The log burner theory - where did it come from? (comparison)

 

Innocents Betrayed page 217/218

"Luke was asked, during the interrogation on July 4th, if the log burner was used on the night of June 30th. (Note, it was not a “stove,” it was a semi-circular brick construction built around a barbecue base around 10” high and 14” in diameter. The brick wind shield was around 30” high). He said he thought his mother and brother had a fire that night. During the August 14th interrogation, Luke was accused of lying, the police claiming he said Corinne and Shane did use the burner, but they were saying they did not. During a heated exchange, Luke pointed out that he had been out that evening, so he could not have said for sure whether or not the burner was in use. The interrogating officers continued to insist Luke had told them, definitely, that his mother and brother had a fire. The suspicion of which SIO Dobbie spoke in this newspaper interview could only, initially, have been based on this discrepancy between Corinne’s definite “no” and Luke’s “maybe” because statements from the neighbours about the burner were not sought until after the first interrogation."

During the August 14th interrogation, Luke said to Police that his mother and brother had a fire on Monday 30th June. There may later have been a 'heated exchange' where Luke said he was out and couldn't have said for sure, but Luke does appear to have said that they had a fire.

"My mother and my brother had a fire"

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/sergeant-thomson-30122004-day-two-of.html (page 1716)

What did Corinne say?

https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2023/12/corinne-mitchell-transcript-12012005.html (Pages 2300 onwards) 

Luke's mum states several times that the log burner was not lit that evening. 

She also said (page 2305): "Well as I say, I could have burnt a (incomprehensible) but I certainly didn't have the log burner (incomprehensible)."

She explained that they would only use the log burner as a family and that she only ever burnt plants.

Innocents Betrayed page 218

"The statement which was used in court about the strange smelling smoke made no reference to seeing smoke, only smelling it and this was supposedly from directly over the fence. When there were at least 6 statements about noticeably increased smoke, with noticeably different smells, within days either side of the murder, the failure of investigators to consider the possibility that this neighbour was mistaken about the evening he smelled the strange smelling smoke once again points to an investigation fixed rigidly on only one scenario and refusing to consider other, equally plausible possibilities, especially when all 34 statements from the other neighbours were quite clear that there was nothing untoward that night. Where does the weight of the evidence lead, in reality?"

But a neighbour who gave evidence at the trial on or around 6/12/2004 stated: "I could see it and smell it. It wasn't a food smell"

The neighbour "described seeing a brick-built log burner alight in the garden on 30 June last year.

He said the burner was "typically" used by Mr Mitchell's mother.

Mr Frankland added: "It would be just before 2200 BST.

"I might have been aware of it earlier than that but I don't recall anything specific."

He told police he heard voices but could not definitely say who the people were.

The neighbour's wife told the trial she 'first became aware of the smell of the stove between 1830 and 1930 BST and noticed it again later on in the evening'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072447.stm

This blog is not intended to argue guilt or innocence but to compare information and facts from the trial and in the public domain