As I’ve stated several times now, the more I familiarise myself with this case and the more I read up about it, the more I am convinced that LM is guilty. Have I firmed up in my mind that I could say confidently and categorically that he did definitely murder Jodi? Alas, no — which is extremely problematic. DF tried to weave a narrative of uncertainty into an appeal by basically saying that there were aspects of the case that would make people feel ‘uneasy’ — the inference being that the individual grounds of appeal when taken in totality would render the conviction unsafe (verbatim quote from 2008 appeals document: ”Counsel submitted finally that, even if no particular ground of appeal on its own warranted quashing of the conviction, the matters complained of when taken together were such as should lead to that result. Anyone looking at the evidence in totality, he said, would "be left with a sense of unease"” ). Personally, I think the opposite is true of what DF proposed: that when looking at the evidence against LM, as a whole, there is a feeling of unease. And, yet, still, I cannot say for certain that he is guilty.
I’ve also mentioned a few times already on here that Shane not being able to give his younger brother an alibi is a major red flag for me; it is the one plank of evidence that, particularly, fills me with unease. And then taking all the other evidence together, along with no alibi from Shane, it presents a very strong circumstantial case against LM, imo. Watertight? No. Unequivocal? No. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. It’s very, very problematic for me, that I am still not 100% convinced he did it — or beyond reasonable doubt. The salient point for discussion in terms of what would cast doubt on Shane’s testimony, imo, is the fact that he had completely forgotten about repairing his friend’s car on the 30.06.03 and had to be reminded by his friend and the police (p.304 from SL’s book, IB). If he could forget about this as early as the 03.07.03 (when he gave his first statement to police), then it stands to reason that he might not have remembered seeing LM when he got home that day at 1640. (I know it is unlikely that he couldn’t have been sure if he saw Luke at home, even accounting for his supposed memory loss due to substance abuse, given their house was merely medium sized, detached and 2-storey, but it is not impossible; improbable, but not impossible.) In addition, it is important to remember that Shane was interrogated aggressively (9 months after the murder and not being offered a lawyer) by way of ‘The Reid Technique’ and threatened with being charged with perverting the course of justice, in order to elicit desired one-word answers to suit the police’s narrative and theories (Sandra covers this in her book, IB, in chapter 17, p303-320). There is a side of me that thinks SM became scared of the police’s tactics and was worried of saying anything for fear of being incarcerated. However, it does beg the question: was the ‘I don’t know’ answer, in response to the police’s question of had he seen Luke in the house between 1640-1730 that day, an outright lie or the truth? I personally feel it was a cop-out; after all, if you’d seen your own brother in the house, one would simply say so, would they not? Something doesn’t sit right with the SM’s version of events in the Mitchell household between 1640-1730, especially as he changed his statement to align exactly with his mother’s and then changed again in court (alarm bells ringing and the word ‘uneasy’ becomes apposite once again). But, I can’t be sure. I’ll reiterate: this case is frustrating and messy.
While I’m here, what do you think would’ve happened if Shane had said at court he did see Luke as Corinne did? Do you think Luke would’ve been a free boy? Had SM said he did see LM in the house and LM was still found guilty, what would have happened to SM? Finally, the calls to and from the Mitchell landline (1605 & 1622 respectively), we know who made them and call logs proved the phone calls connected, but was it confirmed in statements what was discussed during those phone calls? Was it definitely Luke who was using the landline on both occasions?
Thanks.
