https://www.scotsman.com/news/lukes-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-2510985Is the inference from this article, that when Shane stated he was ‘affected’ by what his mother had told him and was ‘shaken’ when giving his amended statement to the police, that he was feeling alarmed and uneasy because he knew, deep down, it was a lie? Maybe at that point (between the 4th-6th July ‘03) SM wasn’t fully aware yet that Luke was involved or fully responsible for Jodi’s murder? Perhaps at that point Luke had only confided in Corinne what he had done? She hadn’t told Shane the full details yet? This being kept in the dark and unaware led to Shane’s confusion & uneasiness? Or, inversely, perhaps SM was using the investigation & circumstances as a device to be evasive and ambiguous in his statements (i.e., tell lies by omitting info)? There’s no doubt it would have been a stressful and traumatic experience for all 3 of them, but maybe Shane used it to be evasive so as not to drop anyone in it? After all, there were other indicators in the article that Shane was being a bit evasive — notice that when asked if he had discussed with anyone what he should say in his statement, he said “in a way”; and when asked if he would have been able to give this information without his mother, he said “not really”. He avoids being unequivocal, much like he did by saying he “couldn’t remember” if Luke was in the house and that he “he might have been there” (he, imo, couldn’t bring himself to categorically say his brother was or wasn’t there, so played it safe; he knew he hadn’t seen his brother, but didn’t want to drop his family in it, so played it safe). I would also like clarification on the landline calls between 1605 & 1625. I’ve never read anything that categorically states that it was Luke who was on both those landline calls and what the exact contents of the phone discussions were. The call from Shane to Luke at 1605 is still shrouded in mystery, and none of them have ever confirmed they spoke to each other on that call. It’s just been assumed they spoke to one another.
The alibi in this case, above all else, makes me feel the most
uneasy. Imo, Luke wasn’t there and was very likely en route to meet Jodi between 1634-1640, after the text exchanges indicating Jodi was no longer grounded (could easily have been in easthouses by 1654 if he left between those times). It’s also very telling that Shane gave no mention of Luke in the house in his very first statement to police (on 03.07.03). He said he couldn’t remember.
While I’ve no doubt that Shane was aggressively interrogated on the 14.04.03 and the police employed tactics to break him, including charging him with perverting the course of Justice, I don’t believe that he couldn’t remember. If you had definitely seen your brother, you would just simply say you did, regardless of the consequences of saying so, especially as it was the one plank of the defence’s case that could’ve seen Luke being free today. The Mitchell household was only a 2-storey detached property — not some mansion. It’s difficult to imagine them not seeing one another that day if they had been in the house together for more than 45 mins and one was allegedly making dinner and playing music whilst doing so. The fact that Shane initially said he couldn’t remember if he had seen Luke (on 03.07.03), then changed it after his mum approached him to remember him about Luke being there (on the 04.07.03), to then renege on that amended statement and revert back to not remembering if he had seen Luke (on 14.04.04), is a concern to me and makes me feel uneasy.
Btw, who was the person on here or on another site to claim they knew SM and that SM had told them, and many others, that he thought Luke was guilty? This person also said they’d be willing to give out Shane’s phone number so that people could phone him personally. It was hard to tell if they were trolling. There was also another post from someone who said that LM’s uncle (his dad’s brother, if memory serves) thinks Luke did it, though it has been suggested that the uncle in question is not mentally stable.
