Author Topic: THE ALIBI.  (Read 7261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #120 on: June 24, 2021, 07:10:02 PM »
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.

The call to Corrine’s work from Luke to ask what he should make for dinner was verified by not only Corrine but Luke’s gran. Now you could argue that they both may have lied to protect him but protect him from what at 4.25 when Luke still thought Jodi was grounded? Likewise with Shane’s call to the landline at 4.05 what would be gained by not being truthful about that call? Further there is absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in the Mitchell house on the 30th of June apart from Luke, Shane and Corrine.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #121 on: June 24, 2021, 08:01:23 PM »
The call to Corrine’s work from Luke to ask what he should make for dinner was verified by not only Corrine but Luke’s gran. Now you could argue that they both may have lied to protect him but protect him from what at 4.25 when Luke still thought Jodi was grounded? Likewise with Shane’s call to the landline at 4.05 what would be gained by not being truthful about that call? Further there is absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in the Mitchell house on the 30th of June apart from Luke, Shane and Corrine.

I think there is a very strong chance it was LM who was on the landline on those two occasions. What I’m more concerned with is the lack of detail in regards to the discussion between LM & SM; as far as I can tell, the discussion between them at 1605 has never been clarified; all we are given is the presumption that Shane phoned to say he would be later home that evening without stating why at that precise time. I put it to you that SM, during that phone call @ 1605, told LM specifically that he was going to fix a friend’s car — so I also reckon that both SM & LM remembered this clearly when first being questioned by police on 03.07.03 but chose deliberately to omit it. The coping out and playing it safe. Well, Shane was, imo. Lies by omission. “I don’t remember” is the convenient answer if there is something to hide. As for the call to CM, well, it is possible that dinner was discussed, or perhaps at that point LM said he was going out for one reason or another. Anyway, I think wherever Luke was @ 1634-1638, when those texts came through from Jodi to say she was ungrounded, he dropped whatever he was doing to go and meet her (after all, they were close, liked one another, spent most nights together since seeing one another and kept religiously to their meeting arrangements). CM continued the dinner story for the obvious alibi reasons, but, with a strong circumstanctial case, and more crucially SM’s lack of corroboration for said alibi, it all fell apart, which I completely understand. On the surface, it looks like LM had absolutely no reason to do what he was convicted for, but, when one digs a little deeper, the writing was on the wall, imo.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #122 on: June 24, 2021, 10:52:14 PM »
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.

I don’t believe for onemoment Shane Mitchell forget he was fixing his friends car

And this excuse about prolific drugs use affecting his memory was just that - an excuse

Although the Mitchell’s - Corinne, Luke & Shane - do appear to have all had a drug addiction
« Last Edit: June 24, 2021, 10:54:37 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #123 on: June 24, 2021, 10:56:47 PM »
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.


Yes - does anyone know what Shane Mitchell’s police witness statements/interviews state regarding the content of these calls etc?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #124 on: June 24, 2021, 11:42:23 PM »
I think there is a very strong chance it was LM who was on the landline on those two occasions. What I’m more concerned with is the lack of detail in regards to the discussion between LM & SM; as far as I can tell, the discussion between them at 1605 has never been clarified; all we are given is the presumption that Shane phoned to say he would be later home that evening without stating why at that precise time. I put it to you that SM, during that phone call @ 1605, told LM specifically that he was going to fix a friend’s car — so I also reckon that both SM & LM remembered this clearly when first being questioned by police on 03.07.03 but chose deliberately to omit it. The coping out and playing it safe. Well, Shane was, imo. Lies by omission. “I don’t remember” is the convenient answer if there is something to hide. As for the call to CM, well, it is possible that dinner was discussed, or perhaps at that point LM said he was going out for one reason or another. Anyway, I think wherever Luke was @ 1634-1638, when those texts came through from Jodi to say she was ungrounded, he dropped whatever he was doing to go and meet her (after all, they were close, liked one another, spent most nights together since seeing one another and kept religiously to their meeting arrangements). CM continued the dinner story for the obvious alibi reasons, but, with a strong circumstanctial case, and more crucially SM’s lack of corroboration for said alibi, it all fell apart, which I completely understand. On the surface, it looks like LM had absolutely no reason to do what he was convicted for, but, when one digs a little deeper, the writing was on the wall, imo.

Then you seem to have formed your opinion and nothing that I say will change that.

18 years later and the charges laid against Corrine and Shane are still paying dividends. Once the police had destroyed their credibility, however dishonestly, then no lie was too large for them to tell.

 It has been established that Jodi had failed to meet Luke before so your claim that they had kept religiously to their ‘meeting arrangements’ is simply untrue and can you explain why Shane would omit the fact that he’d fixed his friend’s car in his first statement? What did he have to gain?

And yes ‘I don’t remember’ is a pretty effective way of avoiding incriminating yourself. I believe JF used that very answer several times in his court testimony.

Offline Parky41

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #125 on: June 25, 2021, 11:20:39 AM »
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?


Have we met Mr Apples? Class of 84? I get your drift and the point is easy to understand. Thank you.

However:

Here's how I see it. Luke was not home. Whatever tale he told his mother, she helped him. At some point SM was asked to help, by his mother. That bond between a mother and child, stronger than that between siblings. However, It could only have been nothing short of madness that evening in the Mitchell home. Completely thrown into the mire. Concentration initially upon setting that story and of disposal. But how does one even get their head around any of it?

The mind of a lad barely 15yrs old, to not only murder someone but of all else inclusive of this. The blind side to what his mother could not possibly have known, nor his brother. In all honestly it gives me the jitters thinking about it. Unimaginable what it must have done to SM on the stand, other than making him tell the truth. The reality hitting of what he was being asked to cover for. But back to the night in question. Of not knowing what they were being asked to cover for, to help with. But of what Luke was to do next, which brought about prematurely, did it not how that story was going to kick off, witnessed by the police (the first mention of Shane) and of all else added to it. For this same youth, this 15yr old son, had eagerly wanted to be part of any search. And again, there could be no way of knowing what was to transpire, and I do believe that his eagerness was to play a massive part in his demise. - Of bringing him to Justice. That whilst people what to debate around reasonable doubt, there is no doubt in my mind that Luke was/is factually guilty.

That I am of the opinion that LM was on the path far too quickly. He was and had been waiting on something happening. That only he would have known the likelihood of Jodi being discovered over the course of the evening. That only the killer had control over time. That they knew how hidden this area where he left her was. It was off the beaten track and Jodi had not been discovered over the course of that evening. There could be no guarantee of this, which also plays a part in LM staying with the boys for a short amount of time. It served the purpose of further alibi. And he had left them much earlier than of which was normal. Which isn't in itself entirely true as the meet had not been of his norm of late. He spent all of his time with Jodi and their mutual female friend who was at school camp. And we do not need to go into the after, of the lies told of arriving home and all else. Only of that eagerness to be part of this search. Of being prepped and ready for that inevitable call, to see where Jodi was. And I do believe he had expected this sooner and not as late as 10.38 when that text came through. Thus why he was already prepped and ready, he had been waiting. The night had passed to a certain point, the next point was of Jodi known to be missing by her parents.
 
Yet again he could not have envisioned what was to take place. But yet again as the killer he had control. For even if this meet had taken place at Jodi's house, that search would still have ended up on RDP with Luke Mitchell in the thick of it. For he is the one who brought the whole notion of the path into play by claiming that Jodi was supposed to have met him in Newbattle. And back to SM and the mother.

They had no idea what they were dealing with. Of exactly what had happened to Jodi. That this boy who then eagerly needed to be in the thick of things, was only to bring all of the help they had given him, to this point - crashing down upon them. They had barely time for this help to be completed. Before CM is sitting in the police station with her son. And this is after she had asked the police on Newbattle Road if he was under arrest. That irrespective of what SM may have helped with, one could only wait to see what would transpire. And his mother did involve him further in the early hours of July the 1st, when Luke asked her "Was Shane there mum?" - Yes, and it was noted. And it was these small things that could be part of no plan, of the unknown, that horrendous situation she was in due to Luke. That initial talk with the police. This was the start of the process, where Luke Mitchell, mother or brother, could not have banked on the police being the police. Of which I have always stated. That cover up was never going to be easy, the wheels firmly in motion, as Jodi had left to meet with LM and only him - at exactly the time this concoction of lies was given for. And out of this whole sorry, sad saga. Only the killer needed an alibi for that time. And the only people in all of this, that strived to give an alibi was Luke Mitchell and his mother. And it completely disintegrated. 

So it's not and never has been as simple as SM forgetting anything. I do believe firmly that SM was helping his mother. That he did not want to put neither her or himself in the proverbial. That he did give a story that placed him home before his brother, so as not to see him. That he chose to say he could not remember anything, he was playing it safe, for all of them. And again of what was to transpire, of what was good enough over that which was not. That upon his mother given further testimony, she had then included SM fully, she could not backtrack on what she had already said on the Tuesday.  That she then needed this back up from Shane to help her along with Luke. It was not going to wash, this forgetfulness. It was making his mothers lies blatantly obvious. And when he did change that story, what a shambles, was it not? For it was in perfect harmony with his mothers, right down to her having a conversation with him, in the kitchen at/around 5.05pm - which of course was physically impossible, she was not home.

And of memory, of CM's - perfect was it not, right down to that t-shirt Luke was wearing (later that evening). Every single detail precise and rehearsed. And we are being asked to believe, she had forgotten stopping at the shop. She forgot nothing. It was exactly the length of time needed for everything to fit with that story - The time around Luke's meet with Jodi, her death and his arrival back at the house.

So no, SM not for one minute had forgotten anything. He changed that story as his mother had dragged him into it. I believe firmly that SM was helping his mother, of his brother no. And this is why it came to a head, when he saw those pictures. And we do not hear much of anything of him over that evening. This version of one's truth that needs to be controlled? Boundaries set upon what one is allowed to do, to ask. Not one boundary set upon others though? For is it not closer to the mark, that when control is needed, that only the comfort zone of teachings within a book are allowed - that it is this person who is actually "afraid of the truth" - for it is in everything else that the actual truth lies. It should not need controlled, for the truth does not change and testimony should not be altered to suit.

These silly tests and all on memory. Stemmed from Ms Lean - the irony of setting a test when she has the most amazing recall, when it suits, does she not? Of what else fell apart in that story from the Mitchells, of CM enjoying dinner out on the patio, after being cooped up all day at work. And of Ms Leans defence of this. That her memory and recall is so astute? That she too was out on her patio, reading and enjoying a glass of wine, when suddenly a black cloud appeared from nowhere and soaked her. When we know the weather that evening was cloudy, drizzly and remained overcast. The very reason people were wearing heavier outer wear. It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening. As Luke had claimed to call her, to ask if Jodi had been to the house (snuck past him on the road?). That she had said no. "How would you know, you are in the garden?" - And how exactly did LM know his mother was in the garden? We know why of course, he told the police her and Shane were having a fire? But Ms Mitchell denied this? - And here we have Shane yet again in the mix? And the fire was smokey and smelly. Hardly surprising with those big black clouds about? Here with SM in the mix, with those fires? Where exactly had he went in his claims of leaving home after dinner? Of the time he returned, and of course fuelling up that car miles from home, when he was supposed to have been in the house? For we can use common sense here, we know a fire was going over the course of the evening, we know whatever was used, whatever remnants were left, had to be disposed off. - And it is a false trail, this concentration on a tiny burner, no zips nor buttons or anything else in it. Common sense tells us that everything was gotten rid of that evening. And LM did taunt the police, of allowing the bins to be emptied the following day. And nothing was checked over for four days after this murder. - Hardly the actions of a police force who had it in for LM from the off, is it?


And of the calls. We do not know the contents, only what we are told. That the one at 4.25 we are told was of dinner, and what to make? And contrary and completely wrong are those claims that Luke Mitchell did not have to leave home until after the last text at 4.38. Nonsense. There was nothing to keep LM home. And of these talks of being premeditated. LM could not have known that Jodi would be out earlier, he was the only one however that she had contacted, to meet. But of the further evidence, of knowing the best way to kill someone. And of being young and naive enough to know certain things. That massive hook up on DNA awareness. This important factor, however unaware of circumstantial evidence. And the hand of fate dealt that day. That in those briefest of moments of being visible, Luke Mitchell was seen twice. Once by AB and the other by F&W.  He knew he had not been seen on the path or in the woods. And of frequenting this woodland. If Luke Mitchell had already had that smoke he was used to on a dally basis - then there is every chance LM entered that woodland, prior to meeting with Jodi, the same way he exited it - by way of that entrance into the field, that is accessed just before the entrance to RDP, on Newbattle Road. Neither Luke Mitchell on his own, or after meeting with Jodi, had to use that V. From the East end, close to where they hung about, where the wall is completely broken down is where I believe this young couple entered the woods.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #126 on: June 25, 2021, 02:19:40 PM »

Have we met Mr Apples? Class of 84? I get your drift and the point is easy to understand. Thank you.

However:

Here's how I see it. Luke was not home. Whatever tale he told his mother, she helped him. At some point SM was asked to help, by his mother. That bond between a mother and child, stronger than that between siblings. However, It could only have been nothing short of madness that evening in the Mitchell home. Completely thrown into the mire. Concentration initially upon setting that story and of disposal. But how does one even get their head around any of it?

The mind of a lad barely 15yrs old, to not only murder someone but of all else inclusive of this. The blind side to what his mother could not possibly have known, nor his brother. In all honestly it gives me the jitters thinking about it. Unimaginable what it must have done to SM on the stand, other than making him tell the truth. The reality hitting of what he was being asked to cover for. But back to the night in question. Of not knowing what they were being asked to cover for, to help with. But of what Luke was to do next, which brought about prematurely, did it not how that story was going to kick off, witnessed by the police (the first mention of Shane) and of all else added to it. For this same youth, this 15yr old son, had eagerly wanted to be part of any search. And again, there could be no way of knowing what was to transpire, and I do believe that his eagerness was to play a massive part in his demise. - Of bringing him to Justice. That whilst people what to debate around reasonable doubt, there is no doubt in my mind that Luke was/is factually guilty.

Mine either

I’d be interested to know what year Shane moved out of the family home and of the family dynamics today
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #127 on: June 25, 2021, 02:22:42 PM »
That I am of the opinion that LM was on the path far too quickly. He was and had been waiting on something happening. That only he would have known the likelihood of Jodi being discovered over the course of the evening. That only the killer had control over time. That they knew how hidden this area where he left her was. It was off the beaten track and Jodi had not been discovered over the course of that evening. There could be no guarantee of this, which also plays a part in LM staying with the boys for a short amount of time. It served the purpose of further alibi. And he had left them much earlier than of which was normal. Which isn't in itself entirely true as the meet had not been of his norm of late. He spent all of his time with Jodi and their mutual female friend who was at school camp. And we do not need to go into the after, of the lies told of arriving home and all else. Only of that eagerness to be part of this search. Of being prepped and ready for that inevitable call, to see where Jodi was. And I do believe he had expected this sooner and not as late as 10.38 when that text came through. Thus why he was already prepped and ready, he had been waiting. The night had passed to a certain point, the next point was of Jodi known to be missing by her parents.

Sandra has again made claim recently Luke was in the house watching a video that night but we KNOW he wasn’t in the house when he received the first text message from JuJ and he was seen walking past the neighbours house at 10:00pm - he could well have been coming back from the crime scene or disposing ‘stuff’
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #128 on: June 25, 2021, 02:26:50 PM »

So no, SM not for one minute had forgotten anything. He changed that story as his mother had dragged him into it. I believe firmly that SM was helping his mother, of his brother no. And this is why it came to a head, when he saw those pictures. And we do not hear much of anything of him over that evening. This version of one's truth that needs to be controlled? Boundaries set upon what one is allowed to do, to ask. Not one boundary set upon others though? For is it not closer to the mark, that when control is needed, that only the comfort zone of teachings within a book are allowed - that it is this person who is actually "afraid of the truth" - for it is in everything else that the actual truth lies. It should not need controlled, for the truth does not change and testimony should not be altered to suit.

It’s been a very see through diversionary tactic - nothing whatsoever to do with ‘boundaries’

Although I get what you mean re her cult like following

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

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #129 on: June 25, 2021, 02:31:44 PM »
These silly tests and all on memory. Stemmed from Ms Lean - the irony of setting a test when she has the most amazing recall, when it suits, does she not? Of what else fell apart in that story from the Mitchells, of CM enjoying dinner out on the patio, after being cooped up all day at work. And of Ms Leans defence of this. That her memory and recall is so astute? That she too was out on her patio, reading and enjoying a glass of wine, when suddenly a black cloud appeared from nowhere and soaked her. When we know the weather that evening was cloudy, drizzly and remained overcast. The very reason people were wearing heavier outer wear. It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening.

I’m still waiting on answer regarding those alleged PRAWNS Corinne claimed she had that night in the garden

She apparently didn’t do her food shopping until a Tuesday - whcih would have been the following day - so where did the prawns come from ?

Were they fresh - were they frozen?

There appears to have been no mention anywhere of PRAWNS in all these years - other than on one occasion by Corrine ?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #130 on: June 25, 2021, 02:34:54 PM »
It was cool for the time of year. And we know that it was not just dinner time she was outdoors, but over the course of the evening. As Luke had claimed to call her, to ask if Jodi had been to the house (snuck past him on the road?). That she had said no. "How would you know, you are in the garden?" - And how exactly did LM know his mother was in the garden? We know why of course, he told the police her and Shane were having a fire? But Ms Mitchell denied this? - And here we have Shane yet again in the mix? And the fire was smokey and smelly. Hardly surprising with those big black clouds about? Here with SM in the mix, with those fires? Where exactly had he went in his claims of leaving home after dinner? Of the time he returned, and of course fuelling up that car miles from home, when he was supposed to have been in the house? For we can use common sense here, we know a fire was going over the course of the evening, we know whatever was used, whatever remnants were left, had to be disposed off. - And it is a false trail, this concentration on a tiny burner, no zips nor buttons or anything else in it. Common sense tells us that everything was gotten rid of that evening. And LM did taunt the police, of allowing the bins to be emptied the following day. And nothing was checked over for four days after this murder. - Hardly the actions of a police force who had it in for LM from the off, is it?

 8((()*/
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #131 on: June 25, 2021, 02:37:25 PM »
And of the calls. We do not know the contents, only what we are told. That the one at 4.25 we are told was of dinner, and what to make? And contrary and completely wrong are those claims that Luke Mitchell did not have to leave home until after the last text at 4.38. Nonsense. There was nothing to keep LM home.

Shane phoned to say he would be late - so Luke wouldn’t be cooking him a ‘steak’ pie

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

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #132 on: June 25, 2021, 02:39:23 PM »
And of these talks of being premeditated. LM could not have known that Jodi would be out earlier, he was the only one however that she had contacted, to meet. But of the further evidence, of knowing the best way to kill someone. And of being young and naive enough to know certain things. That massive hook up on DNA awareness. This important factor, however unaware of circumstantial evidence.

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

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #133 on: June 25, 2021, 02:51:12 PM »
Shane phoned to say he would be late - so Luke wouldn’t be cooking him a ‘steak’ pie

Wasn't it a chicken pie? Anyway, isn't CM a vegetarian?

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #134 on: June 25, 2021, 02:55:03 PM »
Wasn't it a chicken pie?

To date - it’s never been made clear as far as I’m aware - at least by Sandra Lean or the Mitchell’s

‘Steak’ pie was defo used by at least one of the newspapers reporting on the trial ⬇️

Shane even ‘smelt’ the steak - ALLEGEDLY 🙄

Note: No mention of smelling the alleged PRAWNS though - on this warm summers evening when they would all apparently be out in their gardens reading books 🙄

A STEAK pie is mentioned here:


“THE brother of Jodi Jones murder accused Luke Mitchell today admitted discussing his police statement with his mother before telling police Luke was in the family’s house on the day the schoolgirl was killed.
In a statement given to police on July 7, 2003, Shane Mitchell said he recalled seeing his brother in the kitchen "mashing tatties".

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes". But the jury previously heard that when Shane was questioned by police on April 14 last year he said he had not seen Luke in the house on the evening of June 30, 2003, and that he had been looking at pornography on his computer in his bedroom.

Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, prosecuting, read sections of Shane’s statement from July 7 to the jury. In his statement he told police that he remembered his mother’s car being in the driveway and the front door being open.

His statement continued: "I went into the hallway and shouted out and then went upstairs to the bathroom to wash my hands. About five minutes later I came straight back down. When I was in the bathroom I left the door open.

"Afterwards I went downstairs into the living-room, then into the kitchen. Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

"He was pretty happy. I spoke to him, then my mother. That was the first time I had seen my mother that day and I was talking to her about how her day had been." The court heard that Shane then went upstairs to log on to his computer but was called down for dinner by Luke five minutes later.

Mr Turnbull asked Mr Mitchell: "I want to understand how it came to be that you make this reference to police about mashing tatties." Mr Turnbull then read out to the court the section of Mrs Mitchell’s statement given on the previous day to Shane’s. She said in her statement: "When I got home Luke was in the kitchen first of all. Luke then strained the potatoes and mashed them. At that point I think Shane came in and I could smell the pies in the oven and I asked one of them to take them out, commenting that Luke had overdone them."

Mr Turnbull then asked Mr Mitchell: "When you came to give your statement the very next day it includes reference to you saying that Luke was mashing the tatties and there being a burning smell."

Mr Mitchell agreed. Mr Turnbull then asked: "How can it be you gave information to police which was incorrect and then give information about mashing tatties and burnt pies.

"Before you gave that statement did you discuss with anyone what you should say to police?"

Mr Mitchell replied: "In a way."

Mr Turnbull said: "Who".

Mitchell replied: "My mother."

Mr Mitchell then admitted he had been affected by this discussion with his mother. "If it had not been for that discussion with your mother would you have been able to give any of this evidence to police?" Mr Turnbull asked.

"Not really," replied Mr Mitchell.

Asked what his mother had said to him after giving her statement Mr Mitchell replied: "She said to me: ‘You came in and Luke was with us and we had tatties for dinner, then you went back out again.’"

Mr Mitchell told the court that he was "extremely shaken" when he gave his statement to police.

Luke Mitchell denies murdering Jodi on June 30, 2003 at a wooded area near Roan’s Dyke, between the Newbattle and Easthouses areas of Dalkeith. The trial continues
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/luke-s-brother-admits-mum-aided-evidence-1-958502
« Last Edit: June 25, 2021, 03:02:18 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)