The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[gordo30]

Yet  Luke said he took 6 steps to the left and saw feet, and after another step recognised it as Jodi's body.



Jodi left to meet Luke at 4:50pm and told her mum they'd be 'mucking about' in the area.
Luke lived 15 minutes away at the other side of the path Jodi was murdered on.
Mitchell and a girl matching Jodi's description were identified at Jodi's side of the path approx 4:55pm.

Luke phoned the Jones household looking for her. He was setting his defense already, he knew she was dead.

He claims he was at home making and eating dinner til 17.45, why didn't he meet Jodi? Why didn't Shane see Luke at home when apparently Luke cooked his dinner for him.

Shane said in court that he was viewing porn at 16.53 to 17.15 when his mum came home, he then went downstairs and sat with her, he didn't see Luke even though Corinne claims they were all eating dinner like one big happy family and that she witnessed Luke call Jodi's house at 17.30 and again at 17.40? why were these calls made from his mobile phone, why did a young teenager waste phone credit when he was at home? Shane wasn't online at this time, he was eating dinner with Luke wasn't he? so the landline was free.

 The areas in bold are  blatant inaccuries or you call them lies.

[Neil]

im not sure they could probably track the phone signal.

They can decipher which mast the call went through, therefor they can trace it to a certain area but just how accurately they can pinpoint it, is the question.  Did he make that call from in the house or from half a mile down the road?

[gordo30]

When we talk about the calls from his mobile whether they occur in the house or outside the arguement is the same.

The fact is there are records from Lukes call logs just how many times he had done this over period of months and they were numerous, are you suggesting at these times also he was murdering someone?

The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.

[gordo30]

Neil its as you say there is a mast at both ends in question Easthouses/Newbattle and at the time which mast took up the signal depending on which area they were in . The police failed to get the information on which mast took the signal so the could not pin point the area Luke made any of the calls from.

The area could have been as you say could have been up to miles apart in certain areas of the country but in this area the signal could have been located to a much smaller area if they retrieved this information.

[Neil]

When we talk about the calls from his mobile whether they occur in the house or outside the arguement is the same.

The fact is there are records from Lukes call logs just how many times he had done this over period of months and they were numerous, are you suggesting at these times also he was murdering someone?

The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.

Thanks Gordo,  in that case I don't see the relevance of the phone call.  I thought that it had been brought up in order to prove that he was at home when the call was made.  On the previous occasions that he called the speaking clock, was he calling from home or outside of the house?

[gordo30]

Thats the thing about mobiles Neil there not designed to locate where every call was made from. Well 9 years ago anyway. If Luke had stated and I cant remember if he did that he made numerous phone calls to the speaking clock from the house there was no way to prove it. The fact that he had made a call from the mobile to the speaking clock is what some are calling suspicous and if it had been the 1st time it had happened I would have agreed.
The call to the speaking clock Luke made was at a time that the landline was busy with the internet contrary to what lithium says.

His brother never saw him or heard him at home making these calls though.

I must admit if he had heard him it would make for a great defence of insanity as most people tend not to have conversations with the speaking clock.

[Neil]

Thats the thing about mobiles Neil there not designed to locate where every call was made from. Well 9 years ago anyway. If Luke had stated and I cant remember if he did that he made numerous phone calls to the speaking clock from the house there was no way to prove it. The fact that he had made a call from the mobile to the speaking clock is what some are calling suspicous and if it had been the 1st time it had happened I would have agreed.
The call to the speaking clock Luke made was at a time that the landline was busy with the internet contrary to what lithium says.

His brother never saw him or heard him at home making these calls though.

I must admit if he had heard him it would make for a great defence of insanity as most people tend not to have conversations with the speaking clock.

Thanks Gordo,  I was being a bit thick there!  Yes of course, the prosecution used the phone call to place Luke outside of the house.  I must admit, on the face of it it does look a bit dodgy, him calling the speaking clock from home but like most evidence in this case, it can be explained away.

[gordo30]

There are always strange things people have the habit of doing, there unexplainable and I understand when there taken within the context of a murder investigation then they become serious.

[Neil]

There are always strange things people have the habit of doing, there unexplainable and I understand when there taken within the context of a murder investigation then they become serious.

I quite agree.  A lot is made of Shane's statement and how his account of that day changed.  I think that Sandra explained this really well on here the other day.  What did you do last Monday between 4 and 6?
What were you wearing?  What did you have for tea?  Where was your brother?  Etc etc

[gordo30]

I agree also but I do understand that it might be unusual to not know if someone was in the house except it has happened to me on more than one occasion.

The way shane was grilled in court I personally feel led to a lot of this. Prior to court he was not allowed to change his initial statement although it was his right to do so. He was threatened with perjury if he did.
The method of questioning also led to a false claim I believe and one that became fundamental to the destruction of the alibi.

If we put the alibi in context with the case and I might be way off here as im not too into the legality of things but I believe that it was the defence that made the plea of alibi and incrimination. Its the job of the prosecution to break down the alibi by producing some evidence or witness that can destroy it. This didn't happen then and even now no one has came forward to say they saw Luke out the house during the time of the alibi. The AB sighting is what it is but her lack of identification of him in court whether right or wrong could not be considered as a witness breaking the alibi. She identified him from a picture earlier in the year but its what happens in court that counts.
The prosecution then has only one option and that is to discredit the people who are giving the alibi, this was done fair and square and professionally by the prosecution. They used a lot of things to do this including the porn with Shane and the tattooist with Corrine and both were correct, the defence then dropped the alibi.

This however is nowhere near the end of the trial and the trial then begins to try and prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed Jodi. This again was not achieved as many of that jury found him innocent.

[gordo30]

If he did have a history of using this often, but it was always when he was away from home, then it would be safe to assume he wasnt at home when he used it at this instance. That's what we are getting at by mentioning the talking clock. Not that it's suspicious in its self.

Assuming he used his mobile to call the premium rate number because he wasn't in his house is a very reasonable conclusion to come to no matter how you try and paint it, it's the most obvious explanation, admit it.

I agree with you WOW!! if he did have a history of only using the mobile phone outside of the house then this usage would most likely be outside the house, how ever you can't say that and Luke can't prove that

Assuming he used his mobile to call the premium rate number because he wasn't in his house is a very reasonable conclusion to come to no matter how you try and paint it, it's the most obvious explanation, admit it.

Why should this be the only conclusion? the phone would also have a clock on it as would the house. His need to call the clock is the obvious explanation and that explanation is that he was in the habbit of doing so, where ,why and how were up to him.

[bob]

The reason for Luke doing it has never been given as it was just something he was in the habbit of doing, why? who knows as the phone itself would have a clockon it so like I said from the house or outside is the same arguement.

Perhaps it was his standard behaviour when he needed some kind of alibi for something? Can't see any other reason for calling the speaking clock from a phone that has a clock on it, unless you wanted to prove you were on the phone at a particular time for some reason?

[gordo30]

I agree bob but there were numerous times that he had done this so unless he had planned this for a very long time then he is responsible for a lot of murders.

[gordo30]

What you have to remember is that he called the clock only 4 mins after Jodi had left the house. He couldn't even have been with her or close to her at this time. So what good would it have been at this time. If he was really cute wouldn't he have done it after the murder?

[gordo30]

I think you failing to understand this m8. If Luke had grown a new head and she could not have identified him in court then that is not an identification. Its not me saying this its the law, its what happens during the trial that matters.