joseph) the whole family, including Jodi, ate at the table."

But - at the trial, Jodi's mum's partner, AO, described Jodi's brother being in the house after Jodi had left - and also being present at dinner. 

*Please note - the audio quality was poor, meaning transcribers struggled to make out certain details and so a question mark is placed after the name *Katie* - which presumably, most likely is Judy/Judith (Jodi's mum)

Reliability?: He had two alibi's - his mum and his mum's then partner, Mr O. 

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/allen-ovens-full-transcript-26122004.html

5. They've just left

Where did it come from?

According to Sandra Lean, Luke said in his 4th July 2003 statement that he thought Jodi's mum's then partner had told him "they just left", after he called to enquire about Jodi's whereabouts. 

According to a screenshot of the statement/interview transcript shared online, Luke said 'I think he said they just left a while ago'.

The other part of the statement was read out at the trial; Luke also said he was told "She's just left a wee while ago".

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/01/theyve-just-left-lukes-statement-from.html

"They've just left" is used by campaigners to add weight to the accusation that Jodi left home with her brother, who they claim then killed her.

Jodi's mum's the partner, AO explained during his testimony, that he said 'She's left', no mention of they:

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/allen-ovens-full-transcript-26122004.html

Reliability?: No evidence that Luke was actually told 'they've' just left. Even Luke himself could only say 'I 'think' he said they'. There is no corroboration to help confirm.

6. The knife in the skip - Joseph carried a Bowie knife in a back pack

Where did it come from?

Another argument used by supporters of the theory that Jodi's brother murdered her, is that a knife found in a skip near the murder site in the 'days after' (in reality, 49 days after) the murder, was untested and undocumented. 

A freedom of information request confirms this wasn't the case. The knife was tested and results sent to COPFS. 

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-knife-in-skip-at-home-farm-was.html

Scott Forbes has said in many of his videos (including the ones linked on this page) that Jodi's brother carried a Bowie knife in a backpack - this ties in neatly with the press articles noting that stocky man was 'maybe carrying a backpack'. Mr Forbes asserts that the knife in the skip was the 'real missing knife' and strongly implies that this was the Bowie knife owned by Jodi's brother. 

Mr Forbes has never provided a source for the information regarding Jodi's brother carrying a bowie knife in a backpack.

Furthermore, a screen shot was shared online, of a knife in the productions list, which it was implied, was the real knife found in the skip. This 'Simi knife' was placed together in the screen shot, with the tip of the actual knife found in the skip. In reality, production 68a has absolutely nothing to do with production 199a. 199a is the tip from the knife that WAS found in the skip. It has been publicly implied by a campaign leader, that this Sumi (not Simi) was Jodi's brother's knife. An FOI response from SPA confirmed that the Sumi knife did indeed have human blood on it - but the blood belonged to Luke Mitchell and was a kitchen knife. The knife that was found in the skip was a Japanese filleting style knife and no blood was found on it. 

Reliability?: No information whatsoever to back up the claim of Jodi's brother carrying a large bowie knife in a backpack. The information provided by campaign leaders regarding the knife found in the skip is not even close to accurate and there is zero evidence that any knives in the productions belonged to Jodi's brother, never-mind the skip knife. 

7. Jodi's brother actually confessed

Where did it come from?

Scott Forbes made the claim that Jodi's brother had confessed to being her killer, but the Police wouldn't take him seriously due to the fact he was psychotic.

Link to video with clips and discussion on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44AX7KNiOTM&t=53s

Sandra Lean states that there was no credible evidence to confirm this confession ever existed.

Reliability?:  No evidence to back up that a confession was made by Jodi's brother

4. He cancelled an appointment with doctor so he could smoke

Where did it come from?

Chapter 5 of IB (Joseph Jones and John Ferris):

"Nine days and seven statements into the investigation, Judith’s account of the afternoon of June 30th became very detailed. Joseph arrived with John Ferris “just after lunch,” while Judith was in the kitchen making sauce for the lasagne they were going to have for tea. Joseph came downstairs “a wee while later” and asked Judith to cancel his weekly home visit by the doctor at 5pm, because he wanted to smoke cannabis with Ferris, but was not supposed to use cannabis because it interfered with his medication."

The cancellation of the appointment has been used by campaigners to suggest that Jodi's brother had other plans that evening - i.e to kill her.

Reliability?: The only source for this is IB. There is no other source to contrast/compare

8. Medical records

Where did it come from?

A long walk to Justice, a book by Scott Forbes, professes that Jodi's brother's medical records confirmed that he had been forcefully medicated with Risperidone, an anti psychotic drug. It tells us that he was committed, under the mental health act, 6 weeks prior to Jodi's murder, for attacking his sister (it does not clarify which sister in the book, but in podcasts, Forbes has claimed that Jodi was the sister). By the time of Jodi's murder, it is alleged that his medication had worn off. 

Reliability?: There is no other source to contrast/compare

9. Previous violence

Where did it come from?

Chapter 5, IB: "Given that a knife, sharp enough to cut a piece from a 9oz bar of cannabis, was present in Judith's house that day, another account from the case papers raises some significant questions. Prior to June 30th (when?), Joseph tried to attack a youth in Judith's house with a knife, injuring his mother, who intervened to prevent the attack. The youth was told not to tell anyone what had happened. This information was never before the jury."

Reliability?:  The only source for this is Innocents Betrayed (which we now know has inaccuracies in other regards)

It has been said by campaign leaders, that Jodi's brother wasn't questioned, or investigated. While it is unclear to what extent he may have been questioned, there was information pertaining to him in the case files, according to various references made in Innocents Betrayed, including a statement ''attributed" him.

Jodi's brother's alibi 

If Jodi's brother was in the house after Jodi left, and at dinner, he can not have been the stocky man. 

What time was dinner? 

According to Innocents betrayed, page 86, Jodi's mum said dinner was around 5.45pm 

"Judith said they ate dinner on their laps, starting to eat at about 5.45pm, and leaving to visit her late husband’s grave at the cemetery around or just after 6pm."

This is around 55 minutes after Jodi is believed to have left the house (according to the prosecution's case and Mr Ovens' account of arriving home from work and hearing her leave.)

Page 88: "A number of different accounts of eating dinner were made - Joseph ate in the living room with Judith and Alan; he took his dinner upstairs and ate in his room and (according to one statement attributed to Joseph) the whole family, including Jodi, ate at the table."

"What all of this means, essentially, is there is nothing reliable to account for Joseph’s movements between lunchtime and “around 10.30pm” on June 30th."

In all accounts, whether the details differed or not, Joseph was present in the house at dinner time. 

IB discusses Mr Oven's statements regarding who was in the living room when he arrived home from work and after leaving the bathroom.

Pages 59/60: 

"The development of Mr Ovens’ statements provides an interesting, if utterly bemusing, sub context to the claimed events of Jodi leaving the house that day. In his first statement, he mentioned being “aware of” Judith, Joseph and Jodi in the living room, although he did not claim to have seen anyone other than Judith as he passed the door. In a later statement, he said that he heard the front door banging when he was in the bathroom and presumed that was when Jodi left. In this statement he mentioned seeing Janine in the living room when he came out of the bathroom, later claiming that he had been “mistaken” about this. His next statement attempted to correct that error but, in fact, only created further confusion. He said he did not know why he mentioned Janine, because it was definitely Jodi who was in the living room. That cannot be so, because, in all of his other statements, he said he did not see Jodi that evening – she left before he came out of the bathroom.

So, he could not have seen Jodi, Janine and Judith in the living room after he came out of the bathroom, because Jodi was already gone. His “correction” – that it was Jodi, Joseph and Judith also cannot be correct, leaving some somewhat disturbing possibilities. Either he was aware of three people in the living room as he passed on the way to the bathroom but mistook Janine for Joseph, or he saw three people in the living room when he came out of the bathroom but mistook Joseph for Jodi, or there were, in fact, only two people in the living room when he came out of the bathroom – Joseph and Judith, but somehow Mr Ovens believed he saw three people there. 

As mixed up as these accounts may appear - at no point did Mr Ovens say that Joseph left the house and he is mentioned as being in the living room - and at dinner, which was after Jodi was believed to have left. 

If this was the case - and there is nothing to definitively prove otherwise, then it doesn't appear that Jodi's brother could have been the stocky man. 

As an extra note - according to Innocents betrayed (page 206), a DNA sample was taken from Joseph Jones on July 16th 2003. Apparently, there was no match to any samples from the scene.