Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 327257 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Spot on bullseye :)

Offline Parky41

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Quote
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
[/color]

Quote
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.
[/color]

I would imagine here, that if an appellant, set out to change the way in which they looked so drastically, it would be picked up on - you are of course correct, it would be extremely difficult to pick them out.
Luke didn't need to change the way he looked (Out with growing his hair long and tying it firmly back - the passage of time and aging process did the rest)
Would imagine that she most certainly did know it was him in court, she did not pick him out as she was going 'straight by the book'  He did not look the same. She very easily, could have chosen not to watch media reports, should they influence her.
This sighting by AB, crucial and i understand totally, the attempts at ripping it apart.
Nothing less than perfection is required when the life imprisonment of a young laddie is at stake.
IF AB had gotten everything correct, to the last detail, would it have mattered. no?
People would be up in arms, as to how she managed to take so much detail in. We are talking recall here.
It was Luke whom captured her attention primarily. His actions of beckoning the female. In her recall she remembered these things.
There was a male and a female, the male was beckoning this female. The male was wearing green clothing.
Her mind piecing together this  green clothing likens it to fishing style gear. It throws up other images.
His collar appears to be up and the jkt is hip length. A parka jkt has draw cords, these could have been pulled in, sitting the jkt around his hips. The hood is back and the top area where the zip meets is sticking up at each end, her mind pieces together a collar.
His hair is sticking out. Lukes hair is not poker straight when at neck length (unless pulled tightly back) 
The females hair is long, it appears to be tied in a ponytail (there was a hair tie found tangled in her hair)
The females hair is black, her recall is of dark hair,  her mind likens it to black.
She is wearing clothing that is dark, she tries her best to recall the colours, black-blue, her clothing is loose fitting. Does the hood hide the logo, it would appear so?
This lady is approaching a bend, she would have to slow down, the entrance of this lane (lane which leads onto the top end of this path?)
This bend, does not appear to be a highly difficult manoeuvre, taken into account that she is driving in what would appear to be, an area with a 30mph limit in the first place. It is at a school, could even be less (20mph) Unlikely to be driving out with this - has children in the car.
Tie this sighting in with Jodi leaving home to meet Luke around 4.50.
It appears to be a usual meet place.
The timings 'roughly' tally.
This male and female 'IF' not Luke and Jodi - have never come forward.

To combat this we have:
This being Jodi with another male - simply can't have it all ways though?
AB not sighting any one at all - made it up to help the Jones'
This couple was neither of them - they just didn't bother to come forward.

Quote
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?
[/color]

The people at the bottom of the path.
 
The relevance of this, is that Luke was identified standing at a gate, on Newbattle R'd, very close to the entrance of the path. Luke has only ever admitted walking as far as Barondale cottages. The first thing here therefore is the denial of this being him.
These witnesses did pick him out in court - simply followed the media in depth - watched the change in this laddie, knew it was him through this - picked him out.
They could have easily watched all media reports.
This also ties in with Luke being both at the top and bottom of the path - the main point of it.

Example: You see a young person (a cousin perhaps) frequently over a passage of time - they very much stay the same.
You don't see this person for nearly a year and a half - The change in them is remarkable. This example is a cousin though - they would of course still know them.


Behind this gate are little woodland paths. One of which leads into the bottom half of Newbattle Abbey Cres: For this you must cross the River Esk.
This 'instant' non traceable washing facility, is in my opinion - what was used to clean most of the blood etc away. There are many gaps in time, over the evening, in which to repeat this task. The result being that, any dna picked up from the scene, upon his own person (clothes excluded) was taken by this river. Remembering, that this is surface contamination - not deep set over a longer period of time. (couple of hrs in the woods, mucking around)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 10:23:AM by Parky41 »

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Spot on bullseye :)

The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.

You have not seen the crime scene photos, autopsy reports, or the pathologists court testimony. We need to see this material in order to make a our on judgement. Does Sandra expect people on the forum to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice without seeing the material that convicted him?

If we had the material this thread would probably be 40 pages instead of 400.

PS: The circumstantial evidence is enough to infer that she would not have marked him.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 04:07:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Parky41

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.

What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.

Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?

An example is given  from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
What was actually said in those first statements that drew suspicion upon LM?
Did they all say that the dog scrambled about, around the V area?
Did LM further say that he had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
Did they all say that they had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
CM states in her podcast that JaJ gave evidence in court, to the effect that she had said, LM shone his torch to the left through this V? or saw LM shine his torch to the left? Appears she means whilst LM was over the V as she scoffs at the ability of JaJ being able to see through walls, as she wouldn't have been tall enough to see over this V?

SL:
Quote
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
[/color]

This omits to mention that, when giving a statement to the FLO, LM drew a diagram as to where this dog reacted. X marks the spot so to speak?
He shows the FLO where he and Mia? were on one side of the wall - using the words 'parallel' to where Jodi was on the other side?
Were the other members of the search party, also inclusive on this diagram? would imagine they would be of course.
Being parallel does suggest some 40ft past the V for this is how far it was?
Important in relation to the dog being able to strongly pick up a scent?

We know the Jury were taken to the locus, were the search party taken at any point - to clarify whom was where?
It is however relevant IF the dog did react JUST 10-15ft past this V rather than 40ft?
However, the dispute appears to have been, where everyone was when they all saw the dog reacting?
Was it around the V?
The theatrical style used at trial to determine this?

Think about it this way:

The search party walk 10-15 ft past this V, by this point AW is just approaching the V? about 10 -15 ft before the V?
Do all of the search party say in their statements, that they left this elderly woman on her own? That she had fallen someway behind?
The dog scrambles about at the wall, up on its legs air sniffing (at something 30 ft down from this point?)
We don't know which way the wind was blowing - what we do know is, its a damp, dreek night? It's a thick wall.
LM backtracks to the V in the wall whilst SK and JaJ continue down?
By the time LM gets to the V  (mere seconds) AW has reached it?
He gives the lead to AW and goes over?
Not sure how, at this point JaJ sees him shining his torch to the left?
However, by the time LM is back, at the V, climbs over, walks down to the left - how far do we assume SK and JaJ have gone?
He shouts out and they backtrack to the V?
The dog at this point is on its hind legs at the V or was this on the way down?
Did the search party stop at the V on the way down?
Whose stories 'tallied' about the dogs lead getting handed to AW?
Were they all, around the V when this happened?

Your comment about the wee 'naff'? The bigger they are the harder they fall - comes to mind.




Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.

Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?

An example is given  from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?


Luke admitted in the police interview that he 'found' the body
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
You have not seen the crime scene photos, autopsy reports, or the pathologists court testimony. We need to see this material in order to make a our on judgement. Does Sandra expect people on the forum to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice without seeing the material that convicted him?

If we had the material this thread would probably be 40 pages instead of 400.

PS: The circumstantial evidence is enough to infer that she would not have marked him.

Investigate? You're just a bloke on an internet forum David! I really do think you forget that  ::)

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.

Sorry mate but that to me is just long winded clap trap

Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?

An example is given  from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
What was actually said in those first statements that drew suspicion upon LM?
Did they all say that the dog scrambled about, around the V area?
Did LM further say that he had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
Did they all say that they had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
CM states in her podcast that JaJ gave evidence in court, to the effect that she had said, LM shone his torch to the left through this V? or saw LM shine his torch to the left? Appears she means whilst LM was over the V as she scoffs at the ability of JaJ being able to see through walls, as she wouldn't have been tall enough to see over this V?

SL:


This omits to mention that, when giving a statement to the FLO, LM drew a diagram as to where this dog reacted. X marks the spot so to speak?
He shows the FLO where he and Mia? were on one side of the wall - using the words 'parallel' to where Jodi was on the other side?
Were the other members of the search party, also inclusive on this diagram? would imagine they would be of course.
Being parallel does suggest some 40ft past the V for this is how far it was?
Important in relation to the dog being able to strongly pick up a scent?

We know the Jury were taken to the locus, were the search party taken at any point - to clarify whom was where?
It is however relevant IF the dog did react JUST 10-15ft past this V rather than 40ft?
However, the dispute appears to have been, where everyone was when they all saw the dog reacting?
Was it around the V?
The theatrical style used at trial to determine this?

Think about it this way:

The search party walk 10-15 ft past this V, by this point AW is just approaching the V? about 10 -15 ft before the V?
Do all of the search party say in their statements, that they left this elderly woman on her own? That she had fallen someway behind?
The dog scrambles about at the wall, up on its legs air sniffing (at something 30 ft down from this point?)
We don't know which way the wind was blowing - what we do know is, its a damp, dreek night? It's a thick wall.
LM backtracks to the V in the wall whilst SK and JaJ continue down?
By the time LM gets to the V  (mere seconds) AW has reached it?
He gives the lead to AW and goes over?
Not sure how, at this point JaJ sees him shining his torch to the left?
However, by the time LM is back, at the V, climbs over, walks down to the left - how far do we assume SK and JaJ have gone?
He shouts out and they backtrack to the V?
The dog at this point is on its hind legs at the V or was this on the way down?
Did the search party stop at the V on the way down?
Whose stories 'tallied' about the dogs lead getting handed to AW?
Were they all, around the V when this happened?

Your comment about the wee 'naff'? The bigger they are the harder they fall - comes to mind.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371


Sorry i meant to say that no offense intended but that is just alot of long winded clap trap

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Luke admitted in the police interview that he 'found' the body

After the dog reacted at the wall and he doubled back and went over the v. Who else was going to find it?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
After the dog reacted at the wall and he doubled back and went over the v. Who else was going to find it?

How do you know that happened and who does that come from?

According to this, Luke had lied about the circumstances of his dog leading him to the body.

"[94] The appellant's actions had also amounted to an attempt to construct a false defence; his explanations to police officers, and to the deceased's mother, as to why the deceased might not have arrived to meet him contradicted his knowledge of her movements on the evening of her death; he told David High that the deceased was not coming out, despite knowing she had left to meet him and had made no effort to enquire as to where she was when she failed to appear; and he had repeatedly lied about the circumstances in which his dog's reaction led him to the deceased. This was conduct from which incriminating inferences could be drawn."

That's from an appeal ruling. Now I'm all up for challenging an appeal courts claim but I need actual evidence to do that. 95% of what I have to go on here are the public appeal rulings. The other 5% being either Sandra typing docs verbatim or Newspapers.  :-\

« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 08:38:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Mate, this information has been the case since the beginning and anyone who has followed the case knows about this information and where it came from. Its not anything new.
Obviously there going to say lukes lying at appeal.
Goan read the thread mate cos there is no point in answering your posts at the moment

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
I would imagine here, that if an appellant, set out to change the way in which they looked so drastically, it would be picked up on - you are of course correct, it would be extremely difficult to pick them out.
Luke didn't need to change the way he looked (Out with growing his hair long and tying it firmly back - the passage of time and aging process did the rest)
Would imagine that she most certainly did know it was him in court, she did not pick him out as she was going 'straight by the book'  He did not look the same. She very easily, could have chosen not to watch media reports, should they influence her.
This sighting by AB, crucial and i understand totally, the attempts at ripping it apart.
Nothing less than perfection is required when the life imprisonment of a young laddie is at stake.
IF AB had gotten everything correct, to the last detail, would it have mattered. no?
People would be up in arms, as to how she managed to take so much detail in. We are talking recall here.
It was Luke whom captured her attention primarily. His actions of beckoning the female. In her recall she remembered these things.
There was a male and a female, the male was beckoning this female. The male was wearing green clothing.
Her mind piecing together this  green clothing likens it to fishing style gear. It throws up other images.
His collar appears to be up and the jkt is hip length. A parka jkt has draw cords, these could have been pulled in, sitting the jkt around his hips. The hood is back and the top area where the zip meets is sticking up at each end, her mind pieces together a collar.
His hair is sticking out. Lukes hair is not poker straight when at neck length (unless pulled tightly back) 
The females hair is long, it appears to be tied in a ponytail (there was a hair tie found tangled in her hair)
The females hair is black, her recall is of dark hair,  her mind likens it to black.
She is wearing clothing that is dark, she tries her best to recall the colours, black-blue, her clothing is loose fitting. Does the hood hide the logo, it would appear so?
This lady is approaching a bend, she would have to slow down, the entrance of this lane (lane which leads onto the top end of this path?)
This bend, does not appear to be a highly difficult manoeuvre, taken into account that she is driving in what would appear to be, an area with a 30mph limit in the first place. It is at a school, could even be less (20mph) Unlikely to be driving out with this - has children in the car.
Tie this sighting in with Jodi leaving home to meet Luke around 4.50.
It appears to be a usual meet place.
The timings 'roughly' tally.
This male and female 'IF' not Luke and Jodi - have never come forward


When I read this I wasn’t sure if you actually believed this or were just trying to show that there were possibilities, now I’m not sure.
You see AB is quite definite in that she describes the girls top as blue. She describes the jeans as a lighter colour of blue in respect to the top and presumed  they were jeans, you see both items of clothing are in confirmation of each other. She is sincere and happy with her ability to recall what the girl was wearing! I have said before it’s truly hard to find an actual Scottish female to have black hair, in my experience the majority of those I meet have very light, middle to dark brown and real black is normally dyed, however it’s not outwith the realms of possibility but just unlikely.

Its similar to what the male was wearing in regards to the colour, as stated before the colour would normally be the first thing to be noticed and it appears that it was, green jacket and khaki trousers, had the description remained rudimentary like that I could understand her maybe allowing her mind to fit pieces into the wrong places but she didn’t did she? She described the jacket quite accurately! Fishing style(notice though it’s only a style as opposed to say a fishing gillet with large pockets) therefore she’s not claiming the garment was one she would expect to be used by fishermen. Hip length with pocket on the sleeve, collar up. Now I defy anyone to be able to not disseminate between a bomber,parka and fishing style jacket as there all very prenounce style wise.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
To combat this we have:
This being Jodi with another male - simply can't have it all ways though?
AB not sighting any one at all - made it up to help the Jones'
This couple was neither of them - they just didn't bother to come forward


I have to agree personally I don’t think of these two actually exist that they are not part of the crime but let’s look at possibilities as to why if they were two different people with no involvement might not come forward.

The usual things like two people who had partners who met up with each other having already been under suspicion by their partners might not want that meeting to come out, would that be justified when after all a brutal crime had been committed and their information could be invaluable! I don’t think so but others might look at self preservation first.

Most likely could be a young girl looking to buy drugs from a guy who wasn’t willing to give her what she wanted until she had paid, was this why the hands were out stretched in an attempt to show her he wasn’t willing to offer anymore tic until she had paid her bill. Possibly more likely that in the event of them being placed at a murder scene they would remain silent.

There are a few more for example a father who shouldn’t have been seeing his daughter after a split etc.ect.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
The people at the bottom of the path.
 
The relevance of this, is that Luke was identified standing at a gate, on Newbattle R'd, very close to the entrance of the path. Luke has only ever admitted walking as far as Barondale cottages. The first thing here therefore is the denial of this being him.
These witnesses did pick him out in court - simply followed the media in depth - watched the change in this laddie, knew it was him through this - picked him out.
They could have easily watched all media reports.
This also ties in with Luke being both at the top and bottom of the path - the main point of it.

Example: You see a young person (a cousin perhaps) frequently over a passage of time - they very much stay the same.
You don't see this person for nearly a year and a half - The change in them is remarkable. This example is a cousin though - they would of course still know them


Normally when someone in Scotland has been charged with an offence the media isn’t allowed to show pictures or comment on the case so as not to prejudice possible jurors. That kind of makes your assumption redundant, even so both did a dock identification so it would mean that they had colluded with each other! I have no problem with that as the judge already knew they had when at various points at the trial they had displayed many things that were shown to have proven that collusion had taken place and they were warned that they could be held in contempt.