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

[Neil]

majority and in scotland it only takes a simple majority to convict

From my understanding that could mean it was a majority of 8 to 7.  Do you know what the split was?

[nugnug]

i heard that it was 9/6 but i canot confirm that.

[Neil]

i heard that it was 9/6 but i canot confirm that.

Thanks nugnug

[nugnug]

It is strange that the police put more emphasis on the Bryson sighting and used it as a central point to the whole case,then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.
Its  is terrible to think that not all people could be that honest, then again they never wanted to be in the position where they had to somehow corroborate their stories infront of a jury. I must admit it fails me to think why anyone who had seen something possibly as vital to such  a terrible crime would not want to come forward to begin with.

what has not been mentioned is the bryson links to the family she was not an independant witness.

the fact they put so much emphises on that sighting proves that they dident take the flemming and walsh sighting seriously.

[gordo30]

well she dident say it wasnt him she stated she dident know so therefore it is not a postive id.

and flemming and walsh desecribed someone with shoulder lentgh hair any who takss a look at luke can see he did not have shoulder lenth hair at the time.

Nugnug AB was asked for a dock identification and as a result she did not identify Luke Mitchel as the person she had seen standing in the dock, It can only be taken In one way and that was that he was not the person she had seen.
This was after more than a year of Luke being pictured in the press for the most part of that year and the fact that she was at the trial of the person who was up for the murder of Jodi jones. She knew who he was no matter what but declined to identify him, how else would you interpret that?

[nugnug]

well you could only interpret that she knew it wasnt him she saw.

[nugnug]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMurder_of_Jodi_Jones&ei=ttoqULfXMaHE0QX0-oCICQ&usg=AFQjCNG3xMBlhx5xDHcL0P17OGfUPegwxA

[nugnug]

Nugnug AB was asked for a dock identification and as a result she did not identify Luke Mitchel as the person she had seen standing in the dock, It can only be taken In one way and that was that he was not the person she had seen.
This was after more than a year of Luke being pictured in the press for the most part of that year and the fact that she was at the trial of the person who was up for the murder of Jodi jones. She knew who he was no matter what but declined to identify him, how else would you interpret that?

well yes and dispite all that there was not what one cerdible eye witness.

bye credible i mean one that could get his age and appearance right witch Flemming and walsh could not.

[nugnug]

 

No. Not at all.


I didn't say 'gate' - the word 'gate' was in a quote. I'm pretty sure you said no formal I.D was ever though - yet...the quote says they identified Luke in court.

I don't mean to be rude, Gordo - but you must be family (or close to it) as the lies and deception you try to impound on the case seems strikingly familiar. 

not that its any of your business anyway but gordos identy is well knbown he has never hidden it.

[guest154]

not that its any of your business anyway but gordos identy is well knbown he has never hidden it.

Well not to me. Which is why I was saying I don't know who he is. 

[FreeWillieGage]

then again she quite eloquently stated that the boy they had in court was not the one she had seen.

you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder



here's luke in court at his trial



he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

[guest154]

you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder



here's luke in court at his trial



he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

Don't worry, FreeWillieGage, I'm aware of the deceptive nature of the postings and the information in this case. Which is why I stopped trying to debate it here.

[nugnug]

you lot really need to stop clinging on to that

here is luke on the night of the murder



here's luke in court at his trial



he looked completely different so it isn't in your favour saying she never pointed him out in court

she picked his mugshot out at the time of the murder and she was basing that off a fresh memory,  ofcourse he looked different a year later at the trial with much longer hair.

the fact is she could not pick him out.

there was no postive id the police dident do a line up as they should of done.

a mugshot is not how you pick people out a line up is and the police did not do a line up as the proper procedure.

now i am only speculating but i think they did not do a line up because they knew she would not be able to pick him out i cant see any other reason for not doing one.

[nugnug]

Don't worry, FreeWillieGage, I'm aware of the deceptive nature of the postings and the information in this case. Which is why I stopped trying to debate it here.

its not deception its different opinion.

why do you keep accusing people of being deceptive just because they dont agree with you.

by the way mat what do you think about the dna evedence.

[guest154]

its not deception its different opinion.

why do you keep accusing people of being deceptive just because they dont agree with you.

by the way mat what do you think about the dna evedence.

It's not that they disagree with me that I find some of the wording deceptive.
You'll have to give me time to look at the DNA evidence Nugnug, I haven't read/heard about it.