AB said in her statements she could only identify the youth again from his clothing, because she didn't see his face. She was shown photos of clothing, and the jacket and trousers she picked out were not the same as the ones she'd seen the youth wearing - she stated in court they were "the nearest from the pictures I was shown," pointing out that she had told the policemen that at the time.
She said initially the youth had thick, messy hair, sticking up in a clump at the back. She couldn't tell what length it was, because the collar of the jacket was up at the back.
So how did she identify Luke from that picture? His hair was different (and she didn't know what length the youth's hair was anyway), the clothes in the picture were different - vastly different- from what she'd described, and the age was wrong - she'd described a youth "late teens to early 20s"
F&W did not "both see him through the front windscreen according to their statements. One saw him side on, looking at the pavement, through the front windscreen. The other was driving past, level with him, when her attention was apparently drawn to him, she saw him for a fleeting second through the passenger window, and then in the rear-view as she was driving away. Both initially described him as having dark hair. Both said they did not see his face (although one changed this in court to say he had flicked his hair off his face, and she had a leeting glimpse of the side of his face, and one eye. One said she could only recognise him again through his clothing. Luke Mitchell was wearing a suit in court - how could someone who had not seen his face, and described very different clothes (which also changed over time) describe someone in a suit as the same person?
Both said in court the attention of the driver had been drawn to him by the passenger saying he looked as if he'd been "up to no good." Neither one ever said those words, in any statement, prior to trial. The second to give evidence was not allowed in court when the first was giving her evidence, so how did she come to use exactly the same phrase, which neither had ever used before, unless they were discussing their evidence?
MK was not "checked out" by the police at the time - they didn't even trace him until three years later. He was not "miles away" at the time, he was living at Newbattle Abbey college, and, by his own account, he was in Newbattle that evening. His claim to be in Haddows at 10pm in no way pinpoints where he was at 5.15pm that evening.
Luke phoning the speaking clock - the mobile records show a large number of calls to the speaking clock. I have never claimed he made these calls from any particular place, as I simply don't know. However, the ones prior to 8.30am on schooldays would, presumably, have to be made from home, as he didn't leave for school until 8.30am. The ones between 4.15pm and 5pm are less certain, but, as his habit was to return from school and cook the dinner for his mum coming in, it seems likely that these were made from the house as well. There are a number of witnesses who attested to the fact that Luke cooked the dinner most nights, not just Corinne and Shane.
