Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[justsaying]

Shane Mitchell's was asked to corroborate his brothers alibi during trial. Nothing speculative in that. He failed to do so. WHY?

No, it is your reason why he didn't which is speculative. Would you want to go to prison for telling the truth? I do not think I would.

[Nicholas]

if only that was the only error with this case, wouldnt life be simple?

It's a BIG "error" to make during your brothers murder trial!

[justsaying]

Give it a rest...

Luke was a child. No one is interested in how many times you can say his name or have a quick mention of Sandra's

Nothing he did will help Luke so NO it isnt relevant.

Exactly! It would have just ended up with them both being imprisoned - he could not prove he was telling the truth and was threatened with legal action on his version of the truth - clearly a no-win situation.

[jixy]

Based on everything that happened to Luke and possible evidence, is it any wonder its a no win situation

[Nicholas]

Based on everything that happened to Luke and possible evidence, is it any wonder its a no win situation

WHY didn't Shane corroborate his brothers version of events during Lukes trial?

[jixy]

WHY didn't Shane corroborate his brothers version of events during Lukes trial?

   should be grateful for the repeat at least you didnt mention Hall.

[Nicholas]

   should be grateful for the repeat at least you didnt mention Hall.

You need to look at the bigger picture and stop being so dismissive of the facts!

It's a fact that 14 year old boys DO commit murder!

[jixy]

You need to look at the bigger picture and stop being so dismissive of the facts!

It's a fact that 14 year old boys DO commit murder!

You need to stop presuming what I am thinking or in fact know! There are many elements in the case that are so wrong, it is actually staggering. This remains whether Luke is guilty or Innocent. Wrong is wrong!

[justsaying]

You need to look at the bigger picture and stop being so dismissive of the facts!

It's a fact that 14 year old boys DO commit murder!

No-one is suggesting otherwise!  But just because 14 year old boys do commit murder does not prove Luke must be guilty, this is another distorted view.

[Baz]

WHY didn't Shane corroborate his brothers version of events during Lukes trial?

I agree with you, Stephanie, that Shane's behaviour on the stand is troubling. But I don't think it's as black and white as you seem to.

For starters, the pornography and masturbation was only raised when he was on the stand, so he was understandably humiliated and flummoxed. And it's true and doesn't say that Luke was in the house but doesn't say he wasn't in the house either, just that he didn't check and presumed he wasn't but he could have been.

Also, his treatment during questioning by police is extreme and he says he was left doubting anything about that night. Appeal judges later describe it as disgusting or despicable or deplorable.... I definitely wrote it down somewhere. So how reliable is any of it? It's a big muddle.

[justsaying]

I agree with you, Stephanie, that Shane's behaviour on the stand is troubling. But I don't think it's as black and white as you seem to.

For starters, the pornography and masturbation was only raised when he was on the stand, so he was understandably humiliated and flummoxed. And it's true and doesn't say that Luke was in the house but doesn't say he wasn't in the house either, just that he didn't check and presumed he wasn't but he could have been.

Also, his treatment during questioning by police is extreme and he says he was left doubting anything about that night. Appeal judges later describe it as disgusting or despicable or deplorable.... I definitely wrote it down somewhere. So how reliable is any of it? It's a big muddle.

Correct! The appeal judges said if the brother was a suspect and not a witness the interviews would not have been admissible, or words to that effect. The same as Luke's interviews, his rights were breached but that did not warrant a referral to the appeal court - his case should have been taken to ECHR.

[Nicholas]

No-one is suggesting otherwise!  But just because 14 year old boys do commit murder does not prove Luke must be guilty, this is another distorted view.

Why didn't his brother corroborate his alibi during trial?

Why has he NEVER corroborated his alibi? Why has he never come out to publicly support his brother?

[justsaying]

Why didn't his brother corroborate his alibi during trial?

Why has he NEVER corroborated his alibi? Why has he never come out to publicly support his brother?

Why are you keep asking me the same questions when I've already given my opinion based on the facts available?

Just because you keep asking the same questions does not mean the answers will change!   

[Baz]

Why didn't his brother corroborate his alibi during trial?

Why has he NEVER corroborated his alibi? Why has he never come out to publicly support his brother?

Again:


For starters, the pornography and masturbation was only raised when he was on the stand, so he was understandably humiliated and flummoxed. And it's true and doesn't say that Luke was in the house but doesn't say he wasn't in the house either, just that he didn't check and presumed he wasn't but he could have been.

Also, his treatment during questioning by police is extreme and he says he was left doubting anything about that night. Appeal judges later describe it as disgusting or despicable or deplorable.... I definitely wrote it down somewhere. So how reliable is any of it? It's a big muddle.

[Nicholas]

Again:


For starters, the pornography and masturbation was only raised when he was on the stand, so he was understandably humiliated and flummoxed. And it's true and doesn't say that Luke was in the house but doesn't say he wasn't in the house either, just that he didn't check and presumed he wasn't but he could have been.

You're missing the point;

Shane Mitchell knew what he had been doing (whether or not he was embarrassed is irrelevant) It may have appeared to come as a shock to him when asked about it on the stand during his brothers trial but let's face it, he must have known there was a chance the police would find out when they looked at his computer and the prosecution would raise it during the trial.

It was Shane Mitchell's decision to choose to keep this evidence from the police; I presume he also knew right from wrong? I'm referring to his omission of evidence btw.

All he was asked to do was corroborate his brothers alibi. He didn't!