The Appeal Decision
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.htmlApplying these principles the court is satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in law upon which a verdict of guilty could be returned.
John Lamberton - Given this, I consider that it is about time the whole issue of evidence was looked at by the Scottish Government because if you are going to convict people on the basis of fleeting glances, flimsy circumstantial evidence and gossip then I foresee no hope for Scotland in the modern world. In a nutshell, this verdict and the many others which are based on the same logic are a disgrace to humanity.
An important element in the Crown case was the evidence of Mrs Andrina Bryson who testified to seeing a male and a female at the Easthouses end of the Roan's Dyke Path at about 1650-55 on 30 June 2003.
John Lamberton - This is the evidence that holds the key to the conviction and their Lordship's chose to uphold it. Bryson did not know Luke so a positive identification is impossible. Given that another suspect looks exactly like Luke, I find the whole thing incredible that such a testimony could carry such weight.
If the jury accepted these identifications - as, having regard to the whole evidence bearing on them, they might reasonably do - there was ample evidence otherwise to allow them reasonably to conclude that Jodi's killer was the appellant.
John Lamberton - So now we have the huge leap from being seen with someone to having murderer them! You couldn't make it up if you tried!! WHAT AMPLE EVIDENCE EXACTLY...NO DNA, NO BLOOD, NO SEMEN, NO FIBRES....NO NOTHING!
It is the usual old get-out clause by their Lordship's....."That was a matter for the jury..." Maybe if the jury had been properly directed in the first place....QED!
I would also like to know that if their Lordship's are so sure of Bryson's evidence that Luke was with Jodi at Easthouses at 4.50pm to 4.55pm, then how come a 'mystery man' was observed following Jodi to the path by two other witnesses on Easthouses Road. They cannot both be correct and I would have thought two witnesses were better than one? It seems that the Judge chose which evidence to believe and directed or failed to direct the jury accordingly.
I would also like to know why Luke was interviewed on 14 August 2003 being some 45 days after the murder? If Luke really was a suspect he should have been interviewed at the time of the murder, not 7 weeks later. The method's employed by the police are to be deplore in relation to the manner in which the interview was actually conducted. Anyone know the cops names?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 12:59:09 PM by John Lamberton »