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

[faithlilly]

What is known is that Shane changed his first statement after failing to include information as to his own whereabouts on the day Jodi was murdered. He later admitted that his mother had influenced his first statement in respect of Luke being at home.

What is important though is his testimony in court in which he stated he did not know if Luke was at home which is another way of saying he wasn't. Clearly in such a small house two brothers would have known if the other were in the house.

If Luke was at home when Jodi was murdered why not say so?  Why all the confuscation?

(Note: Under Scots Law it is illegal to publish witness statements.)

By his corrected second statement Shane had also been reminded that he had been fixing his friend’s car so was home late, information he had not included in his first statement but was later verified.

Context is everything.

[Brietta]

That’s where the waters turn muddy imo, it has been said he was not looking at porn it was pop ups (and other thing in Sandras book about how he was not able to clearly put his side across on the stand)  I remember back then online the pop ups where a nightmare so feel that is possible. That’s why I’d love to hear from Shane to unmuddy the water on that point, was he looking at cars or porn. I know that’s never going to happen tho.

A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when.  Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.

[faithlilly]

A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when.  Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.

Shane was also accused in an interview of visiting gay sites. There was no evidence for that either. This was about humiliation not truth.

[Bullseye]

A forensic examination of the computer will have told the police exactly what site he was visiting and when.  Perhaps that might account for any change made from his first statement to his second which I presume was in accordance with the evidence given by him in court.

Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”

If that’s correct that could be the case.

[faithlilly]

Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”

If that’s correct that could be the case.

Of course if he wasn’t looking at pornographic sites there would be no need for Shane to be listening out for anyone being in the house.

[Brietta]

Sandra covered that in the book also “Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to the pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop ups.”

If that’s correct that could be the case.

What Sandra says in her book is not evidence.  Her book has been written to support her opinion.

[Bullseye]

What Sandra says in her book is not evidence.  Her book has been written to support her opinion.

True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.

[faithlilly]

What Sandra says in her book is not evidence.  Her book has been written to support her opinion.

The extracts from police statements and court testimony are.

[WakeyWakey]

True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.

not an overt lie perhaps but she is not qualified to interpret the computer evidence as if she were an expert witness (nor the dna evidence for that matter - she has previously talked on blue forum about all kinds of interpretations of the DNA  evidence gathered, about how a semen sample came back as female and how this shows the forensics were all over the place, a "fact" which was widely repeated, before being corrected on why this might have appeared to have been the case)

Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.

[Vertigo Swirl]

not an overt lie perhaps but she is not qualified to interpret the computer evidence as if she were an expert witness (nor the dna evidence for that matter - she has previously talked on blue forum about all kinds of interpretations of the DNA  evidence gathered, about how a semen sample came back as female and how this shows the forensics were all over the place, a "fact" which was widely repeated, before being corrected on why this might have appeared to have been the case)

That’s ludicrous!

[Brietta]

True but I don’t think she would lie, maybe word thing in her favour but to lie about something like that would be very risky I would think. But you are right it’s not evidence but the public don’t have much to go on so we get the information from where we can.

You seem to hold Sandra Lean in some awe which I'm afraid I don't share.

[Bullseye]

You seem to hold Sandra Lean in some awe which I'm afraid I don't share.

Not sure how you get that from me saying I don’t think she would lie, I’m certainly not in awe of her but I do have respect for her standing up for something she believes and doing her best to get something done about it, despite all the rubbish she gets for it. It wouldn’t be me that’s for sure.

[Brietta]

Not sure how you get that from me saying I don’t think she would lie, I’m certainly not in awe of her but I do have respect for her standing up for something she believes and doing her best to get something done about it, despite all the rubbish she gets for it. It wouldn’t be me that’s for sure.

Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.

I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.

The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?

I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.

[faithlilly]

Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.

I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.

The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?

I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.

I think it helps to know what Shane actually said in court. He argued repeatedly that investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave to them. 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.

[Mrs S]

Corrine claims that Donald Findlay QC would not allow Luke to take the stand to speak in his own defence as she alleges he wanted to.

I don't think that she has quite thought that one through.

The jury quite obviously did not believe her testimony when weighed against Shane's so how did she think Luke taking the stand would have redressed that balance?

I surmise that Findlay QC recognised the futility of opening Luke to further scrutiny and I sincerely doubt that some amateur with a track record of obsessively backing the wrong horses is going to second guess an advocate of his calibre.

Corrine may well say that Donald Findlay wouldn't allow Luke to take the stand, well Donald Findlay was being paid to defend Luke that's what he would've done and If it was with one arm tied behind his back by luke choosing to take the stand that's what he would've done. If luke was determined to take stand and prove his innocence there's not a thing Donald findlay couldve done to stop him. I'M not saying he should've taken stand to prove his innocence.  That's not for him to do. Its up to AD to prove his guilt. Which he did.