Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 327242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14617
    • 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
Once again you misquote and distort information. He was saying that the absence of any trace of Jodi on Luke makes it "less likely" to be him. Does he take into account his missing jacket and the date he was examined? No. Does the interviewer even put that to him? No.

I'm not the one making a fool of myself here pal.

have you actully bothred to listen it.

he said it makes it suprising and less likely in other words he doesnt think he did it.

i havent distorted anything.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 10:25:PM by nugnug »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
have you actully bothred to listen it.

Yes.

This is what you said he said -

"it was highly unlikely that luke was the killer"

This is what he actually said -

"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."

 ::)
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14617
    • 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
Yes.

This is what you said he said -

"it was highly unlikely that luke was the killer"

This is what he actually said -

"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."

 ::)

needless pedantry it means  he thinks luke dident do it.

i said unlikely he said suprising and less likely.

i dident rember the exact words but it more or less the same thing.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 10:36:PM by nugnug »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747

he said it makes it suprising and less likely in other words he doesnt think he did it.

i havent distorted anything.

Yes you have distorted things. And now you are putting words in the guys mouth.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14617
    • 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
Yes you have distorted things. And now you are putting words in the guys mouth.

how are else are you supposed to interpret the words suprising and less likely.

if somone says its suprising if hes the killer it clearly means they think he isnt.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
needless pedantry it means  he thinks luke dident do it.

i said unlikely he said suprising and less likely.

i dident rember the exact words but it more or less the same thing.

You said "highly unlikely" and you have now edited your original post.

If you didn't remember what he said, fair enough. But if your not going check things, just write IIRC (If I remember correctly) before whatever you post. That is what I always do, if I cant be bothered to go over stuff.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 10:54:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14617
    • 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
You said "highly unlikely" and you have now edited your original post.

If you didn't remember what he said, fair enough. But if your not going check things, just write IIRC (If I remember correctly) before whatever you post. That is what I always do, if I cant be bothered to go over stuff.

so what does somone think if they say they would it suprising hes the killer does that mean they think he did it or does it mean they think dident do it.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
so what does somone think if they say they would it suprising hes the killer does that mean they think he did it or does it mean they think dident do it.

This is what he said -

"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."

There is no need to twist, rephrase or misquote him. Unless you are trying to misrepresent what he is actually saying.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14617
    • 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
This is what he said -

"It does not tell us that it could not have been him. But it makes it surprising and less likely that it was him."

There is no need to twist, rephrase or misquote him. Unless you are trying to misrepresent what he is actually saying.

so what does suprising and less likely mean

then does it mean he thinks or does it mean he think its unlikely he did it.

obviosly hees not goin to say lukes innocent.

Offline Bullseye

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Got a few point to put out there, will apologise now for the length, been a while since I’ve had time to post a lot. Please let me know if anything I say is wrong, seems I’ve been getting mixed up over some facts recently. I thought best to spilt the posts so it’s not one big rant, but lots of smaller ones lol

AB - she did not identify Luke in court, that’s enough for me, it was not Luke at the top of the path. To say it’s because he looked different at court it total bs imo, as then any murder accused just needs to dye/cut their hair and grow a beard so any witnesses can’t identify them, come on! She did not identify Luke as she knew it was not him imo.
The description of Jodi’s clothes do not match at all so imo was not Jodi either.

People at bottom of path, what is the significance of their sighting, I’ve never really understood this? Maybe someone can explain what the relevance of this was and what it proved please?

Offline Bullseye

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
If it was Luke I’ve never been able to fit into the timing what happened to his shoes and clothes the soles would definitely have evidence on them, if nothing else. He would need to have either had a spare set of clothes and shoes with him to change into after the murder (which I highly doubt)  or went home and got cleaned up, then just dump the stuff in any old bin which was picked up and emptied the following day. But if he went home I just don’t see how he could have committed the murder and all the injuries and other act carried out, get home and cleaned up, changes and back out to be seen by the 2 boys that knew him.

I just can’t get it to fit, if we say Jodi left the house at 1650 as stated and went directly to the path, that apx 15 mins from her house to the v, 1705. The cyclist says he did not see the Jodi, the boys or the bike, but heard a noise. As the boys on the bike did not see or hear anything then that means they must have been there before the cyclist went up the path, so the boys have to had seen Jodi imo, I think they bumped into Jodi went over the v to have a smoke with then then they left Jodi there, maybe with the last of the joint. At this point I think the murderer appeared, Luke or someone else, then the cyclist came up the path and heard the start of the assault, meaning it needs to have taken place after the moped left, after 1715, leaving Luke less than 15 mins to do everything before the call at 1732. Not a lot of time, but then from 1732, to being seen by 2 boys around 1750, 20 mins to get home from v, changed, cleaned up and back to the end of his street. Is that enough time?

Offline Bullseye

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Another reason for doubt on my part is lack of DNA, no dna of Luke found on Jodi, only partials that could be Luke or  also a number of other people, some of Jodi dna found on Luke’s clothing in his house, but I assume there was no blood found and it was not what he was found wearing that night so imo it has to be innocent transfer from gf to bf in the days previous (same as the sk profile found,as he was the sisters bf and Jodi was said to be wearing the sisters T-shirt ) maybe he got lucky with the rain washing the evidence away but I think the only way to be sure is a retest of everything, it’s been years, forensic science has came on a fair bit.

The other little things going round over the years that shows Luke’s ‘guilt’ just doesn’t sit right
Luke found the body - I have always found it acceptable the dog alerted him

Burning of the clothes - then it would be everything he had on, trousers, top, jacket and shoes (would not take the risk, so burn it all) in that burner in one night?? I think that would be very noticeable to all the neighbours in the area as it would have taken some time and caused some nasty smells. I think it’s more likely they clothes were dumped if it was Luke.

Black dahlia/Manson connection, imo there is none

Offline Bullseye

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
The only things that don’t sit right with me is his attitude and lack of emotion from finding Jodi to being found guilty, then his reading and writing choices in prison, some of the hear say stuff that came out after the murder etc but absolutely none of this is evidence he is a murderer, strange and not what people consider normal maybe but no evidence he killed Jodi and i feel it would be wrong for me, or anyone, to judge his guilt on his personality and interests or hear say alone. What hard factual evidence is there? Really the only thing for me is his brothers alibi for him, again he did not support this in court, like I said about ab not pointing out Luke in court because she knew it was not him, the same stood for my opinion on Shane, he did not confirm his statement in court because it was not true, Luke was not home. But I now have doubt over this due to the way Shane was questioned, and the explanations put forward for why he did not confirm luke was home, as it makes me have doubts, the only way for me is to hear it from the horses mouth, Shane to come out and clarify, was Luke home? As the answer to that is case closed for me.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
Another reason for doubt on my part is lack of DNA, no dna of Luke found on Jodi, only partials that could be Luke or  also a number of other people, some of Jodi dna found on Luke’s clothing in his house, but I assume there was no blood found and it was not what he was found wearing that night so imo it has to be innocent transfer from gf to bf in the days previous (same as the sk profile found,as he was the sisters bf and Jodi was said to be wearing the sisters T-shirt ) maybe he got lucky with the rain washing the evidence away but I think the only way to be sure is a retest of everything, it’s been years, forensic science has came on a fair bit.

The other little things going round over the years that shows Luke’s ‘guilt’ just doesn’t sit right
Luke found the body - I have always found it acceptable the dog alerted him

Burning of the clothes - then it would be everything he had on, trousers, top, jacket and shoes (would not take the risk, so burn it all) in that burner in one night?? I think that would be very noticeable to all the neighbours in the area as it would have taken some time and caused some nasty smells. I think it’s more likely they clothes were dumped if it was Luke.

Black dahlia/Manson connection, imo there is none

According to the Judge there was a similarity between the wounds on Jodi’s face and the Manson paintings.

"I do not feel able to ignore the fact that there was a degree of resemblance between the injuries inflicted on Jodi and those shown in the Marilyn Manson paintings of Elizabeth Short that we saw. I think that you carried an image of the paintings in your memory when you killed Jodi."

But I would have to see the wounds myself (not that I want to). In order to form my own opinion.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
I think you outlined why so many of us believe Luke innocent very well bullseye. On the Shane testimony I believe he just didn’t know if Luke was in or not, I’m guessing the two weren’t as close to each other or bothered with each other much.

The judge was summing up after the appeal, anything the appeal involved is considered correct. Short had her lips and beasts cut off, drained of all blood and severed in two. Jodis wounds were more similar to the Ripper killing down to the precise cutting of the eye lids,cut to the cheek and abdomen and no reference was made to that.