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

[Suzie]

Luke had been out playing with mates all night, you know that, so why mention his nails being dirty to support him being innocent?

He could easily have showered. It's not debatable that he went back out and played on a tree swing in the woods with mates. Ofcourse he'd be dirty. That's the best you have? 


On the subject of him being out with his mates, there is another issue bothering me. I'll add that to my list I'm about to compile.

Because part of the prosecutions case was that Luke went home and "forensically cleaned" himself, including burning his clothes ( although there was no evidence of this ), but when examined later that evening in police custody he was described as grubby, with greasy hair? Not exactly freshly scrubbed and showered was it. 

[OnceSaid]

It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them. 

I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.

The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body.  He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there.  Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?

Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?

It wasn't just the porn, there was a number of inconsistencies that lead me to believe Luke wasn't at home.

We may never know if there was forensic evidence linking Luke as the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night. This is an issue that Luke's supporters will use while also using the "no dna linking him" thing. Picking and choosing again.

12 new replies but I'm going to post this anyway, apologies if it is going over old ground.

You are of course correct that "the crime scene wasn't properly preserved and the body was exposed to the elements all night" but can you please explain how Luke could have possibly removed all traces of himself and that of his clothing from JJ's naked body, her items of clothing and the whole of the crime scene area, when hairs, saliva, sperm/spermheads, and blood belonging to others remained? 

IMO nature could not have removed every single trace of LM from her body, clothing, crime scene, (due to being left unprotected for hours in the rain), whilst leaving traces of others. 

[OnceSaid]

It is widely accepted that when a person is murdered it is by someone who is known to them. 

I have briefly looked at this case and I wonder why the Luke's brothers evidence was taken into consideration. Because he was watching porn it does not mean he was alone in the house.

The other fact I want to bring up is the fact that Luke found the body.  He was familiar with the area so it would be natural that he would he have looked and gone through the hole in the wall, he must have known it was there.  Dogs naturally seek these things out....Or maybe the dog had been there before?Is there any forensic evidence that links Luke to the murder?

Witnesses told the police in their first statements that the dog which was an alsation, was sniffing and pulling Luke towards the wall, getting excited, on its hind legs at the wall air sniffing etc.  The dog was obviously reacting to something, that something I think was blood.

The witnesses changed their stories.

[OnceSaid]

there is no forensic evedence linking him to the linking luke but plenty of forensic evedence linking other people to it.

do you man the condom that was found 50 yards away? That could have been anyone's that used that area for sex....it does not mean that person killed Jodi?

The condom which was found hours after the murder, leaking fresh semen was eventually linked to its owner, (3 years later).  He was not in the woods for sex.  According to him, he was in the woods alone, to masterbate, something he claims that he done regularly. 

[OnceSaid]

I plan to make a post highlighting all the various genuine reasons I believe Luke is guilty, as I fear I'm just coming off as a troll on here. I will post it soon. I am not some mindless sheep who just backs every conviction, I am open minded and don't come to any decision without investigating it, but I have heard nothing from his support that would make me believe differently when weighing it up against my various reasons. There was 20 pages of 'various reasons' it was Luke, weather L&B botched the investigation or not.

Please do, as I am genuinely interested why you feel so strongly of his guilt.

[Suzie]

I understand, but you cant look like you've not washed for a week when you did but a few hours ago, and the greasy hair? Chip fat?

[Suzie]

Sorry for wasting your time in tinychat suzie, but me forwarding the document I received could possibly open me up to legal action.

Who's to say he shampood his hair anyway? This was a grungy 14 year old kid who kept bottles of urine stashed all over his bedroom.

The hood of his missing parka jacket would have sufficiently covered his hair during the murder.

You're damn right it could . Not planning on making the same mistake twice no?

If he was to clean himself after committing this murder would he not have washed his hair? Stands to reason.
The urine was after and you know it

What missing parka?

[sandra L]

I’d like to make a couple of things clear before answering some of lithium’s points. Firstly, the prosecution case which was used to convict Luke is entirely dependent on speculation, innuendo and exaggeration – that’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of some of the best legal minds in Scotland. When we convict people of terrible crimes, I, for one, want to be as sure as it’s possible to be that the right person has been convicted, and that the evidence supports this, otherwise we risk having the real perpetrator still at large, and able to strike again.

Secondly, everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Luke was never afforded that right – from the minute the police officer left Judy’s home under the impression that Jodi had left, from her own home, with Luke at around 5.30 that evening, he was under suspicion. It’s too easy for everything to take a sinister slant when a person is already being viewed with suspicion.
The police called Luke, and Luke only, just after the search party found the body. They appeared completely unaware that there was a search party, believing Luke to be alone. Because they were unable to find the path, a few calls were made back and forth to “guide them in.” Even that led to two sinister inferences – one from the first cop at the scene, who reported that he thought Jodi and Luke had had “a wee falling out” and that was why Luke was “galloping about” at the back of the school. All of the evidence shows that, immediately before the boy was found, all 4 searchers were walking, as a group, down the path, and immediately afterwards, they all waited at the V for the police – there was no-one “galloping” anywhere. BUT, this same situation later led SIO Dobbie to remark (on why Luke had become the source of suspicion), that Luke had “led his officers a merry dance” between the report of Jodi being reported missing, and the first two cops finding the search party.

Without accusing the family of anything at all, the following questions leap out – and this is from before Jodi’s body was found:

(1) Why were the police told that Jodi had left, “with Luke” at 5.30pm that evening? Was this just a mistake on behalf of the police officer who wrote it in his notebook, and then proceeded as if it were true?

(2) Even if it was a mistake, why were the police not told that other members of jodi’s family were out searching? Although Judy claims repeatedly in her statements that she told the police the others were out searching, her claims do not square with the other evidence (at one point, she claims to have told the police that her mother, AW is out looking, but, according to other statements and phone logs, AW had not yet left her own house.  Judy then says she somehow learned that SK and Janine were out searching but, according to all of the phone logs, she hadn’t actually spoken to anyone since her last call to AW, in which no mention was made of Janine and Kelly going searching... and so on.)

(3) Why was Luke’s the only name and phone number given to the police? AW had her phone with her, Janine had hers, but their numbers weren’t given to the police. Kelly claims not to have ha his phone with him, but the operator who originally logged the 999 call he says he made from Janine’s phone, logged a different incoming number – one that was neither Luke’s, JaJ’s or AW’s.

As I said, my concern in this case, as in all of the others I have been involved in, is that the evidence is just not good enough to support the conviction. Because the police were looking at Luke with suspicion from the off (and that based on information coming, apparently, from judy herself), that suspicion appears to have negatively coloured their interpretations of everything from that point onwards.

[nugnug]

Trust me there was nothing illegal about me receiving a zip file from an anonymous source. (that I didn't even ask for.) The person who sent me it obviously wanted me to expose the information for them. I wouldn't rule it out being one of WAP's members who sent it to me, hoping I would put certain information out there that they aren't allowed to themselves, about Joey for example.

I didn't distribute the information til the owner of said information (gordo) requested that I did. If WAP want to come after me for it that's fine, I've never touched their site. I have everything I need at the ready to confirm this.

well what happened will nodoubt be proved when legal action is pursued.

[sandra L]

 

With his alibi falling apart, along with the use of the mobile phone during the times, I am happy to accept he wasn't at home when he said he was, what reason would he have to lie? Where was he?

That was the prosecution case. His alibi was only “falling apart” because of the horrendous manner in which Shane was questioned. The police officer taking his statements set about a deliberate course of confusing the issue, refusing to accept genuine responses, and inferring dishonesty and inaccuracy from every word Shane said. He did not say, originally, that he did not see Luke in the house, or that he (Shane) thought he was alone (the thinking he was alone bit was a piece of theatrics from Turnbull, the prosecutor, at trial). He said, quite honestly, that he couldn’t remember any detail about what was, until Jodi’s body was found, a perfectly ordinary Monday evening. You have said it’s understandable that Janine wouldn’t be concentrating on t shirts or whatever, in the circumstances – why would Shane, in the same circumstances, be concentrating on what he’d had for dinner or what time he came in from work – he had no way of knowing what was going to transpire later that night.

A call was made, from Shane’s mobile to the house landline at (from memory) about 4 15pm. It was answered by someone – it’s in the phone logs. Corinne was still at work, and there were only the three of them in the house, so by deduction, this call must have been answered by Luke. The landline was engaged at the time Luke called the speaking clock (pre broadband days, Shane was on the internet.)

Cell site analysis would have shown Luke’s phone travelling from west to east and back again at the critical times, if, indeed, he had done so – it could very easily have been proven that Luke was out of the house, at that time, if he really was. Why was that analysis never obtained? Police guidelines were absolutely clear about this at the time – if the case was going to rely on such technology, then the reports should be obtained as evidence. Could it be that it was too risky to the prosecution case – if the reports came back showing the phone did not travel anywhere, then they could not claim he was out of the house. Attempts by the defence to obtain cell site analysis were blocked by the Legal aid Board on the grounds of expense.

Phone logs showed that Luke regularly phoned the speaking clock from home– it was just something he did – so you see, there are other innocent explanations for why he phoned the speaking clock, not just the one sinister one claimed by the prosecution.

Your last line “What reason would he have to lie? Where was he?” demonstrates exactly the type of suspicion colouring interpretation that I’m talking about. There is no proof that he “lied,” only a suggestion which is not backed up with evidence. The “he was using his mobile phone to phone the speaking clock, so he must have been out of the house,” explanation is only speculation, especially as there are logs showing he regularly phoned the speaking clock, from his home.

[sandra L]

The sightings:
 
A Brysons sighting is consistent with where Jodi would have been roughly since her time of leaving house, had Luke went to meet her. This time also ties in with the pair being behind the wall, when a passing cyclist heard a "strangling" sound. Luke was also spotted on the opposite side of the path, alone, looking like he was "up to no good", at a time which would tie in with both the original sighting, and the sound heard by the cyclist.

The time of Jodi leaving the house was changed twice – from 5.30pm to just after 5pm, and then from 5pm to 4.50pm. The time of the Bryson sighting was changed from between 5.15pm and 5.30pm to 4.49 – 4.54pm. That’s a lot of time changes to make something “consistent” don’t you think? The cyclist did not, initially, say a “strangling” sound – that was developed over a number of statements – initially he said “a sound, like branches moving” – this was somewhere around 5.15pm.

You say Luke was “spotted” at the other end, but both witnesses who made this claim (a) originally claimed it was around 6pm, opposite the entrance to the Abbey, which is exactly where other witnesses positively identified Luke at that time. Both of these witnesses change their accounts, both the time of their “sighting” and the place, putting the youth nearer the end of Roan’s Dyke path.  They did not say he was looking “like he was up to no good” until trial, when both witnesses used exactly the same phrase. Neither witness knew Luke, neither saw the youth's face, one said she could only describe him again from his hair and clothing.

This sighting at the other end was when Luke phoned Jodi's house asking where she was, he was putting his plan into place, Jodi's mums partner informed him that she had already left to meet him. He said "Ok cool". What reason would Bryson have to lie about her sighting? and If not Luke and Jodi, who was this young local couple who matched Luke and Jodi's description, never identified, never to come forward?

Now the logic is beginning to falter. Luke first called Jodi’s house at 5.30pm, but couldn’t get through. By the reasoning you suggest here, Jodi was murdered at 5.15pm, her body stripped and mutilated thereafter, yet by 5.30pm, Luke’s standing around, in full view, on the main road, making a call to her landline? How did he get cleaned up?  Or are you talking about the 5.38 call, which did connect – the one where Alan Ovens said Jodi had left – there is nothing, anywhere, to prove he said she had left “to meet” Luke. I guess that gave him a whole 8 minutes extra to clean up – it still doesn’t explain why he’d be standing around, in full public view, just yards from where he’d committed the most brutal murder, does it? You say “he was putting his plan into place” – wasn’t it a bit late for that, if he had, in fact, been the killer? And what plan, exactly, was he putting into place? I’ll phone her house to alert them that she’s not with me, and stand around right next to where her body is, so that I can lead them to the body later tonight? Pretty crap plan, if you ask me!
 

Bryson also described the male as wearing what could be the green parka jacket that Luke had been known to wear, but disappeared at the time of the murder, later replaced by his mother. Luke's own friends and school teacher confirm he owned such a parker before the murder, again, what reason would a school teacher have to lie?

We’re beginning to stray rather far from the facts now. Bryson refused, point blank, to identify the jacket as a parka, or to confirm that the jacket “could be” one. She stuck to her guns that it was a “fishing” jacket, and insisted in court that the picture she’d picked out wasn’t the same as the jacket she’d seen, it was only the nearest likeness from the photos the police showed her  (and the one she picked still wasn’t a parka!)

There is nothing, anywhere, to prove Luke owned or wore a parka before the murder. Photos of Luke in a parka, after the murder, appeared all over the newspapers, so it’s not surprising people could say, 15 months later, that they had seen him in a parka – they had! Only, it was after the murder, not before. There is no evidence of a parka being disposed of. “What reason would a school teacher have to lie?” There’s your sinister inference again – why couldn’t the teacher just have been mistaken?

Also, and far more importantly, why were the police telling Luke, in august 2003, that they had “dozens” of sightings of him that night in a green army shirt? Why were they telling him lots of people had described him “to a T” in this shirt? Why were the police absolutely convinced, in August 2003, that Luke Mitchell had been wearing a green army shirt that night which had since disappeared? And why did that belief change – where did all the witnesses and their descriptions go? Can you imagine the court case – 20 witnesses say he was wearing a green army shirt, 20 say he was wearing a parka, 20 say he was wearing a green bomber with an orange lining.... The whole “he was wearing an article of clothing, witnessed by a number of people; that article of clothing has disappeared – we believe, disposed of  - and replaced by another” story was going to be a central feature of this case, no matter what article of clothing they used. They had to drop the green army shirt story when they discovered that they (the police) actually had the shirt in their possession – kinda difficult to claim Luke had disposed of it by giving it to L&B! And so, months later, the green army shirt turns into a parka jacket, all of the green army shirt witnesses disappear, and a whole new batch of parka witnesses emerges.

[sandra L]

Bryson identified a picture of Luke near the time of the murder as "as sure as she could be" it was who she saw, Luke had aged, grown his hair, and looked very different in court at a later date, and Bryson couldn't identify him in the dock, this does not rule out the fact she was sure the person she saw was a 14 year old Luke Mitchell.

Experts in eyewitness identification have already commented that the manner in which this witness was shown pictures was heavily biased, so much so that it would have been surprising if she hadn’t picked out the picture of Luke (which does not actually prove that Luke was the person she saw that evening.) The picture she picked out did not match the description she gave police.

She also said the girls hair was in a ponytail, a hair scrunchie was present when the body of Jodi was discovered.

 No, she didn’t. She said, in a later statement, that the girl’s hair had a kink or a wave in it, which could have been where she had worn it in a pony tail – that’s a very different thing. She also failed to notice the huge orange Deftones logo on the back of the hoodie, describing it as plain blue. She failed, too, to notice the black baggy jeans, describing them as “bootcut jeans, lighter than the sweatshirt.” And finally, she failed to disclose the close connection between the Jones family and the Bryson family.

I don’t believe Andrina Bryson was dishonest – I believe she was genuinely trying to help, and was horribly manipulated by investigating officers who needed her to say specific things in specific ways. Because of the close connection between the two families, that wouldn’t have been very difficult to achieve – we already know about communications between the two families in the very first days.
 

Luke told his mum before going back out with his mates, ( his chance to get dirty again) - "if Jodi turns up, tell her where to find me" (im paraphrasing), but when asked by his mates if jodi was coming out, Luke informed them that she wouldn't be. Why was he adamant she wouldn't show, when Jodi's mums partner informed him that she was on her way to see him?

Back to the facts again. There is nothing to suggest, far less prove, that Luke went back to his house before “going out to meet his mates.” In fact, Lithium’s own theory makes that impossible – if Luke was standing on the Newbattle Road at  5.38pm, calling Jodi’s home (actually, the witnesses try to claim this is between 20 and quarter to six), and is positively identified by people who knew him, standing on the same road, further down at the entrance to the abbey between ten to six and six o’clock, where’s the time for him to go home, get cleaned up, and go back out “to get dirty again?”

The claim about being asked by his mates if Jodi was coming out, and Luke saying she wouldn’t be is the word of one, and only one, witness, whose story changed repeatedly. Not only did the other two witnesses not say this happened, they were adamant that it did not – Nobody asked where Jodi was, nobody said Jodi wasn’t coming out – there are two people’s statements to this effect, both supportive of Luke , both consistent throughout, yet the one story which changed to suit the prosecution line was the one used as “evidence.”
 

Luke went home that night and never bothered phoning Jodi to see why she never showed up earlier, not as much as a good night text. Why wasn't he worried? It was when Jodi's mum texted Luke telling her to come home that Luke phoned her saying he hadn't seen her all night. Luke decided he would head over and meet them, he took a torch, and his pet dog.

Why didn’t Jodi’s mum worry when she found out Jodi wasn’t where she was supposed to be, 40 minutes after she was supposed to be there? Why didn’t AO ask Luke where he was, since, according to the family, he should have met Jodi at the Easthouses end, just 2 mins, 40 seconds from her house? Why didn’t Judy phone Luke back at any point to ask if Jodi had arrived? Why did she leave it until 40 minutes after Jodi’s curfew, and then send a text, rather than phoning Luke’s phone? I think the only explanation is that nobody was “worried” in the early part of the evening, perhaps because Jodi was a little free spirit who did things as the mood took her, and everyone was just thinking “That’s Jodi, probably met someone, gone off with them, forgotten all about the time....”

What was the torch for, surely he didn't already suspect they would be searching for a dead body?

Seriously, Lithium? It was 11 o’clock at night, Luke was 14 years old, he was going up an unlit path in the dark. The arrangement was that Luke would look for Jodi on the path – if he didn’t find her, he’d make his way to Judy’s house. There is no evidence that any arrangement was made for Luke to meet with the search trio – none of the search trio’s phones were in contact with Luke’s that night, either by call or by text. Which leaves only Judy to pass on the information that the others were out – something she does not claim to have done. Perhaps he took the torch so that he could see where he was going in the darkness – or is that too ridiculous a supposition?

[sandra L]

Finding the body:


   
Luke claims his partly trained tracker dog lead him to the body. If this was the case, why didn't the dog alert him on the way up the path? He would have had to have passed the body when heading up to meet with Jodi's Gran, sister, and sister's bf, Steven Kelly. The dog never smelled the blood on the way up, which would make it inconsistent for the dog to suddenly decide to find it on the way back down.

The dog was not tracking on the way up. Luke was on his own, he wanted to get up the path as quickly as possible – if the dog had pulled over to the wall, he would have pulled her away – at that stage, he was only looking for Jodi on the path.

Luke climbing the wall and heading directly to the left where the body was, would suggest prior knowledge. He never found it on the way up because he would look more innocent if the family were with him when he found it. He needed witnesses there. All of his actions are consistant with a plan to appear innocent.

Let’s see how this particular piece of speculation stands up to scrutiny. The dog reacted to the left of the V – all of the search party said so. Luke doubled back a bit, to the V in the wall (where it was easier to climb through) – all of the witnesses said so. He climbed through, and turned to the left, towards where the dog had reacted on the other side. Three of the witnesses changed their story by trial, but their original statements still exist – they all say it was the dog which alerted them.

Now, this plan. He needed witnesses, would have looked more innocent if the family were with him when he found her.  Why? He’d called the family home within minutes of the murder, almost from the murder scene itself, according to your earlier theory. He couldn’t have known that they wouldn’t mount an immediate search party (as they did later that evening.) Why then wait 6 hours, having apparently successfully distanced himself from the murder by cleaning up, heading out to get dirty again, as per your theory, and then lead the family to the body anyway? That makes no sense – as you, yourself claim, leading the family directly to the body could be used to imply prior knowledge – why would he take such a risk, especially having gone to such lengths to “cover his tracks” as you suggested earlier?
 

Luke described in a calm manner to police how he found the body, and also accurately described the clothes Jodi was wearing, even though she changed clothes after school and he had apparently not seen her before the murder, and her body was stripped naked with clothes scattered around in dark woods. The description of the clothes prove to me he did see Jodi since school/before the murder, again consistent with the Bryson sighting, again undermining his alibi of being at home.
 
Any innocent explanation for how he managed to describe what Jodi was wearing when she had her throat cut? The court heard the police tape of him accurately doing so

That’s very naughty, Lithium – I sincerely hope, if you’re a family member, this is not what you were told by investigating officers. Luke did not describe any clothing at the murder scene – none of the three people who went over the wall did. Luke was asked to describe what Jodi had been wearing to school that day – he did so, to the best of his recollection, but that was a description of what she’ been wearing at school, not what clothing had been found beside the body.

Also, there is no reliable evidence to say what Jodi was wearing to school that day – one witness has her in a white shirt, another in a black shirt, and so on. Jodi may have changed her shirt for a T shirt, but worn the same trousers/hoodie as she’d worn to school , she may have changed both t shirt and hoodie, but still worn the same trousers, etc, etc, – we simply don’t know. Judy couldn’t confirm what Jodi was wearing either when she came in from school or when she left (I know, as a mum of two girls, I probably couldn’t either.)

The use of this misinformation to attempt to create a tenuous support for Luke being out of the house just doesn’t cut it, really.  Luke didn’t describe the clothing as you claim here, so that’s a no go straight away.

[Lugg]

The “he was using his mobile phone to phone the speaking clock, so he must have been out of the house,” explanation is only speculation, especially as there are logs showing he regularly phoned the speaking clock, from his home.

Here's the thing though, the logs you're talking about show he showing he regularly used the speaking clock from the landline, this time he used his mobile. Why? Logs show he regularly used the speaking clock from his house phone, what was dfiferent this time? If anything this adds more weight to him not being at home. It's not the fact he supposedly phoned the clock from the house, I know he was in the habit of doing that, it's the fact he used his mobile credit this time, when we are supposed to believe a landline is available, and logs show he would normally use the landline.

That’s very naughty, Lithium – I sincerely hope, if you’re a family member, this is not what you were told by investigating officers. Luke did not describe any clothing at the murder scene – none of the three people who went over the wall did. Luke was asked to describe what Jodi had been wearing to school that day – he did so, to the best of his recollection, but that was a description of what she’ been wearing at school, not what clothing had been found beside the body.



oh dear

" (10) he had been able to describe a distinctive hair fastening which the deceased had been wearing, it not being readily visible when the body was found; (11) he had been able to name the type of tree near which the body was found, though this would have been difficult in the dark; (12) his description of her clothing implied that he had seen her that day later than at school; (13) "

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

Jodi trial hears audio recording
The Jodi Jones murder trial has heard her boyfriend tell detectives there were four explanations as to why she had not met him on the night she died.

Luke Mitchell spoke in a relaxed manner to police during a taped interview four days after his girlfriend's murder.

Judge Lord Nimmo Smith told the jury to listen not only to what was said, but also to the way it was said.

An audio tape recording was played to the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

On the tape, Luke Mitchell explains in a calm, relaxed voice how he had arranged to meet Jodi.

Different explanations

However, when she failed to turn up he said he thought she had either been cheeky to her mum, forgotten, had to go somewhere else or something had come up at the house.

Luke did not tell detectives at the time that he knew she had left home because he had phoned her house and was told she had already left to meet him.

Earlier, the court heard how Luke liked horror films and occasionally read porn magazines.

He also described the clothes Jodi was wearing the night she was killed.


Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4116337.stm



So who's lying here, you or my 2 different sources? This was a police interviewed played in court by the way, you weren't there.

The last time I raised this question, nugnug tried to argue that Jodi never even changed clothes since school that day. 

I'll go over the rest of your reply soon, I'm not even half way through my list of reasons.

Were you there Lithium, I mean in court?

[OnceSaid]

Would rather not say. Why did Sandra leave after being caught lying about Luke describing the clothes Jodi wore while being murdered? Didn't expect that unlike her I don't post anything without a confirmed source that confirms it as fact? a police interview played in a full court room, the voice of Luke Mitchell describing the clothes. Can't get a better source than that.
Explain how Luke Mitchell, who hadn't seen Jodi since school that day, described what she was wearing when she was killed, when she chaned clothes after school into her sisters shirt etc.

Sandra I've explained why I think he's guilty, can you explain why you think Luke is innocent?

Lithium, Sandra L has already covered this in August. She hasnt been "caught lying" or left anywhere, and has discussed this issue several times on this thread.

28Other high profile cases / Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Message by sandra L on August 22, 2012, 02:11:PM »

Transcript of Interview, 4th July 2003:

After discussing what Luke was wearing on Monday night at page 44, and then some discussion about whether or not Luke and Jodi wore school uniform (they didn’t).

At P45, after discussing who bought both Luke and Jodi’s clothes, the following discussion is recorded:

DC: Oh, right, OK. Was Jodi the same, did she buy her

LM: 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.

DC: Mm-mm and eh what else was she wearing on Monday?

LM: Eh, a black Deftones, it was like this, it had the zip, but it was black and it had Deftones written across the back, and there, and there

DC: Aye

LM: It had sort of, a sort of distorted sort of circley oval, it had sort of, it was like a yellowy orange

DC: Yeah

LM: Band sort of thing.

DC: anything else that you can, that strikes oot or...

LM: I can’t remember the top, I mean she had her hoody zipped up most of the time so..

DC: Oh, right, aye

LM: She had her sort of navy blue DCs on- DC trainers

DC: Right

ADS: When was this, sorry?

LM: This was Monday.

DC: Monday

LM: Well, I don’t know if she changed out of them, but that’s what, cause I never saw her after school.

DC: Aye

LM: Until I found her, but... that’s what she was wearing at school.

At page 114, same transcript

DC: Right, OK, what clothes were you wearing on Monday evening?
(LM describes his clothes)

DC: What clothes was Jodi wearing?

LM: Eh, I only saw the ones she was wearing at school were blue cords

At page 135, same transcript:

DC... and what clothes were you wearing that night?
(LM describes his clothes again)

DC: Yeah the same as you had been wearing at school, eh?

LM: Yeah

DC: Eh, and what was Jodi wearing

LM: Well, at school, she was wearing, I’m sure it was the blue cords she borrowed off her sister, I’m sure, with her black Deftones hoody, zip up hoody like this in black, Deftones across the back... and there, and there...