Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 302449 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • 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
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.


they also said jodi wasnt allowed to use the path on her own wich is peovably untrue

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • 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
How is it?

Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.

I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.

they allso said she was grounded when she wasnt.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14285
    • 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
How is it?

Just because she did something doesn't mean she wasn't allowed.

I'm sure her and Luke "weren't allowed" to smoke weed.

they also said she would she would not of used the path on her own.

but then chose that as the first place to look rather strange

Offline gordo30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493



Ok just the 20 on one person( I would t call them suspects)
1. Mental health problems treated by many different drugs exacerbated by the use of recreational drugs
2. Long time dealer of drugs.
3. Long history of violence
4. Use of knives
5. No alibi at at least 1 point that night
6. Never took part in the search for his sibling
7. Plans for that night we’re changed
8. Was seen following Jodi not long after she left the house.
9. Was one of the last people to see the victim alive
10. Would certainly know the area of the murder
11. Was never questioned by the police
12. Was there a danger to Jodi through his dealing with drugs?
13. Were told he never left the house for a long time although he had been out that weekend and was also that day
14. Missed appointment to see psychologist that day.
15. After the murder appeared withdrawn again possibly due to drugs
16. Threatening behaviour afterwards

Ok just the 16 points but many of these were applied circumstantially to Luke and quite a few of these points could be elaborated with more than one example. In all that I still could make up more to fit a circumstantial case. I don’t see the point as this looks like I’m claiming he committed  the murder and that would be wrong because I don’t believe he committed the murder.

Offline gordo30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
So you're saying none of Jodi's family met Luke before Jodi was murdered? What are you talking about? I didn't say they saw him wearing a parka before he was Jodi's bf. I said they saw him wearing a parka because he was Jodi's bf.

I only asked if the Jones family knew Luke prior to them being in a relationship, simple question that didn’t warrant anything else than a simple yes/no

Offline gordo30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Sandra already has a few posts back. Why would we bother if the Jones family or yourself can come out with what they want simply because they believe it themselves.

Can I ask did the Jones know Luke before he went out with Jodi?

That’s what I asked more misinformation from yourself
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 12:37 PM by gordo30 »

Offline gordo30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
You can find as many thoughts on this type of thing from various different professionals and  amateurs a like. I do t have many thoughts either way, I know it’s used by certain government departments in the states and other places.
It doesn’t have a bearing on this case though does it ! Luke wasn't convicted using one was he?

His lie detector was for me just that, makes no difference to myself although it might bolster popular opinion in some aspects.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 01:51 PM by gordo30 »

Offline gordo30

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Here a Q for parky.

Can you give 5 fully corroborated pieces of evidence that would be allowed in a Scottish court of law that would lead to the conviction of Luke?