I’d forgotten how flimsy the circumstantial case was and how many of the points have been blown apart since.
I'd written a reply to this thread a few days ago, but, to my frustration, it never made it on to the boards (the joys of using a mobile phone). Anyway, just briefly: I believe that SM's continual reticence post-trial can be apportioned to him knowing his brother did it and that he was involved in the disposal of incriminating evidence on the night of June 30th, 2003 (why was he in Oxgangs, a suburb that was 7 miles away from his then home in Newbattle, that night getting petrol? And why was Corinne's maroon Vauxhall Frontera car at the Newbattle entrance to RDP on the night of June 30th, 2003? Was Shane driving it as CM was drinking alcohol that night ?). Then there is the farcical attempt of trying to concoct an alibi which CM dragged Shane into; SM literally changed his story regarding his brother's whereabouts on 30.06.03 3 three times in the space of a couple of days -- one of his accounts in July '03 was a direct result of being coached by CM as to what to say to police -- and then reverted back to his safe default "I don't know" stance when the going got tough on 14.04.04 under police questioning. But, for me, SM's testimony in court tells you all you need to know regarding his brother's guilt. When asked by AD Turnbull, after being shown the horrific pictures of that murdered girl at the locus, if he'd masturbated whilst viewing online pornography between 1653-1716 and if he'd seen his brother in the house when he went downstairs after the internet session, SM admitted he had masturbated and replied verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother." Even before this, when the AD asked him who he thought was in the house when he went on the internet, SM replied verbatim: "No one at the time." And there are other bits of his testimony in the public domain -- for example him admitting that his mother was the reason that he changed his statement on the 07.07.03 to say he saw LM in the kitchen "mashing tatties", and SM also said he could not hear any music being played by LM like he normally would at dinner time in the house (between 1600-1800). So, there it is, unequivocally, an admission from SM that his wee brother was not in the house between 1650 - 1716 on 30.06.03. How anyone can infer differently is baffling. To say he saw him mashing tatties in the kitchen at 1716 when he went downstairs after looking on the internet, to say, under oath, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother" (meaning at 1716) is very incriminating as it's completely admitting he did not see his brother in the house and that Luke was elsewhere. Combine this with the other mountain of incriminating circumstantial evidence and it's no wonder he was jailed; there was an overwhelming amount of evidence against LM, imo. Actually, I'm extremely surprised that AD Turnbull never came right out and asked SM under cross-examination if he really did see his brother mashing tatties in the kitchen, though I suspect he would have said he couldn't remember. And, btw, SM only said his brother "could have been there" so as not to fully drop his wee brother and mother in the proverbial shit.
As regards LM being terrified in court of saying the wrong thing . . . really?!!?! So, the police made him say he was masturbatng and he genuinely didn't remember seeing his brother when he went downstairs?? Do me a favour! Look, if your wee brother was in the house and you saw him, you'd simply say so. It's as simple as that. The fact that there was so much of a furore about wether or not SM saw LM in the house that afternoon is, imo, indicative of the Mitchells' lies and guilt. You either saw your wee brother or you didn't -- no in between. The fact that the Mitchells made a big deal of wether or not LM was home during the1650 - 1716 window is very telling; caught up in their own mess & lies. Quite simply, two people could not have failed to see each other in that 2-storey house that day if they were in the house at the same time. Simple as that. SM did not have a chronic memory problem, either; he was lying about his memory because his mother dragged him into a false alibi of LM being in the kitchen "mashing tatties" and he knew the police had sussed this out. The fact that some people on here think that the police intimidated Shane to the extent he would make false admissions that would help secure his brother's conviction for murder & say his own brother wasn't in the kitchen, is absolutely astounding. The police have actually to be commended for getting SM to tell the truth. They even got him to admit in court that he was masturbating -- something he really could have gotten away with not admitting; he could have just said he was looking at the images.