Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[faithlilly]

An appeal for Luke & Jodi to come forward ?

As far as anyone knew at the time AB reported the sighting the people she saw could just have been an ordinary couple talking.

Of course we’ll now never know because there was no appeal for them to come forward and be eliminated.

[mrswah]

I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?

I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it.  From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.


This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.

Just my opinion!!

[faithlilly]

I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?

I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it.  From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.


This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.

Just my opinion!!

I think suspicion fell on Luke too quickly for even that kind of intelligence to filter through.

[Brietta]

I wonder whether suspicion fell on Luke because he was, perhaps" known "to the police?

I understand that he had no previous convictions, but the police might have been aware, or had heard rumours , that he was one of a group of school students who smoked cannabis, and supplied others with it.  From what I understand, Dalkeith is not a big place.


This, plus being Jodi's girlfriend, would throw up a red flag, I would think.

Just my opinion!!

I don't think that would be an immediate result although it is certainly information which might have come to them in intelligence gathering and flagged up concerns.  But that would have been later.

Perhaps his demeanour in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Jodi's remains set alarm bells ringing.  He certainly was of the opinion he was being treated differently from the other searchers.

[faithlilly]

I don't think that would be an immediate result although it is certainly information which might have come to them in intelligence gathering and flagged up concerns.  But that would have been later.

Perhaps his demeanour in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Jodi's remains set alarm bells ringing.  He certainly was of the opinion he was being treated differently from the other searchers.

As it did with the McCanns?

Do you no longer believe that all individuals deal differently with trauma?

It is a mute point anyway as Janine told police on that first morning after the murder that ‘everyone was in hysterics’ and the 999 operator’s ‘laddie’  comment reinforces Luke’s demeanour after he found the body.

[Mr Apples]

Suspicion fell on LM for many, many reasons. It’s staggering the amount of circumstancial evidence there is against him. Even after only two weeks of looking into the case, further to watching the C5 documentary, I began to realise that LM was guilty (I had a few doubts in between those first two weeks of research into the case — largely brought about by the coincidences of the moped boys, JAMF, SK and MK — but these soon evaporated after gleaning more info).

Anyway, my main reason for ressurecting this thread was to ask a question regarding the evidence from the Mitchells’ neighbours, specifically in relation to fires burning in their back garden. We’re all familiar with neighbours giving evidence of fire and smoke coming from CM’s garden at 1830 and 2200 on 30.06.03, but, I read last night (on a youtube comment) that someone had given evidence of a fire or smoke coming from the Mitchell garden at 0200 hrs in the morning (presumably on 01.07.03). Does anyone know about this? If it’s true, it’s clearly another piece of incriminating evidence against LM. And if a fire had been lit at the aforementioned time, presumably it was the work of SM since his mother and younger brother were both at Dalkeith police at this time being questioned? Of course, another fire may have been lit in the early hours of 02.07.03 or 03.07.03, before the FLO Michelle Lindsay became appointed.

Thoughts?

[Mr Apples]

I won't make a habit of it.

If my brother was about to be imprisoned, and I knew he couldn't have been guilty because he was in the same house as me at the time of the murder, no amount of intimidation would make me say otherwise.

Moreover, if I knew my brother had been imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, I'd come forward at every opportunity to clear his name and try to secure his release - the fact is that SM hasn't done this.

I really doubt that SM allowed his brother to go to jail because a few folk intimidated him, and he still hasn't spoken out after all this time.

If SM knows his brother is innocent, and could prove that, but chooses not to, then that would be very strange.

Exactly. Shane not supporting his own brother’s alibi is extremely strange. No amount of intimidation from police would make anyone say otherwise, especially when their own immediate family is involved. Shane’s testimony, I’m sure most would agree, was the most salient evidence of Luke’s guilt.

[Mr Apples]

There can be no doubt that Shane admitted in court that he didn’t see Luke in the house between 1650-1730 on 30.06.03 and had been masterbating whilst viewing online pornography  . . . he makes it very clear in these articles:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Luke+brother%27s+horror+at+pics+of+Jodi+injuries%3b+THEN+HE+ADMITS+PORN...-a0126989011
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LUKE%27S+BROTHER%3a+I+CHANGED+STORY%3b+%27Errors%27+as+Jodi+trial+halted.-a0126878600
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409308.porn-site-accessed-on-day-jodi-died-trial-told-of-computer-check/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716

He clearly states in one of the articles above that a discussion with his mother had affected what he told police in his (ammended) statement to police on 07.07.03, specifically that he saw Luke “mashing tatties”; he said he wouldn’t have been able to give police that information without his mother telling him (red flag, imo). And, of course, the prosecution then totally dismantled this false alibi by getting Shane to finally admit that he never saw his brother (Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."). Huge red flag here, imo. Shane only said “he could have been there” so as to try and not fully drop Luke in the shit and to make himself feel less guilty for ultimately dismantling the alibi (blood is thicker than water, after all). Actually, I wonder why AT just never came out and put Shane on the spot by asking him directly if he saw Luke “mashing tatties”. I suspect SM would’ve said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember (playing it safe, so as to not lie and to try and protect his brother and mother). Anyway, like I said, crucially the Prosecution got a confession from Shane that he didn’t see his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 when CM got home from work (very damning to the accused, imo).

One other point . . . LM’s supporters have this ridiculous notion that because SM was shown pictures of Jodi’s mutilated body in court without warning, that it deeply affected his testimony and evidence. It’s, imo, nonsense. In what way? Like the same way these supporters think that police intimidation made Shane crumble, give in and give a false confession that would be very incriminating for his brother and ruin his brother’s life and destroy his own family? A 22-year-old man would be that much of a pushover for the police, that they That these photos were so traumatic that they woukd cause Shane to lose his mind and say things he didn’t mean? It’s rubbish. There’s no doubt that the photos he was shown would’ve been horrific, but they didn’t render Shane so mentally impaired that he would give evidence that was the opposite of what was really true. No way. Shane simply told the truth, adhering to the mantra that “honesty” is the best policy. If anything, the Prosecution did a stellar job of extracting the truth from Shane in what was a complex and deeply harrowing case. If anything, the Prosecution showing SM these photos without warning was a masterstroke, as it a.) reset Shane’s moral compass if he was previously willing to lie under oath in order to protect his brother and b.) put the fear of god into him that if he didn’t at that moment appreciate how uniquely evil this crime was, he did now and deep down knew the world now knew it was his brother who did it, as he did himself know it was his brother Luke who did it; he was paralysed with fear that he too would be found out in the end, be consequently branded a monster like his brother for being an accessory (which I still believe he was, as I think he helped LM get rid of incriminating evidence). Only Shane will know why he changed his story back to not seeing Luke in the house, but, one thing is certain: it wasn’t because being shown the photos in court messed his head up and made him say things he didn’t want to say.

[Admin]

There can be no doubt that Shane admitted in court that he didn’t see Luke in the house between 1650-1730 on 30.06.03 and had been masterbating whilst viewing online pornography  . . . he makes it very clear in these articles:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Luke+brother%27s+horror+at+pics+of+Jodi+injuries%3b+THEN+HE+ADMITS+PORN...-a0126989011
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/LUKE%27S+BROTHER%3a+I+CHANGED+STORY%3b+%27Errors%27+as+Jodi+trial+halted.-a0126878600
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12409308.porn-site-accessed-on-day-jodi-died-trial-told-of-computer-check/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/
https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985
https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716

He clearly states in one of the articles above that a discussion with his mother had affected what he told police in his (ammended) statement to police on 07.07.03, specifically that he saw Luke “mashing tatties”; he said he wouldn’t have been able to give police that information without his mother telling him (red flag, imo). And, of course, the prosecution then totally dismantled this false alibi by getting Shane to finally admit that he never saw his brother (Mr Turnbull said: "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?" Shane said: "I don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."). Huge red flag here, imo. Shane only said “he could have been there” so as to try and not fully drop Luke in the shit and to make himself feel less guilty for ultimately dismantling the alibi (blood is thicker than water, after all). Actually, I wonder why AT just never came out and put Shane on the spot by asking him directly if he saw Luke “mashing tatties”. I suspect SM would’ve said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember (playing it safe, so as to not lie and to try and protect his brother and mother). Anyway, like I said, crucially the Prosecution got a confession from Shane that he didn’t see his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 when CM got home from work (very damning to the accused, imo).

One other point . . . LM’s supporters have this ridiculous notion that because SM was shown pictures of Jodi’s mutilated body in court without warning, that it deeply affected his testimony and evidence. It’s, imo, nonsense. In what way? Like the same way these supporters think that police intimidation made Shane crumble, give in and give a false confession that would be very incriminating for his brother and ruin his brother’s life and destroy his own family? A 22-year-old man would be that much of a pushover for the police, that they That these photos were so traumatic that they woukd cause Shane to lose his mind and say things he didn’t mean? It’s rubbish. There’s no doubt that the photos he was shown would’ve been horrific, but they didn’t render Shane so mentally impaired that he would give evidence that was the opposite of what was really true. No way. Shane simply told the truth, adhering to the mantra that “honesty” is the best policy. If anything, the Prosecution did a stellar job of extracting the truth from Shane in what was a complex and deeply harrowing case. If anything, the Prosecution showing SM these photos without warning was a masterstroke, as it a.) reset Shane’s moral compass if he was previously willing to lie under oath in order to protect his brother and b.) put the fear of god into him that if he didn’t at that moment appreciate how uniquely evil this crime was, he did now and deep down knew the world now knew it was his brother who did it, as he did himself know it was his brother Luke who did it; he was paralysed with fear that he too would be found out in the end, be consequently branded a monster like his brother for being an accessory (which I still believe he was, as I think he helped LM get rid of incriminating evidence). Only Shane will know why he changed his story back to not seeing Luke in the house, but, one thing is certain: it wasn’t because being shown the photos in court messed his head up and made him say things he didn’t want to say.

I would say that this testimony alone did much to damage Luke Mitchell's claim of innocence.