"Laughable eyewitness testimony"

[Joe Blogs]

JB, have you read Shane & Corinne's court transcripts in their entirety? I think it was as clear as day they were both lying (by omission mostly). They gave many "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers under oath; they knew they were caught out and lying, not least  about that (false) alibi. Most damning of all was Shane not corroborating the alibi. All Shane had to do was say his brother was there in the house between 1650-1715 and Luke would likely have been a free man. He didn't corroborate the alibi. It was very damaging to his defence and was the icing on the cake for the prosecution (on top of all the other adminicles of circumstantial evidence used to convict LM). AD Turnbull even warned Corinne about the seriousness of perjury 2 or 3 times throughout her testimony, as it was glaringly obvious she was lying (as was Shane). The fact is, no 2 boys who were in that house at the same time could have failed to see or hear each in that house that day. Shane made it clear that he took measures to make sure the house was empty before logging on to the computer and downloading pornographic images to masturbate to (looking in the living room & kitchen as soon as he arrived home at 1650 and calling out "Hello?" and getting no answer). Alan Turnbull even asked Shane directly who he thought was in the house when he arrived home at 1650 and Shane replied, verbatim: "No one at the time." More significantly, he then said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." And that tells you all you need to know: that LM wasn't in the house between 1650-1715. Shane would not be roped into that false alibi concocted by Corinne. Initially he went along with it back in July '03, but, after being shown the pictures of Jodi's butchered body in court, his human side shone through and he did the right thing and told the truth (i.e., saying that his wee brother wasn't there). When Shane was shown those horrific images of Jodi in court, he literally recoiled back in horror and went chalk white in colour with shock. He even asked if he could sit down and take a glass of water so he could compose himself. Then, wiping away tears, he said, verbatim: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." As I said, after seeing the photos, his human side came to the fore and he wasn't prepared to lie and give Luke a false alibi. Shane's testimony was extremely damaging to Luke's defence.

OK, thanks, Mr Apples, i have digested everything you have said there!

[faithlilly]

Defence witness Marion O'Sullivan, 36, told the trial she saw a male who looked "suspicious" standing at a pathway entrance on NewbattleRoad, Dalkeith, just before 1800 on the day Jodi died.

Yes, both Marion and her partner at the time (Derek Hamilton) were called to court as witnesses. Unfortunately, their transcripts haven't been made public yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4181637.stm

Both claimed in court they did not know Luke Mitchell at the time, but Marion is now teliing us that she had seen Luke & Jodi walking past her father-in-law's house many times before the murder - and hence why she & her partner said in court it WAS NOT Luke Mitchell they saw that day. I was merely seeking clarification on their sighting: did they always say it wasn't Luke Mitchell they saw? Or did they say it wasn't him when they were on the stand 18 months later at the trial? Luke Mitchell looked completely different at trial compared to when they saw him on that road on 30.06.03; he was still developing and going through puberty, and was fatter about the face at trial and plus his hair was longer and in a ponytail.

And yet Fleming and Walsh recognised him? You can?t have it both ways MA.

[faithlilly]

He needed to be seen. After all, he was the one and only person who was meeting with Jodi that night. No one else.

Do murderers usually make an appointment then?

[Mr Apples]

And yet Fleming and Walsh recognised him? You can?t have it both ways MA.

Faith! What a pheasant plucking surprise! How art thou, ol' gal? Fine an' dandy, one hopes! Anyway ... while Fleming and Walsh were very certain it was LM they saw at that gate on Newbattle road on 30.06.03, they were slightly less certain it was him when asked to identify him in court some 18 months later in December 2004. Both women were simply being honest as LM had changed physically (ie, he was still developing and going through puberty) and plus he'd grown his hair out into a ponytail. However, the crux of the matter is that they identified him on the day of the murder and in court. People have different perceptions of sightings; not everybody's recollection of an event will be the same, so of course I can have it both ways. Besides, Marion O'Sullivan's post on here last month is odd given what an old article from The Scotsman said (link posted below). According to that article, Marion said she didn't know who LM was and knew nothing about his appearance. Her post on here last month indicated that she had seen LM and Jodi walking past her mother-in-law's house many times prior to the murder. How do you explain that???  Anyway, she saw a 'suspicious' looking youth standing at a driveway at just before 6 pm -- at approximately the same time that the 3 pushbike boys who knew LM personally saw him standing alone at a driveway, and around the same time Carol Heatlie saw a 'suspicious' looking youth standing at a driveway. Of course it was LM that Marion O'Sullivan saw, especially as they never saw anyone else on the road! It would be helpful if we could read her and her partner Derek Hamilton's full court testimonies to confirm if it was the word 'pathway' or a 'driveway' they used, and where exactly they described they had seen this young suspicious looking lad on the Newbattle Road that day.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/jodi-accused-will-not-give-evidence-in-defence-2509118