the changing times for jodi leaving home.

[nugnug]

I don't click on your links, i get pop up's from my security, advance at your own risk. Dodger !!!

it link to twitter its perfectly safe.

you ask the mods to check if you like

[Harper]

Going back to the timings of Jodi, I do find it strange that there were all these people on the path at a similar time, yet no one saw anything. Am I right in thinking that the proposed timings by the prosecution were as follows:

4.34 & 4.38pm - text messages sent between Jodi and Luke (On Judith's phone) 

4.50pm - Jodi leaves home to meet Luke

4.54pm - Luke and Jodi spotted at the Easthouses end of the path by AB

4.30 -4.45pm - JF and GD coming up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses

5.05 - 5.20 - LK cycles up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses, sees no one but hears a strangling sound over the wall.

5.45 - 6pm - Luke is seen in Newbattle near the path by Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming



Is this correct and was there other key information used by the prosecution to come up with these timings?

Was the alleged time of death of 5.15pm purely based on the fact that it was the only time that could fit into the prosecutions timeline?

[sandra L]

Going back to the timings of Jodi, I do find it strange that there were all these people on the path at a similar time, yet no one saw anything. Am I right in thinking that the proposed timings by the prosecution were as follows:

4.34 & 4.38pm - text messages sent between Jodi and Luke (On Judith's phone)

[/color]

4.34 to 4.38 - there were a series of messages sent.

4.50pm - Jodi leaves home to meet Luke

The timing of Jodi leaving home was contradicted by the two witnesses who saw her at 5.05pm on the Easthouses Road. Of Luke's call at 5.40pm, Judith said she "hadn't realised so much time had passed" and that she'd "lost track of time," in contradiction to her earlier statements that Jodi came downstairs and said she was going out at "about 5 o'clock." Allan Ovens' statements are unreliable - he said he saw Jodi after he came out of the bathroom in one statement, but that he didn't see her because she left while he was still in the bathroom in another. Apart from AB, there are no other witnesses to Jodi's time of leaving being 4.50

4.54pm - Luke and Jodi spotted at the Easthouses end of the path by AB

4.49 - 4.54. The best that the prosecution could claim (according to the appeal judges) is that the youth was Luke and the girl "could have been" Jodi

4.30 -4.45pm - JF and GD coming up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses

No, this is the dishonest time they gave to the police about being on the path. The turned into the Newbattle end of the path, pushing the bike, just after 5pm, a few minutes after driving it through Basically Tool Hire. No-one knows for sure how long they were on the path after that - their own accounts are all over the place but appear to take the time to after 5.30pm. There's also the witness who spotted the bike propped at the V at 5.15pm

5.05 - 5.20 - LK cycles up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses, sees no one but hears a strangling sound over the wall.

Originally a sound "like leaves moving" and then "like a struggling sound" and finally "a strangling sound."

5.45 - 6pm - Luke is seen in Newbattle near the path by Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming

The police took a newpaper picture of Luke to Fleming and Walsh to "check" their identification, even though both said they did not see the youth's face. A witness has since come forward to say Rosemary Walsh told colleagues they saw the youth "at the Abbey" - Luke was sitting on a wall opposite the entrance to Newbattle Abbey at that time.

Is this correct and was there other key information used by the prosecution to come up with these timings?

I can't think of any other information used to support these contentions.

Was the alleged time of death of 5.15pm purely based on the fact that it was the only time that could fit into the prosecutions timeline?

Yes. There is no evidence, of any description, of time of death.

I agree that it's strange there were so many people in the vicinity that evening who saw and heard nothing, including dog walkers and kids actually playing in the woodland strip at the time.

[Parky41]

going back to the timings of Jodi, I do find it strange that there were all these people on the path at a similar time, yet no one saw anything. Am I right in thinking that the proposed timings by the prosecution were as follows:

There were three people on this path itself between 5 and 5.30pm.
Lk, JF and GD. Others - as being in the top end of this strip of woodland (kids) people at the junction
of the paths. None that walked this actual path.

4.34 & 4.38pm - text messages sent between Jodi and Luke (On Judith's phone) 

Correct Harper.

4.50pm - Jodi leaves home to meet Luke

Approx: Correct Harper.

4.54pm - Luke and Jodi spotted at the Easthouses end of the path by AB

Approx: Correct Harper.

4.30 -4.45pm - JF and GD coming up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses

From approx: 5.10pm until 5.30pm.
They were in the yard of Basically Tool Hire at 5pm.
They had problems stopping and starting this bike.
Sighted after 5pm near the entrance to this path on Newbattle R'd.
Back in GD for 5.30pm.
The clock was and hour slow - it showed the time of 4.30pm.
A very noisy bike - Luke could not have failed to hear it or them, on this path.

5.05 - 5.20 - LK cycles up the path from Newbattle to Easthouses, sees no one but hears a strangling sound over the wall.

LK was on this path prior to the boys - he did not see them.
He heard a rustling sound, stopped - struggling and strangling type sound.
Estimated at approx: 5.15pm.

5.45 - 6pm - Luke is seen in Newbattle near the path by Rosemary Walsh and Lorraine Fleming

5.40pm approx:
F&W route  went over with the police. Times determined from them leaving until arriving at the exact spot
where they saw Luke - at this wooden gate.
No amount of twisting can change this spot.
F&W may very well have stated they saw a youth near to the Abbey. They are driving down this road, they see a youth near
to the Abbey.
The police go over this route with them - it is at the gate, which is but seconds from the Abbey whilst driving.
Spot on.
They have never, and not to this day, stated that the saw any youth sitting on a wall, standing at the entrance to this Abbey,
standing opposite the entrance to this Abbey and so forth.
What they clearly did not see is two identical youths - one at the gate and one at Newbattle Abbey estate entrance, bus stop, or entrance to the Abbey itself. They only saw Luke once, at the wooden gate.

Is this correct and was there other key information used by the prosecution to come up with these timings?

The police used multiple factors to determine timings. CTV, shopping and bank receipts, phone logs and so forth.
This is crucial in any investigation - people do not look at their watch whilst passing the time of day.
Approximations given are sought to be clarified by other factors at all times.

Was the alleged time of death of 5.15pm purely based on the fact that it was the only time that could fit into the prosecutions timeline?

No: All of the evidence shows that the TOD was between 5 and 5.30pm.
There is nothing at all - that points to this being at any other time.
From the pathologist reports and so forth.
Although this could not give a precise minute of death - It most certainly could not show that Jodi had to have been
murdered later than this.
It is something that appears to have been thrown into the mix of late for Lithium.

No sightings of Jodi, no evidence of her being or going anywhere else - Nothing.
Her mother clearly believed that it was Luke and Luke alone - she had been with all evening.
Her panic, in all but instantly contacting the police, when Luke claimed not to have seen her.
This meeting at the mothers house did not happen - there simply was no time.
The search trio led to this path - by Luke himself.
44mins - reported missing to being found dead.

[Harper]

Thanks Sandra and Parky for the clarification and for both sides of the argument. It's very interesting.

Sandra, was there anything at all in the pathologist's or coroner's report to confirm or contest the time of death being 5.15pm?

Parky, for the prosecutions timeline to be correct, they relied heavily upon the sighting by AB. This seems to be one of the most heavily criticised pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case. For AB's sighting to be correct, it must mean that the 2 sightings of Jodi followed by "Stocky Man" were incorrect sightings.
What's your take on this?

[nugnug]

who in the family was in chardge of speking i belive it was one of jodis aunts.

[sandra L]

Thanks Sandra and Parky for the clarification and for both sides of the argument. It's very interesting.

Sandra, was there anything at all in the pathologist's or coroner's report to confirm or contest the time of death being 5.15pm


Parky, for the prosecutions timeline to be correct, they relied heavily upon the sighting by AB. This seems to be one of the most heavily criticised pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case. For AB's sighting to be correct, it must mean that the 2 sightings of Jodi followed by "Stocky Man" were incorrect sightings.
What's your take on this?

No, Harper, there was nothing. There were no conclusions about what lividity marks or lack of them might suggest, there were references to pre, peri and post mortem injuries, but no explanation of exactly what times those injuries might have occurred. There was no body temperature recorded by the doctor who attended (at around 2am) to confirm death (time of death can be estimated by reducing body temperature over time - it can't give an exact time, but it can offer a possible window and was, even in 2003, considered a routine piece of information to collect).

[Parky41]

Parky, for the prosecutions timeline to be correct, they relied heavily upon the sighting by AB. This seems to be one of the most heavily criticised pieces of circumstantial evidence in the case. For AB's sighting to be correct, it must mean that the 2 sightings of Jodi followed by "Stocky Man" were incorrect sightings.
What's your take on this?

What reasons would you take from the defence not using these possible sightings of Jodi herself? (Not Stocky man)

IMO;
These sightings, could in no way then, or now show that AB's sighting was wrong.
These sightings were not - bang on 5.05pm.
Absolutely nothing then or now to show that they were exactly at this time.
They were, as was AB's sighting, around 5pm.
They are approximations of time - nothing more.
Not set in stone.

[Harper]

Thanks Sandra, I thought it was strange that I had never seen any information regarding a pathologist's time of death. This would definitely would have helped to confirm things.

Thanks Parky, you make a fair point. It could be possible that the 3 sightings were all of Jodi but the timings were not perfect.

[sandra L]

What reasons would you take from the defence not using these possible sightings of Jodi herself? (Not Stocky man)

IMO;
These sightings, could in no way then, or now show that AB's sighting was wrong.
These sightings were not - bang on 5.05pm.
Absolutely nothing then or now to show that they were exactly at this time.
They were, as was AB's sighting, around 5pm.
They are approximations of time - nothing more.
Not set in stone.

Why do you do this, Parky? The police and prosecution went to inordinate lengths to tie the AB sighting down to between 4.49 and 4.54pm - definitely before 5pm - and they did so for good reason. Sightings after 5pm would have jeopardised the credibility of their 5.15pm claimed time of death too much.

The other two witnesses were clear that their sightings were after 5pm. The police staged their reconstruction with Jodi leaving at "a few minutes after 5pm" to coincide with the sightings at 5.05pm - why would they do that if they were so sure Jodi was spotted no later than 4.54pm, already at the entrance to the path?

Reasons for the defence not using those sightings? Who knows? Donald Findlay works from the old school reasoning that it's for the prosecution to prove guilt - the defence should not have to "prove" anything, all they have to do (from this perspective) is introduce enough doubt about the prosecution claims. Maybe he thought he'd done that sufficiently by showing that AB's descriptions were nothing like Jodi and Luke, that she'd missed some obvious factors in Jodi's clothing, the times of her movements had been massively altered from her first accounts and arguments that the "identification" was so badly flawed as to be untenable, especially since she failed to identify Luke in court and Findlay had already argued that police breached their own guidelines by not having an ID parade? In legal terms, that lot, alone, should have been enough to introduce sufficient "reasonable doubt" - the defence don't get to just throw everything they have and hope some of it gets through - tactical decisions have to be taken.

I'm not saying that's right, I'm saying it's the way it is.

[Parky41]

Why do you do this, Parky? The police and prosecution went to inordinate lengths to tie the AB sighting down to between 4.49 and 4.54pm - definitely before 5pm - and they did so for good reason. Sightings after 5pm would have jeopardised the credibility of their 5.15pm claimed time of death too much.

Thank you Ms Lean,
I simply did "this" as I was replying to Harper.
 
Quote

The police staged their reconstruction with Jodi leaving at "a few minutes after 5pm" to coincide with the sightings at 5.05pm

No Ms Lean, that is what you believe, what you like to work around. It does not make it fact.
The police simply put out a reconstruction at "around" 5pm.
We have of course covered this.
We know, you feel it was done on the following basis also, that;
the weather was the same. Remember? When you stated it could not have been overcast on the 30th as they did not
include this type of weather in the reconstruction?

That you first reasoning, for the defence not using this - was due to "Stocky Man" not being part of the prosecution case.
The reality being Ms Lean, that he is most certainly part of your case.
Which does not alter the plain and simple truth.
That there was nothing in these sightings that could show AB's to be wrong, and there still is not.

Tell us Ms Lean, what have you done to determine the timings of these sightings, of their accuracy -
other than state;

Quote

The other two witnesses were clear that their sightings were after 5pm

Why were they clear? how did they know this, were they looking at their watches, perhaps phoning the time?
Now as much as;

Quote

Reasons for the defence not using those sightings? Who knows? Donald Findlay works from the old school reasoning

Maybe so - it does not alter the plain and simple fact, that there was nothing in these sightings, that could prove AB's sighting to be wrong. More so, that Jodi could not have been murdered between 5 and 5.30pm.

Shimmy aroud these timings as much as you like - it alters nothing.
5.32 until 5.38pm - first, then second connecting call. There is 6mins.
 
How does this lesson any time that Luke Mitchel had, it did not.
That is what Mr Findlay in his old school ways would have been clear on.
He may have his faults - highly intelligent all the same.
Unless we agree with CM of course, she could have shown him how to win this case - hands down.

" Your honour, we have sperm, blood, hair and fibre, none of it my clients, I rest my case"

Quote

by showing that AB's descriptions were nothing like Jodi and Luke,

But it was, clever police all the same, showing this girls hair to be freely flowing;
Catch a killer indeed;
Jodi's hair was contained in that red hair fastener, that Luke saw that night.
They were certainly keeping that information - out of the reconstruction.
AB knew it was contained.
She described the same clothing Luke gave bar this logo.
Jodi was wearing a very dark top with slighter lighter dark blue trousers.

These are but circles of dispute over time.
I believe this woman did remarkably well, in her memory.
But of course- we do have these odd claims over and over of Luke having "poker straight blonde hair"
He did not.
Of AB possibly seeing a pupil from school, the colours being completely different.
 
I'll trust my own judgement for now, on all of the evidence I have seen, inclusive of yours.
And for this, the police and the prosecution did not need to jam all of this in.
It is as it was.  How it happened.
It's almost as futile as saying - the chose Luke as an "easy target".
They did not choose - they simply could not ignore, the evidence before them.

[nugnug]

now i can understand the time changing from 500 to 450 it hdent change to 5 thirty first a 10 minute mistake is one thing but a forty minute one somthing diffrent altogether.