Why doesn't Shane Mitchell speak out if his brother is innocent?

[Chris_Halkides]

parky41,

There is no reason to believe that Shane destroyed any evidence, and no tap dance, however adroit, gets around this problem in the case.

[Parky41]

parky41,

There is no reason to believe that Shane destroyed any evidence, and no tap dance, however adroit, gets around this problem in the case.

Now now Chris. I said his memories were fine where suited, such as what he claimed was said in the police car? I also gave reason around why his charges were dropped.

Did he 'destroy' evidence? I don't believe so. Did he aid in any way? Yes he did. As was shown by his testimony.

But let's face reality here. You clearly believe this complete amnesia where suits. If the police did believe he had aided in getting rid of evidence, how on earth was SM to combat that? By saying, I didn't do anything like that,  because I remember clearly I didn't, I just don't remember anything else??

[faithlilly]

I have been reading Donald Findlay's cross examination of SM.
SM: In the police car on the way to the station to be questioned, I was told that if I didn't answer the questions that they wanted answered I would definitely be going to jail for a minimum of 3 years.
DF: Oh, really?
SM: Yes I was told I had destroyed evidence and that that was going to be happening to me.

To which evidence does this refer?  If the police really had such evidence, they should have gone forward with charges against SM.  The fact that they dropped the charges is telling.

Poor Shane. He really couldn’t win.

[faithlilly]

Now now Chris. I said his memories were fine where suited, such as what he claimed was said in the police car? I also gave reason around why his charges were dropped.

Did he 'destroy' evidence? I don't believe so. Did he aid in any way? Yes he did. As was shown by his testimony.

But let's face reality here. You clearly believe this complete amnesia where suits. If the police did believe he had aided in getting rid of evidence, how on earth was SM to combat that? By saying, I didn't do anything like that,  because I remember clearly I didn't, I just don't remember anything else??

If yesterday had been a very ordinary day for me where I did the same things as I did every day I may simply believe that that was the case yesterday and think no more of it. However if yesterday I was stopped by a team of burly policemen manhandled into a police car and intensely questioned for hours I think that I’d remember that just a little more clearly. Wouldn’t you?


BTW if Shane was going to lie why not lie to begin with? The Mitchell’s had had enough time before his first statement was taken to concoct a believable timeline.

[Kenmair]

Poor Shane. He really couldn’t win.

He told the truth. You can't choose your family but he managed to rebuild his life without his mother and brother's influence.

[faithlilly]

He told the truth. You can't choose your family but he managed to rebuild his life without his mother and brother's influence.

He was selectively honest according to Parky.

[Kenmair]

He was selectively honest according to Parky.

I agree. He said as much as he did to save his own skin and not completely incriminate his brother. Perhaps ambiguous at the time, but he has distanced himself from what happened in 2003 without coming out in any type support for LM, or saying "he did it" (unless you know him personally).

[faithlilly]

I agree. He said as much as he did to save his own skin and not completely incriminate his brother. Perhaps ambiguous at the time, but he has distanced himself from what happened in 2003 without coming out in any type support for LM, or saying "he did it" (unless you know him personally).

‘ He told the truth.’

So he didn’t, did he? Or do you think he told the truth only when it suits your narrative?

[Chris_Halkides]

Did he 'destroy' evidence? I don't believe so.

In other words, the police lied.

[Kenmair]

‘ He told the truth.’

So he didn’t, did he? Or do you think he told the truth only when it suits your narrative?

It's not about opinions or narratives, it's what was established legally in court. SM didn't see LM and has not spoken since to deny that. If my brother was innocently jailed for murder I wouldn't rest until he was freed. Not a peep from SM, or his dad. Yourself and Chris can argue subtle semantics or suchlike, but there has been no legal input that casts any doubt on the legal verdict, ever.

Which suggests why his only advocates are those who post pictures of the victim's family suggesting they are involved. A strange approach that has not been quelled by Mitchell himself, probably because it is him that is encouraging this.

[Mr Apples]

It's all very tiring going over the same old ground. The nub of the matter is that SM was very ambiguous and evasive with regards to his brother's whereabouts -- both during the investigation and on the stand -- when it should have been a simple yes or no answer; the fact that Shane changed his story at least 3 times in one week, combined with said ambiguousness and evasiveness during both the investigation and court proceedings, is very very telling. SM had a rare unambiguous moment in court when he finally conceded, as per his now uploaded transcript, "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day." And there you have it. He finally admitted that Luke wasn't home between 1650-1715 (my guess is that LM was home between 1840 -1920, before setting off to meet the boys in the abbey). Yet, he had said previously he had spoken to LM in the kitchen at 1715, when LM was mashing tatties; it was lies. So, why lie? And if LM wasn't home, where was he? Of course, logical thinkers know exactly where he was. And the rest of the considerable circumstantial evidence really does all fall into place, doesn't it? The sightings of this solitary lad with the distinctive clothing, this solitary lad who eyewitnesses said was looking up to no good -- it really all does fall into place like a glove, does it not? That mountain of other circumstantial evidence ... Occam's razor. Guilty as all hell.

 
AD AT saw right through SM and knew he was lying. He showed SM photos of Jodi's slain body, whereupon SM recoiled back in horror and asked for a drink of water and a moment to compose himself; the guy was clearly shaken and disgusted by what he saw. AD AT then said, and I quote, "These images are not nice. You look a bit shook-up, but I want you to understand what we are dealing with here." SM, wiping away tears, said: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." I would suggest that SM had a moment of compassion after seeing the state of Jodi's body, and this prompted him to do the right thing and tell the truth. I also think that, deep down, SM and PM will never ever fully forgive LM for his heinous crime -- even if he's ever released. Also, as I understand it, LM's uncle (the one he attacked with a baseball bat) thinks LM did it, calling him "a little b........".