Why did suspicion fall upon Luke Mitchell?

[Nicholas]

Are we back in the playground?

The judge commented that Shane’s interrogation and any information from it was unfair. Donald Findlay called it ‘an onslaught’.

I believe I’ve posted this before but for your benefit I’ll post it again.

‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.

This is from the court transcripts and is verifiable.

They say that it’s easier to fool someone than convince them that they’ve been fooled.

I’ve found with this case that that’s especially true.

Is the excerpt in bold (black) from Sandra Leans book?

[faithlilly]

SM has had years to come forward - the fact that he hasn't come forward in all that time suggests that he's happy with what he said.

He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?

[faithlilly]

Direct from court transcripts - verbatim?   Who was Shane arguing with?

AD - "On that evening, about 4.55pm, who did you think was in the house?"
Shane - "No one at that time"
AD - "Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?"
Shane "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there"

Where did this come from?

[Nicholas]

He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?

Shane could support his brother and mother - which he appears to not be doing

A conclusion to be drawn from his lack of public support could be he’s of the view his brother Luke committed the murder

[Nicholas]

He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?

What did Shane Mitchell say in his police statements and evidence during his brothers murder trial regarding the torch Luke apparently borrowed from him?

[faithlilly]

Shane could support his brother and mother - which he appears to not be doing

A conclusion to be drawn from his lack of public support could be he’s of the view his brother Luke committed the murder

It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.

[Nicholas]

It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.

Do you know what Shane told police with regards the torch Luke apparently borrowed from his brother just before going out to search for Jodi or not?

Corrine told James Matthews Luke borrowed the torch just before going out to search for Jodi - even though it appears from her explanation during the podcast (approx 7.30 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4) Luke had just come in from being outside - approx 10.41

[Vertigo Swirl]

It appears that John’s brother has also been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to John’s campaign for justice. Does that mean John’s guilty? Of course not.

Look, a distraction!

[Parky41]

‘Shane argued repeatedly that the investigators would not accept his answers, that they were putting words into his mouth and altering the responses he gave them. He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement’.

Is the excerpt in bold (black) from Sandra Leans book?

Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?
 
From "No Smoke" Claimed to have been written prior to having access to the court transcripts. Yet that very same way of wording as above.

Shane did not claim that Luke "had not been at home between 5pm and 5.45pm." He said that he did not know if Luke had been at home, and that he had thought he (Shane) was alone "in the house," a subtle, but very important difference.

[Paranoid Android]

He said what he had to say in court, I’ve posted it. What could he add to it?

Are you not alleging that SM was intimidated into saying what he said?

[Nicholas]

Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?

‘He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him...’

The above is bizarre

[Nicholas]

It was known before Mitchell’s murder trial the schools deputy head Marion Docherty had concerns re his behaviour

And Mitchell’s solicitor Nigel Beaumont commented on this publicly on 13th Sept 2003 (Herald Scotland)

Beaumont stated,

“He had a difficult relationship with Ms Docherty before Jodi’s murder, and they had disagreed several times over uniform and behaviour”

What were then school deputy head Marion Docherty’s concerns re Mitchell’s suicide idealisations?

[Nicholas]

What were then school deputy head Marion Docherty’s concerns re Mitchell’s suicide idealisations?

And isn’t this the same person Corrine Mitchell referred to when chatting with James English as ‘hitler in a skirt’

[Nicholas]

And isn’t this the same person Corrine Mitchell referred to when chatting with James English as ‘hitler in a skirt’

So a deputy head teacher shows concern for Luke Mitchell’s behaviour - which was clearly concerning ⬇️

”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”
https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/


‘I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide’

and Corrine Mitchell mocked them for this 

[faithlilly]

Most definitely from Ms Lean it would seem and not straight from the court transcripts - Stitching together small excerpts, yet again?
 
From "No Smoke" Claimed to have been written prior to having access to the court transcripts. Yet that very same way of wording as above.

They same way of wording? In what way?