Author Topic: THE ALIBI.  (Read 7261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #105 on: June 21, 2021, 03:47:56 PM »
No he didn't. Apparently he may have been protected by mental health legislation. The Police don't appear to have investigated him at all. His alibi was lame. His mother said he was in the house all day and evening, but the Stocky Man seen following Jodi was identified 2 weeks after the murder by a witness. The Police never bothered disclosing that the Stocky Man had been traced at the time. They also didn't check his room in his house when they were called out when Jodi was reported missing. Nor did they check it after her body was found. They reported "2 adults" at home. So in effect, nobody has much idea where he was from mid afternoon on the day of the murder until the following day. Despite all of that, I don't think he did it, but why he was following Jodi is interesting.
This report was less than three weeks after Jodi's murder..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3079777.stm.
Do you know if anyone else walking behind Jodi was positively identified?

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #106 on: June 22, 2021, 01:31:23 AM »
Remember that SM and CR Mitchell had been charged with perverting the course of justice and faced, possibly, a long jail sentence. It’s obvious that this was done to put pressure on both witnesses but also to destroy their credibility with the jury. TBH I don’t think by the time the case came to court it would have mattered what SM had said, he was already seen as a dishonest witness.

Yep, it definitely put pressure on them, but to what extent? I sometimes wonder if, owed to the pressure of the combination of being faced with criminal charges and the FLO’s continual refusal to believe or accept his accounts of events, Shane gave up and just went with the flow. Or, as I said, perhaps he was too naive for his age to deal with it all and was frightened or traumatised by it all to the extent that he was somewhat bullied and manipulated into telling them what they wanted to hear. Probably not, imo, but you just never know. Such a frustrating and complex case. I had a look at some old articles again re Shane’s testimony and they paraphrased quite a lot of what was actually said in court, particularly in relation to wether Shane had masturbated whilst looking at porn that day. For example, some are written as if he did admit it, without actually quoting a verbatim “yes” from Shane, while several articles said Shane said he “thought” he did). Less equivocal is the issue of wether Shane thought Luke or anyone was in the house at the time of his internet session: Shane is quoted as answering, “No one at the time.” This appears to be a verbatim quote from his testimony in court, and is enough to convince me that Luke wasn’t, in fact, in the house between 1640-1730. This opinion is reinforced by the fact he changed his initial statement (made on 03.07.03) on the 07.07.03, to align with his mother’s statement that she made on 04.07.03, to say that Luke was in the house and had made the dinner (alarm bells). It’s interesting that, even after heavily implying that Luke wasn’t in the house, he still couldn’t bring himself to say he categorically wasn’t (asked by DT if LM was there when he went downstairs, Shane said: “I don’t know. He could have been.”). Blood is thicker than water, I guess (no pun intended).

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509

https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716

Btw, faithlily, when Shane & Corinne were arrested along with Luke on the 14.04.04, was it widely known in the press at the time? And did the articles released in 2004 go into detail why the police arrested them?













Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #107 on: June 22, 2021, 10:56:55 PM »
Yep, it definitely put pressure on them, but to what extent? I sometimes wonder if, owed to the pressure of the combination of being faced with criminal charges and the FLO’s continual refusal to believe or accept his accounts of events, Shane gave up and just went with the flow. Or, as I said, perhaps he was too naive for his age to deal with it all and was frightened or traumatised by it all to the extent that he was somewhat bullied and manipulated into telling them what they wanted to hear. Probably not, imo, but you just never know. Such a frustrating and complex case. I had a look at some old articles again re Shane’s testimony and they paraphrased quite a lot of what was actually said in court, particularly in relation to wether Shane had masturbated whilst looking at porn that day. For example, some are written as if he did admit it, without actually quoting a verbatim “yes” from Shane, while several articles said Shane said he “thought” he did). Less equivocal is the issue of wether Shane thought Luke or anyone was in the house at the time of his internet session: Shane is quoted as answering, “No one at the time.” This appears to be a verbatim quote from his testimony in court, and is enough to convince me that Luke wasn’t, in fact, in the house between 1640-1730. This opinion is reinforced by the fact he changed his initial statement (made on 03.07.03) on the 07.07.03, to align with his mother’s statement that she made on 04.07.03, to say that Luke was in the house and had made the dinner (alarm bells). It’s interesting that, even after heavily implying that Luke wasn’t in the house, he still couldn’t bring himself to say he categorically wasn’t (asked by DT if LM was there when he went downstairs, Shane said: “I don’t know. He could have been.”). Blood is thicker than water, I guess (no pun intended).

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12408308.jodi-trial-brother-alone-in-house-court-hears-porn-admission/

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509

https://www.scotsman.com/news/pc-used-access-internet-porn-day-jodi-died-2509716

Btw, faithlily, when Shane & Corinne were arrested along with Luke on the 14.04.04, was it widely known in the press at the time? And did the articles released in 2004 go into detail why the police arrested them?

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.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #108 on: June 23, 2021, 04:48:59 PM »
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.

According to this BBC article at the time of the trial, the court were made aware that Corinne Mitchell no longer faced criminal charges. Don't know about Shane Mitchell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #109 on: June 23, 2021, 05:59:10 PM »
According to this BBC article at the time of the trial, the court were made aware that Corinne Mitchell no longer faced criminal charges. Don't know about Shane Mitchell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4171943.stm

Thank you. I wonder when the court were told?

Of course it was never about following through with criminal charges but exerting pressure and undermining the defendant’s credibility. On that score the prosecution was very successful.

Offline Parky41

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #110 on: June 23, 2021, 06:04:43 PM »
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?

Quote
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?

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #111 on: June 23, 2021, 09:44:04 PM »
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?

Apologies but I have no idea what you’re talking about.


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.

Why would Shane be playing it safe and in what way was he ‘playing it safe’ ?

He had for example: - Not murdered Jodi Jones - why would the police be checking him out?

According to you neither had JF but, again, according to you, he was investigated thoroughly and are you really trying to suggest that the police wouldn’t check out thoroughly the alibi that Shane had given his brother?

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?

Waiting to see how things panned out? In what way? When did Shane tell the police about repairing his friend’s car?

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?

Shane admitted in his revised statement that he’d been reminded of the events of the 30th by his mother. What did he have to hide?

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?


It matters not a jot because if the police had had any hard evidence of any wrongdoing by Shane the charges wouldn’t have been dropped.

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?

Maybe he was a tad  simple like JF (according to you).

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?

Pot meet kettle. I believe you yourself have been accused of spreading misinformation in much the same way ( shampoo anyone? ).

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2021, 09:56:42 AM »
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?

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?

Things don’t add up that’s for sure
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #113 on: June 24, 2021, 09:58:10 AM »
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?

Why has a detailed breakdown of Shane Mitchell’s exact movements that night never been made public ?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2021, 10:02:01 AM »

Failing that, how was is possible for Luke to go upstairs and borrow that torch?

The torch story doesn’t add up either

According to previous disclosures - Luke Mitchell was already out of the house when he received the first text message from JuJ at 10:41pm

‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #115 on: June 24, 2021, 10:04:05 AM »
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?

It’s a complete shambles
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #116 on: June 24, 2021, 01:58:28 PM »
Exactly - and is this not all too familiar? This setting a challenge with memory?

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?

Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).

Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’?   I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?

Also interesting is that the calls made to & from the Mitchell landline between 1605 & 1625 on 30.06.03 are seemingly never clarified. I’ll ask again: was it confirmed and accepted that SM & LM spoke to one another on the phone at 1605 that day? What was the conversation? Likewise, the outgoing call from the Mitchell house landline to Corinne’s work at 1625, was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM who made the call? If so, what was the call about and who spoke to who? Anyone know?


Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #117 on: June 24, 2021, 02:25:49 PM »
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).

Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’?   I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?

 8((()*/

‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #118 on: June 24, 2021, 04:39:33 PM »
Parky41, I appreciate that you often take the time to submit lengthy, detailed posts for other forum members to ponder, but I find quite a lot of your posts to be quite cryptic and at times difficult to understand due to either too many commas and dashes or too few of them. The above post, I’ll admit, left me feeling like a mouse in a maze (okay, slightly hyperbolic, but you get the point I’m trying to make).

Anyway, was the inference in your post that SM had been out of the house a lot that night, in his own car, helping his mother and brother dispose of incriminating evidence? What’s all this business of his car being ‘fuelled miles from home’?   I’d be interested to hear more about this as it’s the first I’ve head about it. In fact, the more I think about it, SM hasn’t really been analysed or discussed, particularly in regards to his movements on the evening of 30.06.03; discussions on SM are all focused on his activities between 1605 and 1730 on 30.06.03 (i.e. ‘the alibi’). Who were SM’s friends? Who was his girlfriend at the time? All of these things don’t seem to have been discussed at length — either on online forums, in newspaper articles, or even in SL’s book, IB. Why?

Also interesting is that the calls made to & from the Mitchell landline between 1605 & 1625 on 30.06.03 are seemingly never clarified. I’ll ask again: was it confirmed and accepted that SM & LM spoke to one another on the phone at 1605 that day? What was the conversation? Likewise, the outgoing call from the Mitchell house landline to Corinne’s work at 1625, was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM who made the call? If so, what was the call about and who spoke to who? Anyone know?

Luke was the only individual who could possibly have been in the house at the relevant times.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #119 on: June 24, 2021, 06:53:04 PM »
Luke was the only individual who could possibly have been in the house at the relevant times.

Hi, faithlilly. Yes, it stands to reason that it was LM who answered SM’s call @1605 (from SM’s mobile to the family landline) and LM who made the call on the family landline to CM’s workplace @ 1625. My point is that both calls were proven to have taken place, but, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t clearly confirmed that it was definitely LM who was on the landline during both calls. Or was it confirmed and accepted that it was LM both times? Any cites? Furthermore, I still haven’t read anything about the content of both those phone calls and what was said and discussed during them. Anyone any confirmation or cites re this? I have a vague recollection of reading that LM said that sometimes SM would call ahead if he was going to be late for dinner — the implication being that this was what SM did on that phone call @ 1605. However, from what I remember reading, the article never mentioned the reason Shane gave for going to be later home than usual. In fact, think I may have read all of this in chapter 17 of IB. I find this strange and concerning that SM’s reason for going to being late was omitted from the phone call to LM @ 1605. Why? Because I think SM already knew he was going to be fixing his friend’s car when he made the call — and yet, suddenly, on Thursday 03.07.03, when giving a statement to the police, he had forgotten all about fixing this friend’s car and had to be reminded by them. Of course it could be genuine (and I’ve indicated as much on previous posts), but my gut feeling now is that it’s a convenient answer; lying by omission & playing it safe. Likewise, I now have doubts regarding the veracity of what was discussed during the outgoing call LM made to CM @ 1625, a discussion that allegedly involved what LM was going to make for dinner (this is stated as fact in Chapter 17 of IB). I would be grateful if someone could expand on these landline phone calls and provide sources & cites.

Finally, yes one would presume it was LM that was in the house when those landline calls were made, but to say ‘it could only have been Luke’ is a tad naive and presumptuous. The fact is, it could have been anyone: eg, another family member, SM’s girlfriend, CM’s friend, and so on. This is why I’d like more discussion and clarification on this aspect of the case.