Author Topic: THE ALIBI.  (Read 7929 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #135 on: June 25, 2021, 04:17:03 PM »
Luke was most certainly DNA aware
I have to agree with that but I'm ten years older than Luke so I wondered if maybe the DNA basics were taught in schools by 2003? It's something I noticed though. It was a while back and I don't remember where I came across it but I know a police officer said to Luke, we have a partial DNA match and Luke said something like, you don't have a match then.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #136 on: June 25, 2021, 04:19:58 PM »
I have to agree with that but I'm ten years older than Luke so I wondered if maybe the DNA basics were taught in schools by 2003? It's something I noticed though. It was a while back and I don't remember where I came across it but I know a police officer said to Luke, we have a partial DNA match and Luke said something like, you don't have a match then.

He was also quick to comment when allegedly asked to go over the wall with the police officer to show them where [Name removed]’s body lay

Do you think Luke’s comment displayed a sense of paranoia ?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #137 on: June 25, 2021, 04:44:41 PM »
He was also quick to comment when allegedly asked to go over the wall with the police officer to show them where [Name removed]’s body lay

Do you think Luke’s comment displayed a sense of paranoia ?
What was his reason for not going over the wall?

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #138 on: June 25, 2021, 04:54:22 PM »
What was his reason for not going over the wall?

Again- It was something to do with his DNA
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #139 on: June 25, 2021, 05:08:26 PM »
Again- It was something to do with his DNA

I expected you to say something like, it was too horrifying or he was too afraid. I would be afraid. Poor wee girl.

Offline Nicholas

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #140 on: June 25, 2021, 05:18:44 PM »
I expected you to say something like, it was too horrifying or he was too afraid. I would be afraid. Poor wee girl.

No - Luke Mitchell’s first thoughts appeared to be for himself or should I say his DNA
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #141 on: June 25, 2021, 05:53:24 PM »
No - Luke Mitchell’s first thoughts appeared to be for himself or should I say his DNA

That's a very odd thing to be concerned about if there's no need for concern.

Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #142 on: August 09, 2021, 09:05:12 PM »
Some verbatim posts from SL herself on Shane’s thoughts and evidence, replying to another forum member from another message board (in bold text):

This is the post from said other forum, talking to SL and asking her about Shane M & also about some of Shane’s evidence (in italics):

I know there are 2 sides to Shane’s evidence given in court. Some say he did not support Luke others say he was not given the chance to give his side properly. He has never clarified his side publicly since then to my knowledge and had no intention to any time soon from what has been said. Bottom line is without Shane Luke has no credible alibi.

I’m sure I’ve asked before but I can’t seem to find it. Sandra can I ask you, have you spoken to Shane directly, and heard it from the horses mouth that he was home and Luke was making tea or is this information from CM or elsewhere?


Sandra’s reply to the above:

I spoke with Shane directly - he, like everyone else in Luke's family, believed that sooner or later, the police would realise they were going after the wrong person and shift the direction of the investigation.  They never did. Shane's experience with the police on April 14th 2004, when he and  Corinne were also arrested was horrific - they (the police)  lied throughout, telling Shane they had evidence that they didn't have, witnesses that didn't exist, "quoted" things they claimed Luke, Shane and Corinne had said in previous statements (they didn't) and so on. He'd been dragged from his car and laid out on the road, then held for over 6 hours with no contact with anyone, ostensibly on a charge of "perverting the course of justice."

He said in court, he would willingly have gone with them to the station had they come to the door and asked. There was nothing in his previous dealings with them to suggest otherwise.  At that point, Shane left the area (with Corinne's blessing). The family decided there was no point in having Shane dragged through the media circus as well - they still thought, at that point, the truth would come out at trial.

They told him, in that interrogation, that they knew he was lying about Luke being home because they had witnesses. Shane insisted his earlier accounts were true, that he'd been sure, at the time, that Luke was at home and that they were "putting words in his mouth" now. Donald Findlay argued that "evidence" from that interrogation should never have been allowed at trial because of the behaviour of the police and their refusal to accept Shane's account of a day 9 months earlier. The judges agreed that, if Shane had been a suspect, the evidence could not have been used, but, because he was "only a witness," the same rules didn't apply. But Shane wasn't "only a witness" - he'd been arrested, so he as a suspect. There was virtually nothing in the interrogation about "perverting the course of justice" - it was all about trying to get Shane to "agree" that he'd "lied" about Luke being home making dinner.






Offline Mr Apples

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #143 on: August 09, 2021, 09:08:42 PM »
And some more from some other message board:

Thanks Sandra, so you spoke to him directly at the time. He was not forced into giving a false statement by his mother, she simply reminded him about that evening? He then remembered the events rather than just going with what him mum said?

No, he wasn't forced to say anything by his mother. He didn't initally remember what he'd eaten for dinner and only mentioned it to his mother because it seemed like such a strange thing for the police to be focusing on - this was within the first few days of a murder investigation and all of the Mitchells believed they were simply helping the police with their enquiries - they had no idea, at that point, that Luke was a suspect. It's easy to see how they thought what they ate for dinner was of no importance. Corinne reminded Shane he'd complained on Monday because Luke had burnt the pies at which point, Shane remembered. Although he contacted the liaison officer to let her know, it was another two days before an amended statement was taken, making it look (on paper) like  Shane and Corinne had spent two days talking about it - they hadn't - they spent all of five minutes talking about it!

Quote
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.

I haven't spoken with Shane in a long time. For good reasons, he decided he did not want to be part of the public campaign highlighting Luke's case (those reasons were nothing to do with him believing Luke to be guilty, though), so the best way I can answer your question is, the last time I spoke with Shane, he stood by his original statements but had decided, by then, that he would not comment publicly on the case or the campaign.

Quote
I take it there is nothing that can be done legally now even if he did come out to clarify his side as he had already gave his evidence in court?
If there was a retrial would his evidence be taken into account again, would he get the chance to put his side as he remembers it?

The only thing that could have been done legally was the attempt, by Donald Findlay, to argue that Shane's evidence should never have been allowed because (a) the interrogation was a "sham" designed to "break Shane" and (b) the nature of the interrogation - the lies, the manipulation and the massive confusion techniques used by the police -  rendered the "evidence" elicited by it unlawful.

It's impossible to say how a retrial might go - it would depend on the grounds that a retrial was based on. However, it seems pretty certain that the "evidence" from the police interrogation would not be allowed.

Shane initially didn't remember anything about the early part of the Monday evening - it was, he said, just the same as every other weekday evening - he'd come home from work, gone upstairs to his room, had his tea and gone out. Other evidence reminded him of the particular evening - receipts and phone records showed he's stopped at a friend's house on the way home from work the same evening that Luke burnt the pies.

Also, Luke said he thought he'd called Shane to check if he was going to be in for tea - if Shane had already been home, there would have been no need for such a call. There was a call in the phone records showing Shane had called the house (not the other way around) to say he'd be home for tea, but might be a little bit later. As it turned out, we know Shane was home for tea because of the internet records but we also know, because of the call to the landline, that Luke was at home to take that call from Shane.

So, without Shane's evidence, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Luke was in his house until at least 4.30pm because of answered calls on the home phone - quite simply, there was no-one other than Luke who could have answered them. The exchange of texts between Luke and Judith's phone arranging for him and Jodi to meet up was between 4.34 and 4.38 -if the grounding story is correct, Luke could not have known until that point that Jodi would be out that evening. If it is not correct, this series of texts is the only point at which it has ever been suggested Jodi and Luke arranged to meet that evening. Either way, Luke would have had no reason to be heading towards Easthouses prior to that exchange of texts. If he left immediately after the last text, he could not have been the person seen by Andrina Bryson between 4.49 and 4.54 because there would not have been enough time for him to get from his house to the place where the sighting was claimed to have taken place.

So, even without Shane's evidence, the information available strongly suggests that Luke could not have been at the Easthouses end of the path at the time of the Andrina Bryson sighting (which is, in itself, deeply flawed). Which makes Shane's evidence - that Luke was at home cooking and eating dinner - the most plausible explanation

Offline Paranoid Android

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #144 on: August 10, 2021, 09:41:27 AM »
So, even without Shane's evidence, the information available strongly suggests that Luke could not have been at the Easthouses end of the path at the time of the Andrina Bryson sighting (which is, in itself, deeply flawed). Which makes Shane's evidence - that Luke was at home cooking and eating dinner - the most plausible explanation

That's incredible - even if we were to assume that AB didn't see  LM at the Easthouses end of the path, that in no way implies that LM must have been at home - incredible that someone would infer that.

They keep saying 'even without Shane's evidence' - are they just choosing to ignore the evidence of a key witness whenever it doesn't suit the agenda?

Then they say that 'without Shane's evidence...Shane's evidence...[is]...the most plausible explanation'

That's just all over the place.

Deary me!




Offline faithlilly

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #145 on: August 10, 2021, 11:10:36 AM »
That's incredible - even if we were to assume that AB didn't see  LM at the Easthouses end of the path, that in no way implies that LM must have been at home - incredible that someone would infer that.

They keep saying 'even without Shane's evidence' - are they just choosing to ignore the evidence of a key witness whenever it doesn't suit the agenda?

Then they say that 'without Shane's evidence...Shane's evidence...[is]...the most plausible explanation'

That's just all over the place.

Deary me!

How do you explain the disparity in timings from AB’s first two statements to her evidence in court?

There does seem to be a theme with many prosecution witnesses. Their first statements either rule Luke out completely or are, at the least, favourable to him. A couple of rounds of police questioning and a certain amount of pressure later and everything changes.

Odd that.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #146 on: August 10, 2021, 03:58:04 PM »
How do you explain the disparity in timings from AB’s first two statements to her evidence in court?

There does seem to be a theme with many prosecution witnesses. Their first statements either rule Luke out completely or are, at the least, favourable to him. A couple of rounds of police questioning and a certain amount of pressure later and everything changes.

Odd that.

His brother doesn't see him then he does then he doesn't!

Offline Rusty

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #147 on: August 10, 2021, 04:26:14 PM »
And some more from some other message board:
And just to be clear he stands by that to this day but does not want to be dragged back into the public eye by making statements and doing interviews etc? Which I can fully understand.

Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?

She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Offline rulesapply

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #148 on: August 10, 2021, 04:51:05 PM »
Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?

She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Absolutely. If one witness is good enough to be left alone then why not the others?

Offline Rusty

Re: THE ALIBI.
« Reply #149 on: August 10, 2021, 05:25:30 PM »
Absolutely. If one witness is good enough to be left alone then why not the others?

Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.

The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.