Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723104 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Janet

  • Guest
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/1400-facing-DNA-tests-in.2442706.jp

this article would tend to prove dobbies claims that the dna transferred by innocently to be a lie.

Thought the media only printed rubbish? Or is it only rubbish when it does not suit your theories?

Did you take a note of the date that article was published? Published Date: 10 July 2003 So 8 years have passed since that article so I would say it proves nothing.

What about the blonde woman. Did she ever come forward?

Quote
DI Martin said they are keen to trace the distinctive young blonde as she may have vital information.

He said: "That pavement along Easthouses Road is the way Jodi would have walked to get to the start of the Roman Dyke path.

"The young woman was walking along that pavement a few minutes after 5pm which is not long after Jodi left home. This woman may have passed Jodi on the pavement, seen her along the route or even seen someone else acting suspiciously.

"As Easthouses Road is a residential area and she was pushing a pushchair this could mean she lives in the local area, possibly somewhere in Easthouses itself.

it proves the police wre lying when they said the dna transfered innocently as was the prosecutor.

how does it?

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 why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident

Janet

  • Guest
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident
again I point you to the date of the article. It was also very early on in the investigation. You cannot possibly know who was tested or not.

Janet

  • Guest
well why would they be planning to DNA test the whole area for DNA that they claim got there by accident


You are twisting words here. They did not say they were planning to dna the whole area. What they said was
Quote
DETECTIVES investigating the murder of schoolgirl Jodi Jones are considering DNA testing up to 1400 men living near where she was killed.

and this statement too
"DNA testing is an option open to us and we may consider it in the future.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 06:26:PM by Janet »

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 why would the considering that if the dident think the dna had anything to do with the murder.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 06:54:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.

because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"

One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 06:52:PM by Janet »

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
well why would the considering that if the dident the dna had anything to do with the murder.

because it was the start of a massive enquiry and like you have said on other occasions, "they always say things like that"

One reason why they might say it is to see if someone will confess.


Why would it be the start of a massive enquiry? Oh because there was lots of DNA from different men that could not be accounted for in a credible way..? So either there is a credible case for sex abuse going on in Jodi's life pre murder or there was a sexual element involved in the murder. One or the other...such large amounts of various males semen is not normal for a 14 year old girl and needs answering.  It is credible that if indeed Jodi was being sexually abused (Not a pleasant thought) then one or more or those involved fearing possible exposure could have a motive to shut her up permanently to save their own skins.

Cant see how announcing plans to possibly conduct local dna testing would really put a person into a position in which may tempt them to confess. That's cloud cuckoo land thinking to claim it would.


thanx for all the smites john... ..it just shows how much you despise my honesty and integrity and it cheers me that I attract your hostility .
 :)
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 10:47:AM by smiffy »

Janet

  • Guest


I will rephrase,it was ten days into what would become a massive enquiry.

So where is this large amount of semen?

Are you trying tell us that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence?
 I do not believe it.
I do not believe that because this was such a vicious murder of a young girl and such a high profile case, were they would be looking for all the clues they could get.

You have no proof that Jodi was sexually abused before she was murdered or while she was being murdered. 

All you offer is theory, supposition and speculation.




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
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.

the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.

Janet

  • Guest
no we are saying the police ignored as happens in many cases.

the sperm and the rest of the dna had to get there by some means it dident get there by magick.

Okay I get that the police fit people up sometimes but you are asking us to believe that the police, the prosecutors, defence QC's, lawyers and the pathologists and any other person doing testing on Jodi totally ignored all this sperm and evidence?  Too many people for a cover up in my eyes. I just cannot believe everyone involved in this case is guilty of ignoring evidence.

Where is the proof of this large amount of semen and other DNA?


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
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.

at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.

the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 02:27:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
the pathologists have nothing to do with it they don't make the decisions.

at least one of those patholigists thinks luke mitchells innocent says a lot.

the prosecution ignores all evidence that dosent suit its case.

What do you mean the pathologists have nothing to do with it? They are doing the testing, of course they are something to do with it, they have the results to give to the police and courts.

Pathologists gave evidence in court. No mention of all this DNA at trial.

What pathologist has come out and said he thinks Luke Mitchell is innocent?

Even the prosecution would not ignore all this semen if it existed.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 02:47:PM by Janet »

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
the prosecution are only interested in getting a conviction against the person in the dock.

the pathologists only answer the questions there asked.

why would the police be talking about dna testing people if there wasn't any dna to test.

prof bushiati  i hope i have spelt his name right has exspresiod doubts about the conviction many times.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 03:00:PM by nugnug »

Janet

  • Guest
Quote
Professor Anthony Busuttil carried out the post mortem. He found that the deceased had suffered a prolonged assault with extensive blunt force injury and that a stout, sharp pointed bladed weapon had been used against her several times before and after death. A series of incised wounds across her neck had cut through the neck muscles, windpipe, jugular vein and carotid artery. The latter injury would have caused unconsciousness within seconds and death within two minutes. It was the cause of death. There had been between 12 and 20 cuts to the neck. Extensive injuries to the face, chin, neck and head were consistent with punches, kicks or blows with a blunt weapon. One was severe enough to produce a contusion on the brain. There were signs of mechanical asphyxia possibly involving the use of clothing as a ligature. There were penetrating injuries to the forehead and tonsils, the latter caused by the introduction of a sharp object into the mouth. There was a deep cut to the face. Cutting injuries around the eyes, and deep cuts to the breast, arm and abdomen, had been inflicted after death. Extensive bruising and cuts to the hands and arms indicated that the deceased had tried to defend herself. There were no signs of a sexual assault. Professor Busuttil said that he had been involved in many homicide cases and had not come across mutilation as extensive as this, or had done so only infrequently. Mutilation was quite uncommon, especially where there was no sexual element in the attack.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC10.html
Quote
Professor Busuttil gave evidence that a reddish hair bobble, or "scrunch", was situated at the back of the deceased's head, but was not easily visible among her hair which was largely uncontained by it.

Which according to things I have read, Luke Mitchell said he saw the night the body was found yet the pathologist said it was not easily visible.

Quote
There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse.


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html

Quote
Meanwhile, the other man had provided an innocent explanation about the condom.

"Both gentlemen gave samples to the police and DNA profiles were obtained which were compared to crime-scene samples, and there is no match whatsoever," he told the court.

http://news.scotsman.com/jodijonesmurder/Mitchell-faces--DNA-setback.3714068.jp

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 of course he saw the body they all saw the body when the dog found it.

it would depend  on what you consider an innocent explanation as far as the condoms concerned.
why did he not come forward for 3 years if he had an innocent explanation.

the good professor said that luke Mitchell could not have comited the murder without wearing a forensic suit.

and by all  accounts luke Mitchel did not have one.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 04:23:PM by nugnug »