Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723087 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet

  • Guest
From what I am reading it took him 18 months after the conviction to come forward with his statement. Does anyone know the answer to why it took him so long to give one? Was he ever interviewed by police prior to giving this statement?

John

  • Guest
I don't know how much of this you are aware of Janet but I have had several conversations with Scott Forbes a few months back when I was able to furnish him and Mitchell's new legal team with some information relating to other suspects in the case.

Scott went into a lot of detail about his involvement with the case and Mark Kane in particular. Kane was a recovering drug addict on a methadone programme and studying at Newbattle Abbey College in Dalkeith.  According to Forbes, Kane had written a college essay about killing a girl in the woods - but a lecturer had dismissed that as untrue, the appeal court heard.

I think it is only fair to point out that Scott categorically denies that there was any plan to sell the story to the newspapers for £50k.  I personally have no reason to disbelieve him.

Scott told me that he took Kane personally to the police station the morning after the murder when he showed up dishevelled and with scratches on his face. Kane has never been able to account for the marks.  Scott also told me that he telephoned the police on several occasions thereafter regarding the case and Kane's possible involvement.

It seems that the police were slow to react to this information and initially failed to trace Kane. They did however manage to secure CCTV footage from a shop some distance away from the crime-scene which showed Kane making a purchase. It seems that this evidence was enough to satisfy the police that Kane was nowhere near the crime-scene when the murder occurred.

Crown Advocate, John Beckett, later told the appeal judges scrapings from Jodi's fingernails had been examined by forensic scientists and the only DNA match was Jodi's herself.

Evening News article
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:07:PM by John »

Janet

  • Guest
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:13:PM by Janet »

John

  • Guest
Absolutely no problem, if you want to find out any other information on any of the players involved just ask as I have a comprehensive database at my disposal.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:12:PM by John »

Janet

  • Guest
Thanks John

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • 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
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more

thae pathologists said she put up a fight.


fought for her life thats what they said.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 04:21:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
Thanks for clearing this matter up John.

It is odd that since Jodi allegedly put up a fight that the only DNA under her nails is her own. Saying that she could have been over powered quite quickly and also may have been trying to protect herself which would have got her injuries too the poor love.

I edited to add more

thae pathologists said she put up a fight.


fought for her life thats what they said.

no one is disputing that fact nugnug. She just could not have scratched anyone since the only DNA under her nails was her own.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • 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
true were ever mark kane got those scratches it wasn't from her.

Janet

  • Guest
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?

Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?


John

  • Guest
I have read on the main Luke Mitchell forum Wrongly Accused Person, that there is an accusation going around that someone in the Jones family assaulted his mother and stabbed her accidently. And that he had been charged?

Where does this accusation come from?
Where is the proof of this?
If there is no proof then why is this being said?

This relates to a comment made by an anonymous poster on the Daily Record site that Judy's son Joseph apparently stabbed her.  As usual there is no proof of any of this...so much for WAP being a credible forum then.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • 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
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.

Janet

  • Guest
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.

Do you have any evidence it is actually true?
And if not why is it allowed to be on your forum, being discussed as if it is?

As John says there is meant to be a no proof no print policy on wrongly accused person site but that does not seem to be true.


Janet

  • Guest
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 04:03:PM by Janet »

John

  • Guest
This Sandra Lean you mention nugnug, is that the same Sandra Lean who advocates for Luke Mitchell after originally admitting that she thought he was guilty? 

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16846
    • 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
well if its not credible no doubt the family will sue.

if theirs absolutely no evidence its true that is.


That statement is actually disgusting. It sounds like anything about the Jones family will be said and if they do not sue then you are taking it as proof.

This poor family have suffered enough

no its statement of fact if they sued a lot of things would be cleared up once and for all.