Unless we know the context of the ‘no one at the time’ comment I think it’s difficult to gauge its importance. If, for example, the question was ‘ who did you remember being in the house in your first statement’’ and he answered the above he was simply being honest. He didn’t remember fixing his friend’s car either in that first statement so I’m not sure too much can be read into his lack of recall. Haven’t we all remembered, or been reminded, of something later that didn’t occur to us originally? Remember, with hindsight, we know how important the way the 30th of June unfolded was but before all hell broke loose it was just like any other day. I’d defy anyone to remember who was in a house shared by others at a certain time three days from now unless they had a specific reason to do so.
Yes it was widely reported in the press that Corrine and Shane, although they weren’t named, had been arrested for perverting the course of justice. I seem to remember that it said that a 46 year old woman and 21 year old male etc etc. Of course it would have been obvious who these people were. The jury were also not made aware that the charges had been dropped.
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?
Here's a little challenge - what did you eat on Monday 22nd October, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?
What did you eat on Tuesday this week, with whom, where and when and can you prove it?
I'll go first - no idea and no idea. I cheated and checked my diary, but I'm not in the habit of recording what I eat. I can tell you I was home alone both days, so even if I could remember what I ate, I couldn't prove it.
Anybody else?
However, it is nonsense. SM was playing it safe. He had not forgotten anything, he as with most people had no idea of what type of investigation would be had around checking anything out. He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out? What he was more than aware of however - was the events that had taken place in his home that evening. - and it was this he was distancing himself from, was it not? Any aiding and abetting here? Would it not be closer to the mark, to say that he had played his part, he was not incriminating himself initially with claiming to see his brother when he did not? - waiting quite literally to see how things would pan out?
Furthermore - From the rest of his interviews, when he had been found out to be helping his mother, by changing that story to alibi - he reverted back to "I can't remember" - he was not sticking to the change, was he?
Where did SM spend his evening? Where did he go when he claimed to have left home directly after dinner? Can you refresh our memories on the first time, second time and subsequent times he gave for this? - What did he do, who's company was he in? What time did he arrive home at?
Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch? What time did the car get fuelled up at miles from home? When he claimed he was at home at this time? - Why do you think Faithlilly his memory served well for certain parts? When he had himself at home, yet again when he was not - at a time he needed to be home? - One would want to be home, if evidence was being disposed of, would they not?
And yes, isn't it vitally important to know the questions beforehand? - Exactly the reason Ms Lean should not be deciphering anything, for she had no idea what was being asked and discussed, at any given time with most of those statements. Completely blank to the before and after - and completely able to manipulate all and everything. As we have with this cherry picking of those minute areas. That 5% that is void of context, other than Ms Leans own?
