For me Corrine Mitchell comes across in this interview as someone in denial https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4
It’s time Luke Mitchell did the right thing and fess up not only to allow the Jones family et al to move forward, also for the sake of his Mum.
Corrine Mitchell stated
Yes, imagine! 2 days after the murder? we were all shocked. We were all traumatised. Remembering whether his brother made dinner or not doesn't actually spring to mind as an important thing!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=70.msg568#msg568[27]
The appellant did not give evidence. His position was outlined in a number of statements which he gave to police officers, both as a witness and subsequently under caution as a suspect in the case. His position throughout these statements was that he had been at home during the period in which the Crown case suggested the deceased was murdered. He saw the deceased at lunchtime on the day of the murder. She had taken the school bus home after school and he had walked. He had not seen her alive after that point. He had returned home at around 1600 or 1605 and the deceased had texted him at 1620, asking if he was coming out. He had replied that he would do so later on, as he had to make dinner. Arrangements were made for the deceased to come down to the Newbattle area but no time was arranged for the meeting.
[28] The last text was sent at about 1640.
The appellant's position was that, thereafter, he had listened to music while cooking dinner. His mother arrived home at 1715.
The witness Shane Mitchell was not in the house at this time. He waited at the house for the deceased. He left at around 1730 or 1740, as she had not arrived. He waited at the entrance to the estate on Newbattle Road, moving between that point and a track at Barndale Cottages, closer to the west end of the path. He had walked further along the road at one point to see if he could see the deceased. As he was standing at Barndale Cottages he had seen boys whom he knew from school. He had waited for around 45 minutes. Thereafter, he had wandered into Newbattle Abbey walking up and down a path, wasting time. He then contacted David High and made arrangements to meet him.
[29] The appellant thought that something must have happened which meant that the deceased was not coming out, such as that she had forgotten, changed her mind, been grounded, or met somebody.
He had spoken to the witness Ovens around 25 minutes after he had been waiting outside, and was told that the deceased had left. David High had appeared around 25 minutes after the appellant had phoned him. After spending some time at the Abbey, the appellant went home, arriving between 2105 to 2110. He watched a video until he received the text from the deceased's mother at 2241.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7This is important -
Mitchell phoned Ovens at 17:40pm to ask whether Jodi was coming out.
Ovens told him she had already left to meet him.
Mitchell replied “ok, cool”.
Ehhhh, I thought he was at home cooking the dinner? Why didn’t Mitchell argue this to Ovens? By saying “ok, cool”, he is more or less saying a plan had indeed been made.
His lack of argument with Ovens on the phone about Jodi leaving to meet him is evidence of him having knowledge of the arrangement.
Any thoughts? Please refer to the appeal papers Luke Mitchell v. Her Majesty’s Advocate (2008, 2011) for details.
Which would now take the time Luke left home to 5.15pm
25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.
[26] The third key on which the Crown relied was the evidence of Shane Mitchell, the appellant's brother. While not unequivocal, his evidence suggested that the appellant was not at home at the times asserted in the alibi and contradicted the appellant's position in police interviews.