Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 723092 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Please explain Curious?
Well, if you're in the 'Luke is innocent' camp (tiny) that may seem to be 'nice' or whatever but if you're in the 'Guilty / Don't know' camps it would come across as crass, insensitive, vile, (choose your own adjectives), depending on your perspective. The press would jump all over it.

John Lamberton replied….Great! lets have the press jump all over it...publicity is what makes the world go round.

The fact is they loved each other, no-one can change that. Not even the twisted biggots who will do anything to destroy the memory of the relationship they had. Lets have a photo and get it out there instead of the primary school photos of Jodi and the emerging from the prison van photos of Luke.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - So you would rather Luke spend the next 14+ years in s***-hole Shotts as an alternative to upsetting a few prunes??

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - Something I was just thinking about, the events immediately after the police arrived on the scene. A policeman asked Luke to show them the body (wrong thing to do), they then left the scene completely unattended (wrong thing to do).

Now, anyone with the slightest bit of wit would realise that Luke's reaction at being asked to go to the body was consistent with being traumatised. Not the reaction you would get from someone who had casually killed his girlfriend some hours earlier.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:47:46 PM by John Lamberton »

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said ...are you trying to say the police weren't a bunch of incompetentos because from what I can see they were?? They have failed to pursue definite lines of enquiry wrt suspects while other suspects have not been identified for several years and then only by chance. Did they not think to ask the local males to voluntarily donate samples for DNA analysis or would that have impinged their human rights??

I am sure every innocent male would have been too glad TO BE SEEN to have cooperated...then by deduction...it isn't rocket science!!
« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 04:17:42 PM by John Lamberton »

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - The problem with the so-called defence in the UK is that they do not do any investigating. It is all down to hard cash and the Legal Aid Board's limited budget. However, when it comes to resources the Crown Office has unlimited cash to go all over the country if need be and to engage the best of experts from wherever. How can one possibly offer a defence when the most basics of defence rely on a proper investigation.

Today, solicitors spend their time running between their office, the prisons and the courts. Seldom do they actually go out and ask questions or take statements from anyone, let alone actually do a bit of investigating and digging. When statements are needed what do they do?...they lift the phone and cold call the person involved. Little wonder therefore that such statements are devoid of anything useful. They then turn up at the prison and give you this sob story about the statement being unhelpful...soul destroying really! If you are lucky, they might even send out a precognition agent. What he or she is, is a glorified clerk who goes out and calls with the person concerned and again attempts to get them to spill the beans to them! What they come back with is inevitably a total waste of time.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
the dairy entry's are disturbing but we may be reading to much into them. jodi could of meant anyone of 1000 things by what she wrote it would be dangerous to jump to conclusions.

John Lamberton replies - I agree, the poor girl had much c**p going on in her life and Luke was the one thing that created some stability. She would have been horrified that he is being persecuted and in her name!

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - That's the way they work, trick and manipulation of witnesses. By the time the poor sod get to court they are beginning to doubt themselves too!

I believe in statements taken shortly after the event regardless of what is later said.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
The Appeal Decision

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


Applying 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 »

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - I read a comment earlier today and feel that it is worth a few questions.

Now most of you here know who the protagonists are in this affair. Specifically, we have all heard who was seen in and around the locus that day and others have been identified using DNA profiling.

We have 2 people on a scooter parked at the locus.
We have another who passed (he says) on a bicycle.
We have another's freshly filled condom putting him at the locus.

We have 10 DNA profiles and other semen samples allegedly unaccounted for.

I would like to know if any of the above:-

1. Provided samples for DNA analysis

2. Were ever properly interviewed in the same way that Luke was interrogated?


Why did Ferris skip town? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article394722.ece
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 09:00:06 PM by John Lamberton »

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
John Lamberton once said - This is simply cloud cuckoo-land!

According to the appeal decision, Luke had 50 minutes to walk with Jodi from Easthouses Road (where Bryson thought she saw him), transit Roan's Dyke Path to the locus of the murder scene, murder Jodi, mutilate the corpse, head off somewhere to clean and change clothes and have time to return to Newbattle Road and sit on the wall where he was seen by 3 lads on bikes and 2 other females. ARE THESE PEOPLE FOR REAL??

This leads me onto another question...

1. What was Luke wearing when he left home after tea that evening, before he was supposed to have committed murder? Does this tie in with what Bryson described him wearing when she supposedly saw him at Easthouses?

2. What was he wearing later when he met the two Dave's at the Abbey?

I feel this is utmost important because he couldn't have committed murder in the way it was done without contamination. If he wore the same clothes on both occasions there is no possible way he could have committed this murder unless he wore a protective suit over the top of his clothing.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
I could go on, but dont want to fill the forum with numerous posts of what he once said.  My point being he will do and say what he can to hurt, anger, provoke, regardless of what he has said in the past.

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
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »

is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
I have never come across any explanation at all for why the family did not supply a recent photograph of Jodi. The video footage (phone/webcam??) that was used to produce an image came from one of Jodi's friends.
I personally can only draw negative inferences from such a situation in regards to Jodi's immediate family.

John Lamberton replied…..This issue is rather suspicious. Not only did the Jones family supply childish photo's but the so-called professional police service and the press chose to use them. Now we all know why the press chose to use such but the police ??

That is true Hazel but surely there was a school photo or something taken at the age of 13 or 14 ??
It does rather make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos!!

« Last Edit: May 15, 2010, 03:42:32 PM by John Lamberton »

is rather strange the family did not provide such photos as there were plenty of the said photos about as has been demonstrated.

I agree with Lamberton that it does make the police look like a bunch of incompetentos.  It could be that the police asked the family for a picture, but didnt explain what is was to be used for and in their shocked state, a member of the family gave the first one to hand.  The police failed big time to get a more recent photograph at the start of their investigations, what did they hope to accomplish by using a photograph of a 6 year old girl, when Jodi was 14 years of age.

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 yes it does.