Jansus, the police have already been condemned for their handling of Luke, but again I would ask you to keep in mind that it was not the police who found him guilty. He had his day in court with more than capable legal representation awarded to him. This is where Sandra's SCCRC submission fails also, focusing on what the police done wrong (and other 'suspects', including Jodi's own brother), rather than any evidence of any kind of unfair trial taking place.
Sorry, Lithium, nice try, but the contents of the submission to the SCCRC have never been publicly released, so you can't legitimately make this claim. Also, as we have seen in so many MoJ cases in the past, it is because the police handled the case so poorly in the first place that the evidence before the jury was so tainted - the juries, of course, did not know that, and convicted in good faith that the information before them was a fair and accurate representation of the facts of the case and not - as was later proven in so many cases - the result of botched, maniplulated and fabricated police manoeverings.
Care to explain what exactly this paragraph is "evidence" of in your opinion?
This question was asked with reference to a paragraph I wrote about the search trio members of Jodi's family, whose accounts of their movements that evening clearly and demonstrably were incorrect, when compared with other, tangible factors (e.g. telephone logs, knowledge of undisclosed information, and so on). The point I was making was that the police could have (some would say should have) been far more rigorous in their investigation of these inconsistencies and anomalies, if for no other reason than to avoid the inevitable consequence of people like me coming along and asking for feasible, reliable explanations - without them, there is, whether people like it or not, reasonable doubt regarding the safety of the conviction.
If the search trio could not possibly have left at the time they say they did, if their reasons for going to the very place where Jodi's body lay make no sense whatsoever (especially when, at that point, no-one except the murderer knew (a) that Jodi was dead and (b) where her body was), if their various explanations do not properly tie up with other, verified evidence, and if some of them changed their evidence in order to provide alibis for others who would not otherwise have had alibis, then I believe all of that should have been questioned, and questioned, and questioned, until reasonable answers were obtained. It is evidence of the fact - and it is a fact - that the investigation into the murder of Jodi Jones was flawed, biased, unprofessional and shoddy.
I am not accusing anyone of anything - no, actually, that is not correct. I am making a couple of accusations - firstly, the investigating officers did not do their jobs properly, and secondly, the defence did not make proper use of that fact at trial, in robustly cross-examining those whose evidence was inconsistent and inaccurate.
Jansus, you make a good point about trial by personality- Luke's trial started 17 months after the murder - the publicity throughout (except a brief period when Luke "could not be named for legal reasons") was relentless and hugely prejudicial. Then the trial was held locally -it's difficult to see how jurors could not have been infuenced by the "monster" portrayal.
It was made very, very difficult for Luke's friends to stand by him - we have accounts of the most horrendous intimidation of very vulnerable young people, including accounts of parents being told within the first week that LuKe would be arrested "within the week" and that they should keep their children away from Luke because he was "dangerous." Others reported being asked what they thought would happen to their kids if they were seen to be supportive of that "evil little b*****d" - you can imagine, in such a small area, the impact of such intimidation tactics.
However, there were a few notable exceptions, parents and kids, who remained loyal to Luke throughout, and I know he is eternally grateful to them. Others have since come back recently - as adults now, they realise the extent to which they were manipulated, and want to tell the truth of their experiences back in 2003.
