The destruction of productions - why so long to act on the information?

-

 


In November 2022, the story broke in the Scottish Sun, that Police had destroyed evidence from the Jodi Jones murder case. The claim was, that this had been done illicitly:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9846975/cops-destroyed-evidence-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/

The article states: "It then emerged that detectives had mysteriously taken it all away in September 2021 - just a few months after a shock TV documentary claimed there was major doubt on Mitchell’s guilt."

According to Scott Forbes, when the documentary aired, somebody was told by a member of the Police that the productions from the case were being destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLM2jxngXc

The documentary aired on Channel 5 in February 2021. 

In an interview in November 2023, Mr Forbes said that the Police person had come to him "maybe 18 months ago", which would be around May 2022 - 15 months after the documentary first aired. 

If it is the case that someone was informed near the time of the documentary, that there was any possibility that the productions may be at risk, why did it take until November 2022 for the destruction of evidence story to break and for the legal team to halt the disposal? Why did the Police person have to approach Mr Forbes instead?

If, as the Sun article had stated, the preparation for the destruction began in September 2021, that's still around 8 months before Mr Forbes said that the Police person contacted him - and 12 months before the story broke.

Who was the first person who was informed - and why didn't they act sooner? It has been claimed that only 10% of the productions remain - could more have been saved, if the first person had acted sooner?


On 11/01/24 Scott Forbes responded to questions regarding the evidence destruction:





But the first mention of any undertaking to prevent the destruction of evidence is 16th November 2022, as stated in a letter read out by Sandra Lean in a YouTube update in April 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDtivG_psQY (2:50)

"I can confirm the undertaking provided by COPFS and Police Scotland on the 16th November 2022, that no productions that remained held would be disposed of, and this undertaking still stands"

Mr Forbes said that he was not made aware of the destruction until "maybe 18 months ago"/around May 2002 - and there is no mention of any demand for the destruction to be halted before this point, or indeed, until November 2022. If the whistle blower was being ignored until contacting Scott, there would have been no one to attempt to ensure any undertaking prior to this point - and if there was, then surely there would be no need for them to contact Scott? 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Luke Mitchell campaign - how have things deteriorated to this?

-
Image
  There was a time when campaigners fighting the claimed wrongful conviction of Luke Mitchell raged against the vilification of a 14 year old boy, who they shouted, had not been proven to have committed the crime. Their fight fueled by the abhorrent public denigration of an individual, by a media who cared not for facts, only sensationalism. While the campaign has evolved from the 2021 documentary, in to a petition and protests - recent online presence from campaign leaders, one in particular, seems to be well represented in the screen shots below.  This online torrent of personal attacks appears to come as a response to campaigners highlighting discrepancies between newly released transcripts, and freedom of information responses - and 'case facts' provided by the two main campaign leaders.  Some of the people asking questions are individuals who have dedicated the past few years of their lives to fighting for the truth and believing that a miscarriage of justi...
Read more

Transcript comparisons

-
Image
   A comparison is made between the information in the transcripts from Luke Mitchell's trial - and information out there in the public domain - particularly books written about the case such as Innocents Betrayed, by Sandra Lean. The purpose of this is not to argue guilt or innocence but to compare information and highlight misinformation. (IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean) Luke's other girlfriend - Page 169 IB "The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl" Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264 P2263 :   Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at...
Read more

The knife in the skip at Home farm WAS forensically examined and documented

-
Image
An article in the Scottish sun 20/11/22, titled 'I found a knife in a skip near where school girl Jodi Jones was murdered - before it vanished', states: " Lawyer Scott Forbes, part of Mitchell’s legal team, said: This is the real missing knife."  “Like so much of the evidence, it was either destroyed or went missing if it didn’t fit the police narrative.” A car mechanic from the Garage also said  “When I learned it wasn’t documented, it raised my suspicions the police may have tried to conceal the discovery.” Article Link:   https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9795271/knife-skip-jodi-jones-murdered/ Scott Forbes discusses the knife in the skip in an interview on YouTube channel Premeditated patter, 01/01/23. He says:  "Recently we've found that they took swabs from that knife, but never tested it" Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo&t=284s (24.54) But the knife WAS documented and tested. Below are two Freedom of information response...
Read more