Shane was never a suspect. He and Luke were not alike in looks or build. He was arrested in April 2014 ten and a half months after the murder) and charged with perverting the course of justice. It was during this interrogation it was claimed he began to say he could not remember if Luke was at home that evening, however, it is clear that the interrogation was intended push Shane's evidence down a particular route which would undermine Luke's defence.
Closing off answers, confusion techniques, bullying, refusal to accept answers, loaded/leading questions, lies, intimidation, threats - the lot. The judges at appeal claimed the evidence elicited by this form of interrogation would have been unlawful if Shane had been a suspect, but it was ok because he was only a witness.
How could they get it so wrong? Shane had been detained for 6 hours without a solicitor present (as was legal in Scotland in 2003), after which he was formally charged - he wasn't a witness to the charge against him, was he?
That's how bad the system is in Scotland (John will vouch for that) - they slipped up, because this comment about Shane being only a witness is an admission that the "perverting the course of justice" charges were nothing but a ploy to allow them to get to the two people providing Luke's alibi in a way that would definitely have been unlawful had they done it any other way.
For completion, the brothers share the same biological father. Shane's DNA was entered into the database just like all of the others from whom samples were taken - no match to any deposit from Jodi or the crime scene was ever identified.
