Author Topic: Re: The murder of Jodi Jones  (Read 18625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8958
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2355 on: November 01, 2019, 10:58:AM »
What is  disturbing is the (cough) coincidence of this new jacket being a parka with a German badge on

This is the "replacement" that the police never took in the first place. Am I correct?


Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2356 on: November 01, 2019, 11:13:AM »
This is the "replacement" that the police never took in the first place. Am I correct?



This is the one purchased in the August.
Of the same type that was shown to be worn prior to 30th June 2003. That was never recovered.
One is which a school teacher gave evidence, that he saw Luke wearing it prior to the Murder.
This school teacher was most definitely not influenced by media reports such as above.
The teacher had left his role at the school at the time of the Murder. He remembered the Parka distinctively as Luke reminded
him of a Monk - when he had the hood pulled up over his head. There was evidence heard from others also of the parka. One
that was also used to show clearly of use, prior to this murder was from a guy in a shop. The time/date of this shop was prior to June 30th.
He remembered the jacket clearly as his mother wore the exact same, this is why it stood out for him.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2357 on: November 01, 2019, 11:35:PM »
Parky, when was the theory of the parka first introduced?

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2358 on: November 02, 2019, 07:38:AM »
Is this the same guy who admitted, on the stand, that he remembered the parka "because of the murder and everything" - i.e. it was after the murder he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka?

Marty, the Parka theory didn't come into existence until after August 14th 2003. On that date, the police were adamantly telling Luke that they had dozens of witnesses claiming to have seen Luke in a German army shirt - no jacket. I wonder what happened to them?

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2359 on: November 02, 2019, 12:00:PM »
After being in the media wearing it?

Offline WakeyWakey

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2360 on: November 02, 2019, 01:44:PM »
wear has she posted that

i havent seen it

as far as i know the source for borrowing her sisters clothes are jodis aunts.

From police interview heard at trial, luke said
Quote
She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.
[/b]

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2361 on: November 02, 2019, 03:05:PM »
Parky, when was the theory of the parka first introduced?

I'm not going to take some silly reasoning behind there being no jacket in the first place, for it to go missing.
That an army shirt transformed itself into a parka - of the police realising they had a shirt therefore changed their search to a jacket.
Nor that it was only by the pictures of him appearing in the paper - that memories were distorted to the extreme.
That the teacher was simply mistaken, that the male from the shop imagined it or of any other witnesses.
This was a long trial, the prosecution certainly chose the two above - for the very reason of the sightings being prior to the 30th of June.
Of an age, prior to camera phones - of not knowing how long he had this jacket for, to appear in any family holiday snaps with it on.
That of the emphasis put on this jacket by CM in the podcast - of Luke hating jackets, of how difficult it was to get him to wear one,
of her surprise in not only wanting to purchase a jacket, but a parka jacket at that.
This laddie clearly had many jackets, the parka, the blouson and the two or three on the back of his bedroom door.

So this, attempt by the defence to cause doubt on, when the sighting in the shop was - i.e. it was before the murder, he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka.
Was of course no doubt, swiftly clarified by the prosecution. You can of course add anything to "because of the murder and everything". When the rest of
the information is missing.

Quote
Is this the same guy who admitted, on the stand, that he remembered the parka "because of the murder and everything" - i.e. it was after the murder he saw Luke in the shop wearing the Parka?

We have of course witnessed time and time again - these particles of full statements, being used to, to often add weight to air. The remaining % of those statements are what
clearly show - why Luke was suspected and convicted of this crime.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2362 on: November 02, 2019, 03:20:PM »
The police of course, were sure of one thing - that an item of clothing, khaki in colour with a German army badge was missing.
They in turn of course would be receiving information from many sources, about a shirt and of a jacket.
I pointed out in my previous post about there being no camera phones, of not knowing how long Luke may have had this jacket.
And of course, it was summer - heavier outer wear clearly being used that day though, it was cooler, wet and dreek.
It was by some miracle of good fortune that Ms Mitchell, enjoyed summer sunshine, whilst eating her prawns  outside.
Luke was clearly wearing a heavier jacket, Jodi a heavier, hooded sweat top.
It being summer of course, he could perhaps have just gotten the jacket at the tail end of winter, worn it on only few occasions.
Enough occasions though, for some people to remember seeing him, wearing it. That is what counts.
Enough occasions though, for the police to know that it had disappeared. Also what counts.
And of course the sightings that day by witnesses, F&W's obviously clear enough in it being a parka, so much so Ms Lean introduces
MK into the equation - of it possibly being him, wearing his parka that F&W saw.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2363 on: November 03, 2019, 07:49:AM »
The police, of course, were sure of nothing - that's why they had to build a circumstantial case!

They were "sure" a green ski mask was a black balaclava. They were "sure" a knife used for opening boxes had "disappeared" until it was pointed out to them that they had photos of it ... so they must have it.

By August 14th they had reports of jackets - a shiny green bomber jacket with orange lining, a "fishing style jacket" with matching trousers and a dark coloured jacket, maybe green, could have been a Parka "but I only say that because of the length."

The day wasn't "cooler, wet and dreich" - it was a day of changeable weather, warm and sunny in the early evening with a couple of sudden downpours - I was sitting outside on the deck reading a book after dinner when, all of a sudden, it started to rain. No miracles required, just typical Scottish weather.

Speculation about when he "might have got the jacket" is just that - speculation, with no evidence to support it. Of those who "remembered" Luke in a Parka, how many had not seen the media coverage of him in a Parka? The influence of such high profile coverage, for such a prolonged time, on recall cannot be ignored.

If the police "knew it had disappeared," why did it take them 9 months to start looking for it? They'd already raided Luke's house twice by then and had a liaison officer in place for six weeks over July and August. What took them so long?

F & W's sighting wasn't clear at all (see above) - that is the only reference, in the early statements from both of them, to a Parka - and all it says is, "it could have been."

I didn't introduce MK into the equation - he introduced himself, telling a friend he'd been spoken to by the police because he was "running on the Newbattle Road that night," when he hadn't spoken to the police at all. (This was before anyone had even heard of SF). However, his ownership of a Parka prior to the murder isn't in question so, yes, if it "could have been" a Parka that F & W saw and MK was on the Newbattle Road that evening, it equally "could have been" MK that they saw.  Hardly solid evidence of anything and that's my point. None of the "evidence" in this case stands up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Could have been MK, could have been Luke, the girl "could have been Jodi", could have been 5 o'clock or 5.30 or 4.50, could have been 4.39 - 4.54 or an hour later, could have taken this route or that route back from the supermarket, could have been a blue hoodie with lighter blue bootcut jeans, could have left at 6 o'clock or 5.40 to go to Costco ... proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Nowhere near it.


Offline Lithium

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2364 on: November 03, 2019, 12:09:PM »
The police, of course, were sure of nothing - that's why they had to build a circumstantial case!

They were "sure" a green ski mask was a black balaclava.

 ::) Ski masks and balaclavas are the same thing...

Offline Lithium

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2365 on: November 03, 2019, 12:11:PM »
However, (MK's) ownership of a Parka prior to the murder isn't in question

I like how you pick and choose. There's more witnesses to Luke owning a parka prior to the murder than there is of MK owning one.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2019, 12:11:PM by Lithium »

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2366 on: November 03, 2019, 12:18:PM »
Well, if Ms Lean, now, was sitting outside enjoying this sunny warm day. Case closed, for some. Proves beyond reasonable doubt that this
selective rain, happened only, on the other sides of 5.25pm.
Can't have been though, as we know it must have been dry in Newbattle for most of the evening?
Ms Mitchell was not just out eating dinner, she was still out just prior to 7pm.
We know this as Luke told her she was - "has Jodi been to the house" -"no Luke" - "how do you know mum, you're in  the garden" -
"don't be silly Luke, Mia would let me know" ---------- "well if she does turn up, we're in the Abbey, she'll know where"
Yes, again here, that little insert of Jodi managing to sneak passed him to do so - and of the confusion of meeting in the Abbey with the boys.

Perhaps Ms Mitchell was keeping warm by the fire or stoking it?
Certainly a lack of flames - yet plenty of smoke it would appear, which of course happens, when trying to burn stuff in the rain.
No that would be rather silly - Ms Mitchell was still enjoying the sunshine, there was no rain in Newbattle?

I wonder why Luke was wearing a jacket, after all he hated wearing them.
I wonder why Jodi was wearing a heavy, hooded sweat top.
I wonder why MK, was not only out running yet with a parka jacket on to boot.
I wonder why her indoors was wasting electric - drying the holiday clothes when they could have been out to dry.
I wonder why the 'stocky' man was also wearing heavier outer clothing.


Most of all, I wonder why investigations take place at all.
Wouldn't life be simpler - if the police took a leaf out of Ms Leans book (pardon the pun)
And simply went on the very first account given by all - in relation to crime.

Perhaps that's what saw to Luke's downfall in the first place.
We hear of this 14yr old laddie - the disbelief in carrying out this heinous murder.

Of the police believing they could out smarten Luke - "they did not bank on Luke being Luke though, did they"
Perhaps Luke simply believed, that he could out smarten the police.
What Luke did not perhaps bank on was - the police being the police though.


That this rather neat set of affairs - would be deciphered and pulled apart.
That the most simplest things amongst this - would show the most flaws.
That an alibi and a partially trained dog - were so far removed, they led to his demise.

It matters not, those cries of 'beyond reasonable doubt' he was convicted by the evidence he himself gave.
So heavily weighted in flaws - he gave the police no choice, but to pursue him.
They simply went on the evidence before them, evidence they could not ignore.
His alibi fell apart for many reasons - those reasons given directly from the three involved.
It was from himself that suspicion fell upon him - backed up by evidence from others.
Not the other way around. IMO of course and that of the majority.

Offline Parky41

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2367 on: November 07, 2019, 07:13:PM »
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.

Examples -  I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!

How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.

Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.

Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.


Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.

What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8958
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2368 on: November 07, 2019, 07:25:PM »
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.

Examples -  I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!

How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.

Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.

Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.


Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.

What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -

I am not listening to the podcasts BTW.  Am I missing anything?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 07:26:PM by David1819 »

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15527
    • 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
Re: The murder of Jodi Jones
« Reply #2369 on: November 07, 2019, 07:29:PM »
The podcast with CM is the same mismatch of nonsensical information - all over the place.
Can't remember key elements of information and adds arms and legs to most other areas.
The clear emphasis that is pushed out - is blatantly false.

Examples -  I'm not going to use " in all of this.
Has Jodi been to the house, no Luke - how would you know, you're in the back garden
Don't be silly Luke Mia would alert me.
See our house you have the lounge, goes through into the kitchen then out back.
I could be burgled and I wouldn't have a clue, I mean literally not a clue.
If anyone came to the door then Mia would alert me - but not if being burgled?!

How long was Luke seeing Jodi - erm em about 5months I think.
What time was Jodi discovered - erm em was late about 11 I think.

Luke hated Jackets you could not get him to wear one.
You could buy him jackets but he would not wear them.
Mum I like that parka jacket, why Luke its July you don't wear jackets.
Aye mum but it will be winter, aye Luke but you don't wear jackets.
Mum its in a sale.
Ping -see that word sale to a mum you just have to buy then.
But that FLO was a nasty piece of work, every time she opened her mouth
she just lied.
She took the receipt and they knew we bought this jacket after the murder.
Luke clearly wore Jackets - why the need to say otherwise.

Luke left the house he was behind a German shepherd, if you know anything about them
then you will know how fast they go. Luke was a fit young laddie, combine the two, a fit young laddie
behind a fast, very fast German Shepherd.
You see from out house to the top of the path Is a fair distance, from Mayfield it is further.
The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield, lots of emphasis here, they had to
travel much further than Luke - how the hell where they at the top of this path when he got there.


Now the actual truth here is - that this search trio came from the bottom of Mayfield, Ms Lean I believe stays at the top
end of Mayfield, a good ten minutes walk perhaps between Waverley Street to where she stays.
Ms Mitchells business is in the bottom end of Mayfield, next to the housing scheme where this gran stays.
Again this need to try and add weight to air - As was this, having to DIRECTLY walk passed YW's house.

What is clear is this arrangement to meet in Easthouse's to organise a search.
What is becoming clearer - is that Luke should simply have been at Judith's prior to the search trio
reaching Easthouse's - he remained on this path, therefore bringing the search trio to him.
It was Luke who first thought to search this path, it was Luke who instantly offered to use his dog.
It was Luke who made it clear that he had only looked on the path itself.
It was Luke only who took the notion to look over this wall.
It was Luke who stated he had not been in the woodland before.
It was Luke who stated he knew not of this V.
It therefore was not the search trio who initiated this search around this path - It was simply Luke.
We can see clearly now why the gran wanted to search properly -
As with seeing her granddaughter - she needed to check this 'something'
To look properly - aided of course with Luke's added offer of using his dog, of asking for something of Jodi's -

from the podcast i font rember cm saying anythin of the sort.