if luke ient make dinner

[nugnug]

if luke dident make dinner then who did or were corine and shane happy to stare.

[Germane]

Why the emphasis on dinner or who made it? SM was a 21-year-old man
perfectly capable of making his own and LM, as we’ve discussed many times, was an adult in everything but age. He, too, was treated as an adult and left to his own devices a lot of the time in the absence of a father in the house; he didn’t have to be in the house after he made that call to Scotts Caravan at 1624, and I suspect he left the house like a rat up a drain when Jodj texted him at 1634 indicating her curfew had been lifted completely and was free to come out whenever she liked, especially as they had to resolve that argument they’d had in school earlier that afternoon.

[nugnug]

Why the emphasis on dinner or who made it? SM was a 21-year-old man
perfectly capable of making his own and LM, as we’ve discussed many times, was an adult in everything but age. He, too, was treated as an adult and left to his own devices a lot of the time in the absence of a father in the house; he didn’t have to be in the house after he made that call to Scotts Caravan at 1624, and I suspect he left the house like a rat up a drain when Jodj texted him at 1634 indicating her curfew had been lifted completely and was free to come out whenever she liked, especially as they had to resolve that argument they’d had in school earlier that afternoon.

that was lukes alibi thats why the focus.

[Germane]

thatwas hisalbithats whyiit was the focus.

As has been discussed many times, there was no alibi. It was invented by CM. When cross-examined by the AD, Shane said he thought no one was in the house when he made the internet connection between 1650 - 1716, and also said he honestly could not remember seeing his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 as his mother CM arrived home from work. SM only said “my brother could have been there”, to play it safe and not say, out and out, his brother definitely wasn’t there; he could not bring himself to say, unequivocally, that his brother wasn’t there (blood being thicker than water), and at the same time was protecting himself under oath by not lying by saying he was there. As I said, SM very much played it safe, but his testimony left one to infer that LM wasn’t in the family home at those crucial times between 1650 - 1715. And, of course, we know the times from the Mitchell family kept on changing as they were undone by CM being captured on cctv at ‘Morning, Noon and Night’  buying petrol, cigarettes & alcohol @ 1705 Hrs (the Mitchell family previously had said in statements that CM arrived home around 1700, so that was obviously wrong — turned out she arrived home from work @ 1715) and undone by LM’s calls to the Jones’ landline @ 1732 & 1738 (for he intitally said he left his house at 1740, but that had to change to 1730 fit in with the call to the Jones’ @ 1732). And, of course, undone further by the eyewitness testimony of AB (1654 sighting of him at Easthouses) and LF & RW (1740  sighting of him at Newbattle). The times kept changing for that crucial timeframe of 1650 - 1716, to try and shoehorn everything to suit their concocted alibi, which only exposed the lies told and incriminated them further. Such a mess! And, of course, combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence, made for a very compelling and robust case against Mitchell. It’s no wonder he was convicted.

[nugnug]

As has been discussed many times, there was no alibi. It was invented by CM. When cross-examined by the AD, Shane said he thought no one was in the house when he made the internet connection between 1650 - 1716, and also said he honestly could not remember seeing his brother when he went downstairs at 1715 as his mother CM arrived home from work. SM only said “my brother could have been there”, to play it safe and not say, out and out, his brother definitely wasn’t there; he could not bring himself to say, unequivocally, that his brother wasn’t there (blood being thicker than water), and at the same time was protecting himself under oath by not lying by saying he was there. As I said, SM very much played it safe, but his testimony left one to infer that LM wasn’t in the family home at those crucial times between 1650 - 1715. And, of course, we know the times from the Mitchell family kept on changing as they were undone by CM being captured on cctv at ‘Morning, Noon and Night’  buying petrol, cigarettes & alcohol @ 1705 Hrs (the Mitchell family previously had said in statements that CM arrived home around 1700, so that was obviously wrong — turned out she arrived home from work @ 1715) and undone by LM’s calls to the Jones’ landline @ 1732 & 1738 (for he intitally said he left his house at 1740, but that had to change to 1730 fit in with the call to the Jones’ @ 1732). And, of course, undone further by the eyewitness testimony of AB (1654 sighting of him at Easthouses) and LF & RW (1740  sighting of him at Newbattle). The times kept changing for that crucial timeframe of 1650 - 1716, to try and shoehorn everything to suit their concocted alibi, which only exposed the lies told and incriminated them further. Such a mess! And, of course, combined with the rest of the circumstantial evidence, made for a very compelling and robust case against Mitchell. It’s no wonder he was convicted.

so didid corrine and  shane. eat dinner ordident they

[Germane]

so didid corrine and  shane. eat dinner ordident they

Who knows, nugnug. I have a feeling that LM didn’t eat dinner ... I think he darted off as soon as Jodi texted him @ 1634 to say her 1800 curfew had been lifted and she was free to come out right there and then at 1634. As I said, it was established they had been arguing in school earlier that day, so that was something that needed to be resolved. Also, it was known that LM & Jodi had spent most nights together since they had begun dating in March ‘03. I think, strictly speaking, LM probably left his house anywhere between 1636-1641, tying in nicely with the AB sighting at 1654/1655. It was a dull, overcast day, threatening to rain all day, with periodic bursts of sunshine. This would explain why LM was wearing a parka with hood, and why Jodi had her deftones hoodie on.

Btw, I don’t see the relevance of wether they had dinner or not. What difference would it have made? SM was a grown man (21 years old in 2003) who could look after himself and LM was treated like an adult and given free rein by his mother to do as he pleased, and she indulged and coddled him, too; bad combination. I think SL said that LM did often make dinner for the family and there were numerous witnesses at court to corroborate this, but I haven’t read any proof of this. Besides, SM was in the house most days at 1530 from his day job as a car mechanic. LM got in from school most days at 1600 hrs. LM was the youngest and he was in charge of making dinner for the family? Would a 21-year-old be hapoy to let his 14-year-old brother make dinner for him most days? Doesn’t really make sense, does it? Corrine was a vegetarian, so she would probably see to her own dinner most days, I presume? While we’re here, it would be impossible for the two brothers not to see or hear each other that day in their two-storey house between 1650 - 1715. SM said under oath he ‘honestly could not remember seeing my brother ... he could have been there’. And also that ‘he couldn’t hear music coming from Luke’s bedroom or the kitchen’. This was only a two-story house and not some giant mansion with a labyrinth of rooms & corridors .... major red flag for me. AD Turbull nanaged to get the truth from SM in court that day, ie that his brother wasn’t in the house between 1650 - 1715. Major red flag, imo. I’m surprised Turnbull never put SM on the spot in court and asked him directly if, a.) he saw LM mashing tatties in the kitchen or, b.) if he could smell the burning pies. Turnbull chose a line of questioning that gave SM the opportunity to play it safe and give an ambiguous answer, ie, ‘my brother could have been in the kitchen ... i don’t know ... i can’t remember’? But, I suppose SM’s ‘I honestly don’t remember seeing my brother’ was enough to convince he and the jury that LM wasn’t there. So, threatening to charge SM with perverting the course of justice on 14.04.04 did have the desired effect of getting him to tell the truth. As I said, the police had to use unorthodox tactics to go toe to toe with a deceptive, cunning and manipulative family.