Why doesn't Shane Mitchell speak out if his brother is innocent?

[Parky41]

Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.

Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.

While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.

On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.

In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.

Context is everything.

Where are the facts in this? Whose facts are these?

SM did not see his brother, he did not hear his brother nor smell any burnt pies.

Don't forget that very small time frame of just over 10mins - to finish cooking dinner, plating it up, eating it and both boys leaving at approx: 5.30pm
Strange they never saw each other then?

The changing of statements three times in that first week - changed due to being prompted by others

The one real fact that does stand out here is:

Your stance on first statements has changed dramatically?

What happened to those first statements being law! you know the ones that are actually telling the truth, best recall and all that? - Can't have it both ways Faithlilly?

Argued in court - really? does not happen.

DF may have tried to argue points for him - failed.

DF - so, Just because you never saw your brother, doesn't mean he wasn't at home, is that correct - "yes"

Diverts away of course from the Q? - Where is SM, where is his Dad - why are they not shouting from the rooftops?

Why are the innocence campaigners asking everyone else to do the dirty work for them?

IMO it would matter not if SM suddenly started shouting from the rooftops - the evidence was damming.

It was clear he had no memory of much of anything - suddenly doesn't return after 17yrs.

Where was SM also when CM claimed to be living in squalor? No electricity, running water and failing health? Really?

If this were true and not some scam - Where was SM? why was he leaving his mother to live in squalor?

One would almost get the impression that all is not well with the Mitchels - where truth is concerned?

After all - "context is everything"

[Rusty]

Except this isn’t how it happened. If you are going to ask people to make a judgement at least furnish them with the facts.

Shane gave a statement on the 3rd of July and was cursory. He said he thought he’d got home at 3.30, his usual time and couldn’t remember what he had for his dinner. He also couldn’t remember when he went out again, giving only a rough estimate. However a friend reminded him that he had helped fix his car on the 30th so would have been home late .His mum also reminded him of the burnt pies, as he had no recollection of this. He duly changed his statement to clarify.

While making his statements at no time was he warned that he should not perjure himself.

On 14th of April Shane was stopped by the police and surrounded by 4 or 5 police cars. They dragged him out of his car, while screaming and shouting, and laid him out on the road. He was then taken for questioning and told that he couldn’t have access to a solicitor. He was told he was being questioned about an attempt to pervert the course of justice but was not told what that attempt entailed. There then followed a six hour interrogation of relentless questions, an interrogation that the judge at trial said would have been unfair if Shane had been a suspect, which of course at this point he was, for perverting the course of justice.

In court Shane argued repeatedly that the investigation would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave. He told the court that he did see Luke when he came down for tea but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement.

Context is everything.

Hi there. It has been a while since I have posted, been a bit of a lurker. But this post has made me come out from hibernation.

Few questions regarding this.

You say these are facts.

Can you forward me to sources that back what you are saying up?

I'm especially interested, in Shane being stopped.
By how many police cars? Was it 4 or 5?
How many police were in each car?
Where in Midlothian did this stop happen?
Was this stop, witnessed by any members of the public?
Is Shane, the source of this information? When has he come out and stated of his experience's from his treatment from the police. If not, who is? And can you link me to it.

Also, a 6-hour interrogation of relentless questions. What exactly was asked of him? How do you know this? And is this information online? I will take news clippings, any kind of impartial information, that suggests this was the case.

Thank you.

[John]

not only does she not apply this to luke's brother or dad, she makes it clear it's off-limits to question this

https://youtu.be/eYvOatGiyFc?t=3277

why?

We all know why and that is because they have made it crystal clear that they do want any involvement.

[John]

Don’t you think Mitchell’s murder conviction has already exposed him and his mother’s lies?

Well it is clear that the conviction by default renders Corinne Mitchell a liar.  Beggars the question as to why she wasn't prosecuted for perjury on that basis?

Was it contrary to the public interest?

[faithlilly]

In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?

Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.

Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder?  More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.

[faithlilly]

Well it is clear that the conviction by default renders Corinne Mitchell a liar.  Beggars the question as to why she wasn't prosecuted for perjury on that basis?

Was it contrary to the public interest?

Now there is a question.

And the perverting  the course of justice charge was also dropped for both Corrine and Shane. Why charge them when they weren’t going to try them? Pressure and giving a dog a bad name would be my guess.

[John]

Where are the facts in this? Whose facts are these?

SM did not see his brother, he did not hear his brother nor smell any burnt pies.

Don't forget that very small time frame of just over 10mins - to finish cooking dinner, plating it up, eating it and both boys leaving at approx: 5.30pm
Strange they never saw each other then?

The changing of statements three times in that first week - changed due to being prompted by others

The one real fact that does stand out here is:

Your stance on first statements has changed dramatically?

What happened to those first statements being law! you know the ones that are actually telling the truth, best recall and all that? - Can't have it both ways Faithlilly?

Argued in court - really? does not happen.

DF may have tried to argue points for him - failed.

DF - so, Just because you never saw your brother, doesn't mean he wasn't at home, is that correct - "yes"

Diverts away of course from the Q? - Where is SM, where is his Dad - why are they not shouting from the rooftops?

Why are the innocence campaigners asking everyone else to do the dirty work for them?

IMO it would matter not if SM suddenly started shouting from the rooftops - the evidence was damming.

It was clear he had no memory of much of anything - suddenly doesn't return after 17yrs.

Where was SM also when CM claimed to be living in squalor? No electricity, running water and failing health? Really?

If this were true and not some scam - Where was SM? why was he leaving his mother to live in squalor?

One would almost get the impression that all is not well with the Mitchels - where truth is concerned?

After all - "context is everything"

An excellent post, I couldn't have put it better myself.  It seems Faith has become quite the apologist for Sandra Lean.

[John]

In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?

Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.

Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder?  More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.

Sandra Lean's version of events leaves much to be desired. The story is constantly changing but one fact doesn't change and hasn't done so for over 17 years and that is that Shane Mitchell's evidence was so wooly you could drive a coach and horses through it.

If he is brave enough to speak up let him do so publicly now and deny it all. Let him state categorically for all to see that Luke was definitely at home the afternoon Jodi Jones was murdered.

Let him state publicly that the police pressurised him into tell lies.

I guarantee he won't do it though and what's more, I know why!

[faithlilly]

An excellent post, I couldn't have put it better myself.  It seems Faith has become quite the apologist for Sandra Lean.

I apologise for nobody but if that’s what you want to believe then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to stop you.

I do admire Sandra. For almost 18 years she has dealt with the blatant misogyny I have witnessed on these boards and still fought on. That takes some steely determination.

You claim that Sandra quotes selectively then quote newspaper articles as fact....newspapers that condemned you too. It really would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious issue.

[Rusty]

In answer to both the posts above. Shane did not change his statement, he amended it just as Jodi’s family did over the months before court. Were they lying too or is your bias so entrenched that you really can’t see the wood for the trees?

Sandra Lean is the only member of the public with the full case files. If you choose not to believe her that is your prerogative. If you can refute what she says with reputable sources ie not media, then I’m all ears.

Why should Shane say anything publicly at this point....would he be believed anyway? He has almost had his life ruined once by this case, if I was him I’m sure I’d want to stay in the background too. As to his relationship with his mother, that is none of our business and has no bearing on the case. Janine, we were told, has separated from her husband. Was it because she found out something that suggested his guilt in Jodie’s murder?  More than probably not but you can see where jumping to conclusions get you when you are looking at events through a certain prism.

Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?

I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?

Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it.  Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?

For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case. 

[Angelo222]

I apologise for nobody but if that’s what you want to believe then I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to stop you.

I do admire Sandra. For almost 18 years she has dealt with the blatant misogyny I have witnessed on these boards and still fought on. That takes some steely determination.

You claim that Sandra quotes selectively then quote newspaper articles as fact....newspapers that condemned you too. It really would be funny if it wasn’t such a serious issue.

You obviously don't know much about her then.

[Angelo222]

Can you stick to the topic. You have made the claim regarding this arrest. So what you are trying to say is, You don't know?

I'm not quite sure why i need to refute anything. I'm not the one making such claims. I'm just asking for more information from these claims, just directing me to Sandra has the case papers, that just seems to be the same old excuse, that gets used, when people are making claims, it is not good enough. Is this the same Sandra, that make the claim JF stepped over the body twice? I doubt that was in the cases papers, i also doubt any apprehension of SM was in the case papers. I'm just applying common sense.
Few more questions?
Who was the sergeant on duty, on the day of SM apprehension?
Was there a warrant out for his arrest?
Why did SM resist?

Now this is where i try to apply common sense. Why would the police, use these resources, make such a song and dance in some unnamed street in Midlothian. Don't forget the intel, the communication and public safety that has to be taken into account, to perform such a task. This should all be logged if it happened. No mention in court of such an apprehension of SM, i think the defence would have jumped all over it.  Personally i think the press would have been all over such an arrest as well. I cannot find information about this anywhere. But why would the police, not just knock on the Mitchell's door or his workplace and ask him to volunteer come to the station for a chat?

For all the years, i have been discussing this case, that includes on the old WAP forum. I have never heard of the circumstances surrounding this apprehension until now. Infact, quite a lot of claims made of late, that have never been mentioned before, anyway I would be grateful if you can point me in the direction, where Sandra has mentioned this arrest. I will give you the benefit of doubt, until i have read or heard Sandra's exact words about this. And to what sort of details she goes into, which is why I'm asking such questions. If this is just being described as if i just watched an episode of "The Bill" then i would probably put this claim into the long list of sensationalism, that i have accumulated over the years regarding this case.

All I read these days from Mitchell exponents is that there is no evidence, these idiots need to get a grip imo.

It appears the longer this goes on the more the defence story is manipulated to suit their own agenda. There are some things though that even Sandra Lean can't spin.  I haven't followed this case from the start but one needs to be really thick not to see what went on.

The last application to the SCCRC according to Lean and Corinne Mitchell would see Luke freed within months. The SCCRC wouldn't even refer the documents to the court of appeal they were so ridiculous.

When in a hole with a shovel...stop digging.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean's version of events leaves much to be desired. The story is constantly changing but one fact doesn't change and hasn't done so for over 17 years and that is that Shane Mitchell's evidence was so wooly you could drive a coach and horses through it.

If he is brave enough to speak up let him do so publicly now and deny it all. Let him state categorically for all to see that Luke was definitely at home the afternoon Jodi Jones was murdered.

Let him state publicly that the police pressurised him into tell lies.

I guarantee he won't do it though and what's more, I know why!

Is the ‘why’ because he was implicated in some way?

Does Shane Mitchell know more about the events of that evening than he’s ever let on?


‘He said he was extremely shaken up and could not remember a single thing about the day Jodi was killed.
Mr Mitchell said his memory had been affected after a problem with drugs a few years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm

‘The court heard Luke Mitchell gave a statement to police on 4th July 2003 claiming he had had dinner with his mother, but not his brother...’
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/

[Rusty]

All I read these days from Mitchell exponents is that there is no evidence, these idiots need to get a grip imo.

It appears the longer this goes on the more the defence story is manipulated to suit their own agenda. There are some things though that even Sandra Lean can't spin.  I haven't followed this case from the start but one needs to be really thick not to see what went on.

The last application to the SCCRC according to Lean and Corinne Mitchell would see Luke freed within months. The SCCRC wouldn't even refer the documents to the court of appeal they were so ridiculous.

When in a hole with a shovel...stop digging.

I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.

I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?

But it seems like you're not allowed to question any of this. It then gets deflected into, you're the one that has to provide sources, but any media clippings are not good enough? Sandra's word is gospel and that's the end of it. It is the same deflection tactics that they have used since day jot. Are people seriously this naive?

You are absolute 100% right that after all this time and many appeals the SCCRC, although i think the SCCRC needs some reform. They can see right though the Mitchell camp. Which suggests to me, that this is no longer about Luke's innocence, he is just a pawn used to promote something else. These arms and legs these stories have grown are just to attract a new audience to milk. 

[Nicholas]

I have tried to debate with such people for a long time, across a verity of forums. One thing I found, most of these threads over the years gets infiltrated by individuals, or individual. Intent on disrupting the thread or directing people to the now defunct WAP site. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out who these people really were, anyway. It now seems like people are continuing to direct others to Sandra's case papers, I mean seriously? It is like me telling people God is real and directing you to Genesis 1.

I always like to try to fact-check any claims that are made. Taking something at face value is naive. If things cannot be fact-checked, then common sense needs to be applied. I admit my common sense may be different to others. But I see no harm in asking questions, such as, was there a warrant? Why would the police execute the warrant in that fashion, when they could have just knocked on his door, it is not as if he was on the run. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, for the police warrant or not, to apprehend SM in such a manner, in lets not forget in such a publicized case. But no mention of the way this apprehension happened in any press. And why now after all this time, is this apprehension being promoted like a cop drama?

What about if he was a suspect?