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

[sandra L]

Hi Baz, the official site was taken down because I no longer had power of attorney, or access to the papers, so couldn't prove, if legally challenged that what I'd quoted was true - in Scotland there are tight restrictions on what third parties can make public. The dog had some tracker training - the training logs were given to the police and an expert put her through testing which showed she had been trained,although not to"expert"level.

The gran thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere, so Luke instructed the dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi, Jodi's hiding" which was a tracking exercise they used in training - Luke would hide, and the trainer would tell the dog Luke was "hiding" and to seek and find him - the three words the dog would recognise, therefore, were seek, find and hiding.

David, while I agree that the person finding the body needs to be checked out, their finding of the body shouldn't be the sole reason for suspicion - Jodi's sister's boyfriend, who had also been over the wall and seen the body - his first words to them were "I suppose you've been to my house already?" Just over two weeks later, his DNA from bodily fluids was found on Jodi's t shirt, and still Luke finding the body was considered "more suspicious." I'm not saying the sister's boyfriend was guilty of anything - I'm saying in those circumstances, we'd normally expect closer  police attention

[sandra L]

For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.

By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.

[sandra L]

David said "that's why they have protocols" Not in this case!

The body was left uncovered in the rain for more than 8 hours, six officers traipsed through the scene without protective gear, items were moved and gathered up, the body was moved and branches cut down to give the photographer easier access, all before the forensics team got there.

The two lads on the moped took a week to come forward (even though they were relatives of Jodi) one had hacked off his hair, and they lied about the time they were on the path, because it was the claimed time of death. They were eliminated within 48 hours, before the DNA results were back, and before police knew they were lying about the time.

If police had taken statements from the people who reported those boys at the time, they would have known they were lying - instead, they waited almost two months - the reason all of those people could be sure of the time was that it was closing time when the moped came through their place of work en route to the path. So another two people at the crime scene at the claimed time of death who lie, one changes his appearance, they fail to come forward until forced to do so - and still Luke finding the body is "more suspicious?"

[marty]

Was the body not moved onto plastic sheeting

[sandra L]

For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.

By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.

Sorry, initials should be SK - don't know why my phone does that!

[sandra L]

Was the body not moved onto plastic sheeting

Yes, Marty, it was, and in keeping with the"protocols" of this case, the ground where Jodi had originally been lying was also not protected or preserved after she was moved onto the plastic sheet.

[Baz]

For a full month after the murder, all three family members of the search party started categorically that the dog had alerted Luke by suddenly darting over to the wall, standing up on her hind legs, scrabbling at the wall and sniffing the air "that's AL (the sister's boyfriend)'s description, not mine - he even gave the size of the dog compared to the v break in the wall.

By trial, 16 months later, all of them claimed the dog did nothing unusual, or they couldn't remember the fog doing anything.

Hi Sandra, thanks for the responses. Shame the rules have restricted the available information.

The change in recollection of all three search party members seems very suspicious to me. Did the defence not make a big point out of this? Did any of them give any explanation as to why their story changed so dramatically?

[Baz]

Hi Baz, the official site was taken down because I no longer had power of attorney, or access to the papers, so couldn't prove, if legally challenged that what I'd quoted was true - in Scotland there are tight restrictions on what third parties can make public. The dog had some tracker training - the training logs were given to the police and an expert put her through testing which showed she had been trained,although not to"expert"level.

The gran thought Jodi may be lying hurt somewhere, so Luke instructed the dog to "Seek Jodi, Find Jodi, Jodi's hiding" which was a tracking exercise they used in training - Luke would hide, and the trainer would tell the dog Luke was "hiding" and to seek and find him - the three words the dog would recognise, therefore, were seek, find and hiding.

David, while I agree that the person finding the body needs to be checked out, their finding of the body shouldn't be the sole reason for suspicion - Jodi's sister's boyfriend, who had also been over the wall and seen the body - his first words to them were "I suppose you've been to my house already?" Just over two weeks later, his DNA from bodily fluids was found on Jodi's t shirt, and still Luke finding the body was considered "more suspicious." I'm not saying the sister's boyfriend was guilty of anything - I'm saying in those circumstances, we'd normally expect closer  police attention

I wasn't far off with my dog sniffing understanding.

So the expert that tested this dog, was his/her evidence accepted at trial? It just seems quite reasonable that Luke's dog pulled him towards the body's location considering the initial statements of the search party and an expert having tested the dog. However, from what I have managed to read, Luke's finding of the body is one of the main things held against him.

[marty]

I wasn't far off with my dog sniffing understanding.

So the expert that tested this dog, was his/her evidence accepted at trial? It just seems quite reasonable that Luke's dog pulled him towards the body's location considering the initial statements of the search party and an expert having tested the dog. However, from what I have managed to read, Luke's finding of the body is one of the main things held against him.

The dog experts evidence was never used by the defence at court.
Only Donald Findlay knows why. Seems strange to me, surely it would have certainly challenged the prosecution's contention of how the body was found.

[Baz]

The dog experts evidence was never used by the defence at court.
Only Donald Findlay knows why. Seems strange to me, surely it would have certainly challenged the prosecution's contention of how the body was found.

That seems crazy.

What was the defences case then? Just the alibi?

[marty]

Can I ask sandra,purely out of curiosity, why you parted ways with the wap site.

[marty]

That seems crazy.

What was the defences case then? Just the alibi?

I think Donald Finlays style is just to defend against what the prosecution's case is. He didn't put forward a case, so to speak, other than it wasn't luke.

[Baz]

Well that's obviously because by that point they've decided to frame Luke to  cover up the murder of Jodi by a family member.

Just say what you mean lol.

Do you not find it even mildly suspicious that they all changed their story in the same way by the time they got to testifying? I do. I can't see any reason that their testimony would change so dramatically. Can you?

[Baz]

My issue isn't with a dog finding a body, it's with a dog finding a body only after passing it a second time. Like you said they can smell blood, apparently Luke's dog mysteriously never smelt it the first time he passed it. Or he did but Luke didn't want to discover the body then.

I can see why this makes people suspicious. It does me a little.

But I can also see that if Luke is hurrying along then he might not paying attention to the dog or that the dog didn't go mad because he hasn't at this point been instructed to search.

So, I guess we will never know.

We can know the behaviour of Luke and the dog on the second trip down the path as their are three witnesses. And I feel more inclined to accept their initial statements that haven't possibly been tainted by the media's portrayal of Luke.

Did the initial statements comment on how Luke was controlling the dog? Did they remember him saying "seek Jodi" etc? And did any of the have to explain why their statements changed?

[Baz]

The only thing that changed dramatically was Luke's alibi.

But we know that's not true. Their statements definitely changed. So I don't understand your point here.

The alibi issues are troubling but that does change that the change of statements is troubling too.