Author Topic: lukes albi  (Read 1183 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15042
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
lukes albi
« on: November 16, 2019, 02:30:PM »
im creating this thread to stop the clutring of other threads.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 02:34:PM by nugnug »

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2019, 06:50:PM »
Alibi? - perhaps one would be better determining CM's level of truthful information, that is still being pushed out some 16yrs later.
Then one can determine if she should be believed at all?
False: Luke did not like wearing jackets, YOU COULD NOT get him to wear one. - He clearly did wear them, freely. Media pictures in summertime
of wearing a heavy Parka.
Clear evidence of him wearing a padded bomber jacket on the 30th of June, let us leave the missing Parka out this one.
False:The search trio HAD TO WALK DIRECTLY passed YW's - they clearly would have had to take a different route to walk passed this house.
False: SANDRA AND I HAVE A THEORY - disputed by Sandra herself.
False: NONE of the boys from the Abbey gave evidence at court - they most certainly did, DH gave evidence.
False: The search trio HAD TO WALK from the top of Mayfield - they left from near CM's workplace, in the bottom of this village.
False: SK ONLY had his girlfriend for an alibi - SK also had an alibi from his father, CM clearly knows this, having had it pointed out by the SCCRC.
False: The discovery was made about 11pm - it was around 11.30pm but Luke was certainly on this path at that time, well before the search trio.
Along with this we have some rather odd comments:
Of the school deputy - a nasty little piece of work.
Of the school head - Hitler in a skirt.
Of the FLO - a compulsive liar.
Of the neighbourhood youths - Feral little bleeps.
Of Jodi's family - respect works both ways. They are all J's hard to get your teeth around.
Of Findlay - My way or no way laddie, purely out for the money, only reason he took the case on.
She clearly states that no legal team will touch them, as soon as they hear what case it is - it's a no. SL states this is wrong.
Of the ID at the tattoo parlour - that the staff were lying, clearly they were not, they knew the name of this male family friend and that the ID therefore was tampered,
to show the age of a youth, rather than a man in his 50's.

That is not all of it - why therefore should we believe CM is telling the truth when stating Luke was at home, of the fine details this 15mins held.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7459
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2019, 08:44:PM »
Luke has no alibi. He was seen out with the victim shortly before her death and at a time when his brother thought he was home alone. Shane admitted that his mum got him lie in his statements.

This false alibi was constructed into a time frame when Jodi actually died. Not being given any information from a third party, Luke and Corrine knew when Jodi died and what time they had to construct an Alibi for.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15042
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2019, 11:44:PM »
Luke has no alibi. He was seen out with the victim shortly before her death and at a time when his brother thought he was home alone. Shane admitted that his mum got him lie in his statements.

This false alibi was constructed into a time frame when Jodi actually died. Not being given any information from a third party, Luke and Corrine knew when Jodi died and what time they had to construct an Alibi for.

nobody knows when jodi deied no time of death was given.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 11:59:PM by nugnug »

Offline Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2019, 11:59:PM »
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?

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15042
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2019, 12:07:AM »
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?

wellif luke wasnt there whomade dinner or did they all just go hungry.


the oint is that at the time shane was online was before jodi left home rather irlvant to lukes albi as jodi hadent left home yet.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 12:21:AM by nugnug »

Offline Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2019, 12:46:AM »
wellif luke wasnt there whomade dinner or did they all just go hungry.


the oint is that at the time shane was online was before jodi left home rather irlvant to lukes albi as jodi hadent left home yet.

I agree there are things that point to Luke being at home til 5.30 but that’s not enough for an alibi imo. He might have put on the dinner before he left and his mum took it out when she got home, could be why the pie was burnt, he was not there to take it out. He really needs Shanes confirmation to have an alibi.

It doesn’t matter if Shane was online when Jodi left of not, what matters is if Luke was home when he was online then offline and having dinner and Luke left the house after 5.30, if he can confirm that then that’s a credible alibi.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2019, 08:27:AM »
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?

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 Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2019, 05:21:PM »
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?

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 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?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2019, 06:21:PM »
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 David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7459
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2019, 12:51:PM »
Perhaps Sandra can upload Shane and Corrine’s trial testimony.

Offline Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2019, 03:24:PM »
Thanks for clearing that up. I think the problem for me is I do not believe that was Luke AB seen, if it was Luke that killed Jodi I think he waiting at the v for her. Going by the timings I think he would have enough time to get there and wait for Jodi.  I agree there is lots of evidence to show Luke was indeed home but there is nothing other than his mother’s evidence to confirm this. Shane is the only other person who can and unfortunately he was not able to do that in court.

At the moment in the eyes of the law he has no credible alibi the only person that can confirm it, either publicly or via a retrial, is Shane.

Going back to the timings, I do think Luke could have got to the v to wait for Jodi but there are also a number of issues with that, as the 2 boys were there at 1715ish and did not see anything. The boy on the bike did not see anything. Jodi having cannabis in her system, I don’t think would be enough time to be smoking with Luke. And also not sure he would have enough time to carry out the murder and events behind the wall in that short a time. So alibi or not, I’m still not convinced either way if it was him or not.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2019, 03:50:PM »
Shane Mitchel had complete amnesia - from events that occurred just 48hrs beforehand.
There were numerous stand out points - that he was inclusive of, according to CM and Luke.

SM, upon discussing with his mother - contacted the FLO. Clearly showing this level of manipulation with
other evidence. That;
The Mitchel's had no time to dispose of evidence from the burner in the garden as the FLO and press were there
24/7.
They clearly were not.
The V in the wall is easy to miss unless you are searching for it, yet easily found in the dark and viewed from the
Beeches.

The list, really is endless.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2019, 04:01:PM »
I see where you're coming from Bullseye, but the scenario of Luke waiting at the V for Jodi runs into timing difficulties. If Jodi was still on the Easthouses Road at 5.05pm, no matter what time Luke got to the V to "wait for Jodi," he couldn't have killed her at 5.15pm, because she would only just be reaching the V point then. There's not enough time for the other injuries inflicted on Jodi during the fierce struggle prior to the injuries that killed her.

It's the pivotal significance of the claimed 5.15pm time of death that causes difficulties for other scenarios. So, for example,  in the above scenario, allowing a minute or two for Jodi to get over the wall and maybe 5 minutes for the physical attack prior to the murder, we'd now have to accept that within the next 10 minutes, Luke cut Jodi's throat multiple times, stripped her out of her clothing, tied her arms behind he back with her own trousers, mutilated her body and then called her mother's landline at 5.32pm.

Not impossible, I suppose, but how likely is that scenario in reality? Also, anything that pushes the time of death later allows even less time for Luke to get cleaned up, dispose of incriminating evidence and be sitting on the wall, in full view, at the end of his street before 6 o'clock, if he were the murderer. And how many 14 year olds, with no prior evidence of such violence, would be able to sit there perfectly calmly and go about the rest of the evening with others, behaving perfectly normally? Alan Ovens spoke to Luke on the phone at 5.40pm and noticed nothing at all unusual - Luke wasn't out of breath or agitated in any way, yet this would have been very shortly after Jodi was killed, and everything else had been done, even if the 5.15pm time of death was correct.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
Re: lukes albi
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2019, 04:04:PM »
Bullseye;

Luke got from his house and onto this path in 7mins at night. 10.52-10.59pm.
It would take little more than this to arrive at Easthouses.
If you check the distance properly. Give him a further 9mins = 16mins.

If it were to have been from that last text at 16.38 until 16.54 = 16mins.
If you listen to CM's podcast we are told, how fit and fast he was.
Take away the darkness, and the brief searching of this path.
In daylight, easily done in this time.
He could of course, very easily have left his house, from 4.25pm.
The reality being he had anything up to 29mins to do so.

What about lunchtime - this young couple appeared to spend most of their free time together.
What does Luke say about meeting that evening from this time?
He would have been asked?