What IF Luke Mitchell is proven guilty after the remaining samples are tested?

[Chris_Halkides]

Leonard Kelly’s statement did change. Findlay made a point of pointing out the discrepancy in court. Further Kelly didn’t deny having changed it.

Richard Gray reported, "Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.

He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'"

[Chris_Halkides]

I would like to point out that some of the actions that the police or prosecution took against Shane Mitchell are dubious at best.  One is that the policewoman who took Shane's statements kept trying to put words into his mouth, according to Sandra Lean's book.  "In court, Shane tried very hard to explain that it was she [FLO Michelle Lindsay] who was the single most influential factor in interfering with his recall-she would not accept any of his answers to her initial questioning."  Two is that the roadblock incident, in which Shane was handcuffed IIRC.  Three is the very idea of charging a witness with perverting the course of justice (unless one has incontrovertible evidence of this).  It smacks of witness intimidation by the state.  Four is showing Shane Mitchell the photographs without warning when he was called to give evidence.  There was no legitimate reason to do so, but there surely was an illegitimate reason.  These issues exist apart from Luke's guilt or innocence.

[faithlilly]

Richard Gray reported, "Mr Findlay asked Mr Kelly about statements he gave to police shortly after Jodi's murder.

He said: "You said 'There was a strange noise behind the wall. I cannot describe the noise. It wasn't a voice. It sounded like movement - like branches moving on a tree.'"

Have you noticed that every time there was a change to a statement the changes favoured the prosecution never the defence? Odd that.

[Chris_Halkides]

Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system.  Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement.  I think both came into play in this case.

[Venturi Swirl]

Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system.  Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement.  I think both came into play in this case.

What single piece of evidence convinces you that Luke is innocent?

[faithlilly]

Across a number of cases, there are instances in which a witness is threatened with punishment from the criminal justice system.  Yet, there are also instances in which a witness is cajoled into changing his or her initial statement.  I think both came into play in this case.

The charges against Shane and Corrine for perverting the course of justice were lifted before they gave evidence yet I believe the jury wasn’t informed. The fact that the jury thought the Mitchells were still facing charges can only have a pejorative effect. That and Turnbull warning Corrine to tell the truth was blatant jury manipulation.

[Chris_Halkides]

What single piece of evidence convinces you that Luke is innocent?

If I had to indicate only one thing, it is the shortness of the timeline, but there are many others.

[Nicholas]

The charges against Shane and Corrine for perverting the course of justice were lifted before they gave evidence yet I believe the jury wasn’t informed. The fact that the jury thought the Mitchells were still facing charges can only have a pejorative effect. That and Turnbull warning Corrine to tell the truth was blatant jury manipulation.

Why would the jury need to be told about charges being dropped?

The jury were never told Corinne and Shane Mitchell were facing charges for perverting the course of justice!

Alan Turnbull telling Corinne Mitchell to tell the truth was to attempt to persuade her to be honest

And of course it was also said to manipulate the jury

[Nicholas]

If I had to indicate only one thing, it is the shortness of the timeline, but there are many others.

List them John

[faithlilly]

Why would the jury need to be told about charges being dropped?

The jury were never told Corinne and Shane Mitchell were facing charges for perverting the course of justice!

Alan Turnbull telling Corinne Mitchell to tell the truth was to attempt to persuade her to be honest

And of course it was also said to manipulate the jury

Everybody and their uncle was aware that Corrine and Shane had been charged with perverting the course of justice. I lived in the deep south of England at the time and I knew about it. Why would the jury have been informed? To dispel the notion that Corrine and Shane had been dishonest perhaps?

Turnbull telling Corrine to be honest was simply playing to the gallery. At that point there was no reason to believe that any witness would be dishonest in their testimony. It was said to undermine Corrine’s credibility.

[Chris_Halkides]

List them John

I don't know who John is.  This thread is about the flaws of the investigation.  Discussion of the facts which favor Luke Mitchell's innocence belong in another thread.

[Chris_Halkides]

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382
"Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'"
QC Turnbull poisoned the well.

[faithlilly]

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+JODI+JONES+TRIAL%3A+Are+you+sure+you+understand+the+importance+of...-a0127135382
"Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Were you told during the interview that the police suspected you might have deliberately given them false information earlier?'

Shane replies: 'Yes.'"
QC Turnbull poisoned the well.

Of course he did. The police had no evidence that Shane had been anything but honest, if albeit a little absentminded, in his statements but the mere suggestion that they ‘suspected’ that he had been not been would have surely planted doubts in the jury’s minds.

[Venturi Swirl]

Of course he did. The police had no evidence that Shane had been anything but honest, if albeit a little absentminded, in his statements but the mere suggestion that they ‘suspected’ that he had been not been would have surely planted doubts in the jury’s minds.

Undermining the case for the defence is commonplace in all adverserial court proceedings.  You act as if this was underhand, almost criminal behaviour on the part of the QC. 

[Chris_Halkides]

Both Ms. Walsh and Ms. Fleming gave at least one false statement before or during the trial.  I never heard that QC Turnbull reminded them of the importance of telling the truth.