Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 311794 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
C’mon now you wee discussing it with that other guy, I think it was even you who posted the picture and then agreed with him about his analysing

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14414
    • 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
Really? I thought you were more interested in circumstantial "evidence" against others, lie detector tests, mobile phone sims, random unrelated students and other such straws to clutch at.

Luckily for Luke the police let the rain wash vital forensic evidence away overnight.

no the forensic evdence tht shows the killer would of been marked and luke was complely unmarked.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Will you upload the Sky interview?

I would if I could, but I don't have access to it.

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
no the forensic evdence tht shows the killer would of been marked and luke was complely unmarked.

Disagree.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14414
    • 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
Disagree.

ok its only the word of the pahtolgist who examend the body.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 04:54:PM by nugnug »

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Pathologist didn't say there would be marks on the attacker.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
He didn’t say there wouldn’t be either, that’s why were discussing it.

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
wow...

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14414
    • 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
he probely thought he dident need to say it.

seeing as its more less the only logicall conclusion.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
wow...

You can do better than that mate it’s a boring Sunday evening give me some more of your Feng Shui type evidence , I could do with a laugh

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Pathologist didn't say there would be marks on the attacker.

OK, so why do you think SIO Dobbie instructed his team to have Luke checked for bruises, scratches, fresh marks on his body that might connect him to the attack on Jodi?

Could it be that they thought there would be evidence of that nature that could be run by experts for their interpretation of what those connections might be? What might the pathologist have been asked to conclude, in his professional opinion, if any such bruises, scratches or marks had been found?

Why do you think they took samples from under Jodi's fingernails? Could it be that they believed there would be evidence that she had scratched her attacker, or grabbed onto items of his clothing that may have left fibres there? Shame the police botched that as well - no results could be obtained from under Jodi's fingernails because they used the wrong techniques.

For what it's worth, it wouldn't have been the pathologist's job to comment on whether the attacker would have had marks on him unless evidence from the post mortem had suggested that (and the botching of the police gathering of evidence had made that impossible).

His comments in the documentary are (just like his evidence in court) dependent on the questions asked of him. He wasn't asked, directly, if he thought the attacker would have marks on him as a result of the tremendous struggle he testified Jodi put up during the attack. What we're left with is working out a reasonable assumption of what he would have said, had he been asked directly.

There's a clue to the possible answer. He wasn't asked, directly, in court, about the likelihood of the attacker having traces of Jodi's blood on him. He was asked directly in the Frontline documentary and his answer was unequivocal - "very likely". He wasn't asked in court what measures the attacker would have had to take to avoid becoming contaminated with forensic evidence from the murder. He was asked, directly, in the Frontline documentary, and his answer was unequivocal - "ensuring that his body and clothing did not come into direct contact with the deceased."

Just because he didn't say something in court or in the documentary doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it, had he been asked!


Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176

Just because he didn't say something in court or in the documentary doesn't mean he wouldn't have said it, had he been asked!

So this means we should work on the assumption that he did say it?

No thanks.

And you really don't think scraping the victim's fingernails is a given?



How does

"They checked the victim's fingernails to see if there was"

get twisted into

"They checked the victim's fingernails, so they must have known..."

Behave Sandra.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 09:39:PM by Lithium »

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
There must be marks on the attacker, because the pathologist didn't say there wouldn't be.


Is this what is has come to?

brb gonna delete my posts again and remove myself from this ridiculousness.

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
You can do better than that mate it’s a boring Sunday evening give me some more of your Feng Shui type evidence , I could do with a laugh

The only laughable thing is your theory on who done it.

Why don't you share with us all.

Online Lithium

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
The big hard man from Hamilton who wanted to meet me at a petrol station a few years ago is now laid back and chilled out on here for a laugh. Nae bother