Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 262333 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14034
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
She is here. And she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves. She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish. I'm not being petty, Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have.  (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)

Apparently not, Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.

My point was if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.

why anybody acuse them of incest as far as i know that acusation has not been made i mean why would it be.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14034
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
She heavily implicated Jodi's brother not Luke's, maybe there's been a misunderstanding either with yourself or the source.

why would it fo that then lithum.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
From Lithium's quote
Quote
if you are only interested in the case, get your information from an unbiased source that won't put information out deceive even when she knows it can't be true.

Interesting to see how the rest of Lithium's post meets up to his own suggested standards:

Quote
she's comfortable enough with accusing people of murder who aren't here to defend themselves.!

I have never accused anyone of murder. Ever. Pointing out that police failed to investigate aspects of the case that required explanation is not accusing anyone of murder - it's accusing the police of an extremely poor investigation.

Quote
She's also comfortable enough to accuse Jodi's family of incest, sexual abuse and other such mental pish.

Nope, has never happened. What I did do was point out that the media selectively reported Luke and his mother sleeping in the same room, the living room, on separate couches, as evidence of the so-called "inappropriate relationship" between them, whilst exactly the same scenario - Jodi's mother and brother sleeping in the same room, a bedroom, in separate places, wasn't reported at all, far less taken as the "evidence" that it was - i.e., it's a perfectly understandable set-up in the circumstances.

Quote
I'm not being petty
I agree - Lithium is being deliberately dishonest, not petty.

Quote
Luke's supporters are a horrible bunch and if I was related to Jodi I can't say I'd be handling it with the dignified silence they have. (Other than one time Jodi's brother went to Sandra's door and asked her to leave his family alone, which was spun to suggest he was the murderer and getting worried they were getting close to nailing him!)

Dignified silence = coming to my door effing and blinding, telling me "That site goes or you go. I know where you f*cking live now, don't forget that." Dignified silence = posting on a website that Joseph never came here at all, then changing that to Joseph "asked"  me to take the website down. Dignified silence = denying that Judy attacked Corinne at work and was escorted off the premises by police. Dignified silence = posting utter tosh about a "missing" blue hoodie in order to try to further implicate Luke, knowing it to be completely false. (if it had been true, the logical but ludicrous conclusion is that Jodi was wearing a blue hoodie over the top of her extremely baggy deftones hoodie on a warm summer evening!)

While I sympathise with Jodi's family and cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a loved one in such horrific circumstances, telling lies is still telling lies.

Quote
Sandra's SCCRC application was 99% cases against these other guys. SCCRC - knowing this was completely irrelevant to the claim that Luke received an unfair trial - threw it out.


The SCCRC application pointed out numerous failings in the police investigation, anomalies in the evidence (including extremely poor practices concerning the DNA results) and solid evidence undermining the already weak eyewitness identifications, amongst other things. Failure to look anywhere other than at Luke is very relevant to a fair trial - the Steve Johnson and Billy Allison case, for example. The SCCRC refused to refer the case in spite of agreeing that Luke's rights had been breached, that the police had failed to disclose evidence to the defence, and concluding that a witness's recall was likely to have been more reliable in 2014 than it was one week and six weeks after the murder in 2003.

Please don't forget, the application included an extensive submission regarding all of the legal arguments, compiled by a leading QC - guess that was "completely irrelevant" as well?

Lithium has quite deliberately distorted every single claim made against me here, and accuses me of intending to deceive?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14034
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
I notice lithum seems to have dispeared along with a lot of his posts.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Going round in circles here. Seems a tad deliberate.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Hi, Marty, I'm not sure I understand your post? I'd only posted once since October when I noticed Nugnug's post quoting Lithium and replied to it. I don't understand what it is about that that's either going round in circles or "a tad deliberate"?

Offline Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
I notice lithum seems to have dispeared along with a lot of his posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAlDoAtV7Y

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Hi Sandra, what I mean is the same accusations/points made by lithium which you have defended more than once on this thread. I maybe didn’t word it correct :-[

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
Ah, I see. Sorry! These claims and accusations have been made by a select group for years - it's as if they think the more they say it, the truer it becomes. They don't seem to get that a lie is still a lie, no matter how many times it's told.

In many ways, these sorts of posts help support the case for Luke's innocence (or at least that the case against him was fatally flawed) - firstly, they allow the truth to be re-stated clearly and unequivocally every time they're posted and secondly, they cause fair-minded and right thinking people to wonder what reasons people might have for consistently posting inaccurate, misleading or downright dishonest information ... and to draw their own conclusions!

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Hi folks, just wondering if there is anything new here to report . It was suggested in some of the last conversations that something may have been getting put together.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14034
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Hi folks, just wondering if there is anything new here to report . It was suggested in some of the last conversations that something may have been getting put together.

noting realy new  to report yet I'm afraid.


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14034
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
wer did forclydes coment go.

Offline lilly15

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Good luck to Luke! He has a strong team behind him which is fantastic to see. i will await the updates and hope justice is done very soon

It isnt just that Luke he has 15 years taken from him life but a killer is also walking free. Time to swap places now.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 03:00:PM by lilly15 »