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

[guest154]

I suppose we'll have to give Lithium the benefit of the doubt.

  No one will do that.

[Roch]

  No one will do that.

I'm not sure what to say Mat.

[Roch]

Why the negativity? Even if I was someone else, you've got to be the first forum moderator i've ever seen who is against someone joining and contributing to their forum? It's not 1-0 to me because we weren't against each other as far as I knew. I'm no expert but I don't think you can join a forum with the same e-mail twice.

Your email address does look very much like one recently used by a 'new member'.  A lot of our 'new members' tend to be pests.  So I put 2+2 together.  Don't be so wounded.

[nugnug]

now all those hours the body was left out unprotected in the rain i am sure there must have been some dna that washed of.


i dont think a body could lay uncovered in the rain that long without it haveing an effect.

[guest154]

now all those hours the body was left out unprotected in the rain i am sure there must have been some dna that washed of.


i dont think a body could lay uncovered in the rain that long without it haveing an effect.

Well that could answer your own question from earliler as to why none of Luke's DNA was on the body.

[grahameb]

the sperm was actually found on jodis bra not the t shirt.

now how eactly did it get from the t shirt to the bra

pluss as far as i can see very is very liitle evedence to back up the storyt that the t shirt belonged to jodis sister.

Work it out. Would any girl lend a tee shirt to a friend if it were not washed first? Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first? Therefore the dna found on the tee shirt would more than likely lead you to the murderer. Or is my logic not logical?

[guest154]

Or would any girl wear another girls tee shirt without washing it first?

Yes.

[grahameb]

You're telling me tiny traces of sperm would cause a shirt to smell? Semen itself barely has a scent. Are you male or female?

So what are we arguing here for? Luke's guilty or Kelly's innocence? Surely our aim should be to nail the real killer?

[grahameb]

it would smell enough for you not to want to wear if you had a clean one at hand.

i would thik that you wouldent borrow a t shirt from a relative and then put it on before washing it.

now im assumeing jodi had clean t shits to wear why would she pit on the unwashed one did she like it so much she had to wear it that day.

It would more than likely to smell of sweat. Show me a girl who doesn't smell her clothes before she puts them on. Good grief some of the men here are so ignorance of girl's habits. Perhaps they'd better go and swat up on their girl knowledge before coming here and deliberating to pontificately about what this girl would not or would do? Perhaps a little understanding of the female thought processes would help you keep your girlfriends a little longer?

[Suzie]

It wasn't noted to be smelling of sweat.In fact it was noted, recorded in fact as smelling of washing detergent.

[grahameb]

You ever use public toilets? the door handles alone would have your hands covered in other mens DNA/urine traces.

Wash your hands then. I have never heard of jumping through so many hoops in order to keep a possible innocent person in goal.

[grahameb]

Semen went from SK to shirt, from shirt to Jodi's hands/body/bra

I don't know how to make it any simpler.

In fact you're making it more and more unlikely.

[grahameb]

I have no idea who Jeremy Bamber is lol.

So in recent pages, we've got an innocent explanation for the semen traces, and an innocent explanation for the eye witness not recognizing Luke in court. What else? I'm looking for proof or a convincing argument of Luke's innocence. I don't know if he did it or not. I'd like to debate it.

And yet you registered on the BAMBER forum. Do you think we were born yesterday?

[grahameb]

the plane fact that none of lukes dna is on there how could he clean all his own dna off but leave other peoples on there.

Amazing isn't it nugnug. None of lukes dna was found. But dna from this other guy was found and they arev arguing not for the innocence of Luke but for the innocence of this other guy. You will of course notice that they argue the other way round when it comes to Bamber. So inconsistent some people.

[grahameb]

well straight away you pasted the incorrect link then implied I didn't bother reading it. Then someone else chimed in saying how you shouldn't have to lead me by the hand, implying I was too stupid to find it, when infact you posted the wrong page.

So yeah you lot do have an attitude, straight on the defensive, it does you no favors. I never mentioned once weather I thought Luke was guilty or not.

Well perhaps if you had introduced yourself in the foyer first? instead of blundering in here ans pontificating of on this case. I would have said that it was your yourself who has the attitude?