Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 330550 times)

1 Member and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
i wonder if ferris actully was with joe that night and hes actully lying about on the bike

i find odd that joe would use him as an albi withot asking ifthe albi was not true.

i mean they all talked to eah other so joe would know ferris was with dickie if was with dickie so joe is hardly likely to say  ferris is with him knowing full well hes been seen somewhere else that leads me to belive joe is telling the truth and ferris was with him and somebody else was with dickie.

But it wasn't Joseph who said Ferris was with him that afternoon, it was Judith. Joseph said Ferris only stayed a short while - less than half an hour - then left around 1 o'clock (which ties in with other statements that Ferris was in Dickie's house by 3 o'clock). The problem with that is, Judith's reason for cancelling the home visit by the psychiatrist then falls apart - she said it was so that Joseph could continue smoking cannabis with Ferris, up in his room, but if Ferris had already been gone for two and a half hours by then, that can't be correct.

Also, according to Judith, Ferris left her house "at some point" before Jodi got in from school at approximately 3.50- 3.55, but she (Judith) cancelled the appointment at 3.23pm, so Ferris must have left within less than half an hour of that cancellation, but Judith didn't hear him leave (even though the reason for the cancellation was so that he and Joseph could continue smoking).

The story about Ferris supposedly returning to Judith's house at 6pm that evening didn't emerge until more than a week into the investigation. It's probably just coincidence, but 6pm - 7pm (approximately) was the only time Judith's statements didn't provide an alibi for Joseph, so it ends up looking like Ferris (again) was supposed to be Joseph's alibi that evening, but failed to show.

What's surprising about all of this is that they were all talking from the early hours of July 1st - we know a group of Jodi's extended family members were in Judith's house by 4am and even more gathered in Alice's house later that morning - there was plenty of time to check with each other whether their recollections about June 30th tallied with other people's.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
I think there’s more to Joseph Jones than what’s been disclosed.  His alibi that he was at home on June 30th was contradicted by Ferris.

I think there's more to a great deal of things than what's been disclosed. It doesn't necessarily mean any of them are "linked" to the murder, it just means there are huge areas of doubt about what was going on within Jodi's wider family that day.

Quote
The accounts of Ferris undermined a lot of the statements to be honest, but this guy had a propensity for violence and grossly managed to go under the radar.

Ferris left so many people looking "suspicious" - again, the problem is, a lot of what he said was never followed up properly. We can infer, from some of the other statements, that he appeared to be telling the truth in places (for example, Yvonne Walker's assertion that Ferris intended to go to the police on July 1st and tell them he was on the path, on the moped), except that Ferris later denied saying that to Yvonne. Or the Dickies' statements that Ferris was in their house prior to 3pm. Trying to unravel what's true and what isn't from Ferris's statements is challenging. Several people with propensities for violence managed to go under the radar in this case.

Quote
I think Ferris simply shat himself when he realised the screws were onto him and Dickie on the path, hence why he started acting suspicious with the mad hair cuts.

Why though? If they saw, nothing, heard nothing, knew nothing, why would they sh*t themselves? They were just a couple of lads messing about on a moped. The guy on the pushbike didn't sh*t himself when he realised he'd been on the path at the relevant time - he just called the cops and told them so. The dog walkers who were at the top of the path at the relevant time didn't sh*t themselves, they just called the cops and told them.

Quote
I think there’s more evidence to suggest someone in Jodi’s family is linked to it.

I don't. At the moment, the best that can be said is that there could have been stronger circumstantial cases built against others (some members of Jodi's family, some not) than the case that was built against Luke. That doesn't mean any of them were "linked" to the murder, it just means they could have been fitted up for it just as easily as Luke was. The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one. If the claim about rainwater/washing machine transfer is discredited, then, apart from the condom and the unidentified DNA profiles, it is the only solid evidence "linking" another person to the crime scene and the body.

Quote
A witness identified a member of Jodi’s family as Stocky Man, who was also the dude who claimed to be at home all day.

That of course would imply - if you read the book - it was Joseph Jones

But all that tells us is that his alibi was not what it was claimed to be. It doesn't "link" him to the murder - everything we know about Joseph is circumstantial. What we know might have built a circumstantial case against him that a jury would have considered "compelling," but it wouldn't actually prove he did anything wrong.

All my points about other people and the circumstances surrounding them are made to demonstrate how very poor the police investigation was and the extent of the double standards required to make the case against Luke stick.

Offline TheArmchairDetective

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
“It doesn’t necessarily mean any of it is linked to the murder”

The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.

Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?

You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further.  I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?

You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job. 

Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...

Offline TheArmchairDetective

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
“The only person "linked" in what we would consider traditional terms is the sister's boyfriend because of the DNA deposit on Jodi's t-shirt and the implication that other deposits came from that original one”

Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else?  Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace? Could these have been dog hair? What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?

Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site.  Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested. 

Where are we at with this?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 01:38:PM by TheArmchairDetective »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
The amount of contradictions in all of the statements between the members in this family certainly make it look as though someone knows something and aren’t letting on.

It does make it look like that, and that's the problem - since those contradictions were never followed up to confirm or refute, there is clearly a large amount of reasonable doubt in this case which, unfortunately, ends up turning the spotlight on Jodi's family. As I said in the book, there may be perfectly innocent explanations for all of them, but since the questions were never asked, we just don't know.

Quote
Do you think there are people who know more than they have let on?
Yes, but not necessarily members of Jodi's family or extended family.

Quote
You answer the previous points in a way that sort of says, well, perhaps one could view it as suspicious, but it was the fault of the Police not to take it further.  I can see that you don’t want to name or blame, but are there, in your opinion, people outlined within the book who should be sent down for the crime? Or, do you consider that this murder was committed by a complete stranger?

My answer doesn't "sort of" say it - it's the whole point. The police should have taken all of it further - our convictions are supposed to be based on proof "beyond reasonable doubt". It's up to the police to investigate areas of doubt and eliminate them - they didn't do that.

I wouldn't name or blame - to do so would be to do what was done to Luke. I've no idea whether people outlined in the book should be "sent down" - every single one of them would be entitled to a fair trial, based on solid evidence and it would be up to a jury to decide who should be "sent down". And, even then, the jury might get it wrong.

I've said for many years, there's a huge possibility that this was a stranger murder (as in, the killer didn't know Jodi personally).

Quote
You do make several “hints” along the way in the book as to who you think could be responsible, and that these hints are definitely geared towards an inside job.

My apologies, I didn't intend for anything in the book to suggest I was "hinting" at any individual or even group of individuals - my point was intended to be, repeatedly, why don't we have answers and explanations for this, this and this. 

Quote
Also, in the Stocky Man chapter, who was the witness who came forward that identified him as a member of Jodi’s family, and was this sighting considered credible? Think this was page 111 in your new book...

The sighting was considered credible from the off - it's 50% of what police appeals for "Stocky Man" were based on! If you mean, was the identification credible, I'd say, on the basis of the information available to the witness, yes, it probably was. The witness pointed out a particular male from a group of several males not known to him/her and said - he's the guy.  Had that been an ID parade, it would have been called a "positive identification." The problem was, the police buried that information and it didn't re-emerge until 2013/14. The witness did not name the male -s/he merely pointed out a male in a crowd as the person referred to as Stocky Man and that information was never released to the defence.


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14623
    • 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 wonder if the dairy might resurface at some time.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2019, 09:40:PM by nugnug »

Offline TheArmchairDetective

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra.  What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
It wasn't in a drystane dyke  and it wasn't found by a farmer, Armchair Detective. I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.

Offline Parky41

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Thanks for addressing the previous points, Sandra.  What’s going to happen with that knife found in a dry-stone dyke by a farmer some 500yds from the murder scene? Is this being tested or what?

New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
New houses/scheme being built in the area for some time now. (approx. 7yrs) The knife found by one of the site team. AD, whether by the police in liaison with forensics or Ms Leans attempts at reconciliation with Ms Mitchell to retrieve authorisation for results on this testing leave a ? Not a mark but the question, as you asked, what happened with this. Ms Lean either doesn't know as she has no authority to know, she has since gained authority by visiting Ms Mitchell after their parting of ways. The results have to remain private incase it causes bias in future legal proceedings. Not rocket science. A play on words and answers (much like politicians) Can't answer because the answer would detract from the wonder?

Why did you just make all of that up, parky41? I mean, just literally made it up. The find had nothing to do with new houses or builders of them. My access to information about it had nothing to do with Corinne or Luke - I've known what has been  "going on" with it since it was found and had full authority to know.  If I am ever required to do so, I can prove what I say with documented evidence.

I am not prepared to disclose any strategy involving the knife at this time, not because I don't know and certainly not to satisfy an anonymous poster who is prepared to post utter tosh in his/her attempts to (a) discredit the information I can put in the public domain and (b) goad me into revealing confidential information by attacking my credibility/reliability.

The original question was
Quote
What’s going to happen with that knife... Is this being tested or what?

My answer was 
Quote
I can say no more about testing etc at the moment, I'm sorry.

So let's be very clear. I could say more about it, but am not prepared to do so because of the potential (as you, yourself, point out) of adversely affecting potential future legal proceedings. That is, of  course, the standard position of anyone working in these circumstances.

Most people know what is meant when I (or others doing this work) mean by "I can't say more at the moment" - it doesn't meant I literally can't say (or type) the words, it means I am restricted in what I can make public without jeopardising other, confidential developments.

Resorting to lies and assumptions about my "authority" whilst posting under a false username doesn't bolster your position, it merely exposes your complete lack of reliability and integrity.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 06:42:AM by sandra L »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812

Do we have any further information yet as to whose DNA was contained within the saliva, short colourless hairs and sweat? I’m aware that they only tested this against Mitchell, but has there been any developments over the years that may point to someone else?

Not yet, Armchair Detective. Getting samples released for re-testing is notoriously difficult, which is why we are now calling for a full, Hillsborough style, independent case review.

Quote
Could the short colourless hairs have been deliberately treated with peroxide as a means of avoiding leaving a trace?


Possibly, but that would suggest a large degree of pre-meditation and this case doesn't appear to allow for that. For example, no-one could have known for sure what time Jodi would walk down the path (we don't even know for sure that she did).

Quote
Could these have been dog hair?

 Yes, it's possible - the forensic results didn't even say whether they were human or animal.

Quote
What are these samples that we know of, and does anyone else match these other than Kelly?

The saliva stains, semen/sperm head samples and "white stains" returned either partial profiles or "no reportable results". The hairs and fibres apparently yielded no results either. Some strands of long brown hair on Jodi's hands/arms were checked under a microscope to see if they "matched" Jodi's hair and the conclusion was that they were "similar." Cut hairs found in the pocket of a male who became known to the enquiry (a male who was not LM) were similarly checked and concluded to be "not similar" to Jodi's hair. No more sensitive testing of the cut hairs ever appears to have been done. There are still four "unidentified" male profiles in the case files and six mixed male/female samples recorded as "Jodi Jones and unidentified male." These profiles contain markers that are not in Luke's profile (hence the reason for recording them as "unidentified male"). The partial profiles cannot be "matched" to anyone although, to my knowledge, none of them has ever been subjected to Low Copy enhancement to examine whether more sensitive testing might make identification possible. Again, these are all reasons why we are calling for a full case review - if the Crown has nothing to hide, what does it have to fear from such a review?

Quote
Lastly, what do you presume will happen from this new knife that has been reported in the media? I don’t mean the 2010 “Luke” knife; I mean the one found in a dry-stone dyke by a local farmer hiding under rocks some 500yards from the murder site.  Where do things stand with this? The media say Luke Mitchell’s campaigners want this knife to be tested.  Where are we at with this?

As previously answered, I am not in a position to be able to reveal the strategy concerning the knife find. As soon as I am, I will update.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 06:43:AM by sandra L »

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
This knife is it the one that was found in the area of the new high school? It was pretty much cleared quite soon afterwards by the police as a possible murder weapon.

When we think of what was found on the body, the many different parts of dna partial or otherwise it things like the cut hair that astound me. Jodis murder was brutal and she had lost a lot of blood but very little was found on the body. The torso was almost clean.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 09:51:AM by gordo30 »

Offline Parky41

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Thank you for your help and reply Dr lean.

The post was put out with areas of misinformation intentionally . A feeder comment  for the study of response. I haven't hidden what I am doing. For the most part, my work is general. Any material/quotes will be credited with source.

All of which should be complete, hopefully by the beginning of August. If I feel anything needs clarification I will seek this and give the oppertunity of response for all subjects.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
It’s just games!! Why the need to as I’m sure your aware of Sandra’s work and you wouldn’t be here asking questions if you felt she had no intention of answering them to the best of her ability.

Offline Bullseye

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
I don’t understand why lots of people seem to be so against a retrial? (Of course other than the pain it was cause Jodi’s family opening the whole thing up again, they are sure the right person is already serving justice) but there are 2 sides and everyone deserves a fair trial, I’m not sure Luke had one.

I think everyone can agree the police mucked this up right from the start, the investigation was poor, the treatment of witnesses appalling, the media reports at the time, the trial being held in Edinburgh, all the information that was not used, I can go on and on. So for all those reasons I think a retrial would be the best way forward for everyone. If you believe Luke to be guilty  and there is any evidence to be found by retesting stuff etc. then surely it can only help and prove once and for all, without doubt, that Luke is the killer (which would be the outcome I’d like to see) It would then shut this down once and for all and everyone can get on with their lives, including Jodi’s family who have had to put up with all this crap over the past 16 years, all started because of LB police (IMO).

But if there is the slightest chance Luke did not do it, and its proved in the retrial then can you imagine the pain that would cause all involved, both Jodi and Lukes family and also everyone in danger from the real killer the past 16 years. I’m just not sure and I’d like to be, as I’m sure lots of other would be, from both sides, a retrial is the only way I can see this being put to bed.