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

[nugnug]

Yes he "hacked off his hair", he didn't simply get a haircut like teenage boys regularly do. Be sure to keep using that term, it makes it sound much more frantic and desperate and guilty!

He "hacked off his hair" because he killed Jodi, even though it was also SK. Oh and it was Jodi's brother too. (Luke's mother has a hilarious theory on how all of them may be involved.) Please choose one male relative of Jodi and focus on it because blaming them all just results in contradictions.

i agrea hacking off his hair wouldent of been that suspicious had he not been at a murder scene they before and lied about what time he had been there.

[Baz]

Luke's alibi was the only thing that changed 'dramatically'. It completely fell apart.

Yes we are encouraged to go by this rule, unless of course it applies to Luke's brother Shane, who originally claimed Luke wasn't at home at all at the time of the murder, he was in his room watching porn and masturbating which he wouldn't do if his brother was home. After being "reminded" by his mother, he later said Luke was home and he distinctly remembers because Luke burned their dinner. But it's ok when he forgets, people get confused all the time! But any change in what Jodi's family remember about what was undoubtedly the most traumatic night of their lives, they must be covering up a murder.

Sorry if my replies are getting at all confusing but we seem to be crossing each other's responses a bit.

I haven't been encouraged to go by this rule. Just seems sort of logical to me in less there is a reasonable explanation for the change. Which I would personally be willing to consider.

The problems with Luke's alibi are undoubtedly problems for a lot of people that point to Luke's guilt. I don't know the exact time line of what was said and what was changed and whether a reasonable explanation were given for the changes. This is something I obviously need to read more about, and will try.

But I don't think this one issue excuses the problems with the search party statements. Both issues should surely be considered.

[nugnug]

he also failed to come forward for a week even though he had been asked to do so.

thern when he does come forward he gives the wrong time for being on there.

other people have been sent down on evdence like that.

[nugnug]

is it posble for 2 people to give the exact same time and both be wrong by one hour rather strange coincedence if it was just an honest mistake.

a cynic might say that they both coluded to give  the wrong time.

no it doesnt on its own mean they did it but i t does bloody suspicios to me.

to me it sounds more like a delbrate lie than a mistake.

[Baz]

Baz mate if you are new to this case please do not accept anything Sandra tells you at face value.

From what I understand Sandra L was once someone who was heavily involved in the effort to exonerate Luke and so, presumably, is someone who is still discussing the case from this point of view. I have no problem with this just as I have no problem with those who are coming from the opposite side.

But what I will say is that in the 190 pages of this forum I read she has consistently been presenting evidence to consider and engaged in actual debate of the evidence.

[Neil]

That's because he did it.

Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.

We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.

You can't have it both ways!t

I agree.

I don't find it too unbelievable for Shane, or anyone else for that matter, to incorrectly remember certain times and events.

The missing coat and knife trouble me greatly. 

If Luke is guilty, that means that Corinne has lied to cover for him.  How much do we think she knows?  Would she cover for her son if she knew that he was responsible?

[Baz]

Building a case against every male member of Jodi's family is not helpful when they conflict with one another.

She also tried to implicate Peter Tobin knowing full well it couldn't have been him. It would be laughable if not so serious.

Don't even get me started on Mark Kane.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that in case that has stretched over years that there would have been numerous attempts to investigate other suspects, as is so often the case in cases like this. Proving someone else did it being a sure fire way of freeing someone wrongfully incarcerated.

I'm not comfortable discussing someone who I don't know who isn't here to defend herself. Your warning is noted but I'm only interested in the case not the sort of petty in fighting that seems to go with it, no offence.

[marty]

I agree.

I don't find it too unbelievable for Shane, or anyone else for that matter, to incorrectly remember certain times and events.

The missing coat and knife trouble me greatly. 

If Luke is guilty, that means that Corinne has lied to cover for him.  How much do we think she knows?  Would she cover for her son if she knew that he was responsible?

I don't think there is any knife unaccounted for. And I'm wondering what jacket you refer to, the fishing jacket, the army styled shirt, the pilot jacket, or the parka that not one witness mentions in their possible sightings of luke. The parka that was disposed off in a bucket used as a log burner with no forensic trace being left.

[marty]

That's because he did it.

Case cracked by a guy who can't even spell.

We're never done hearing about how Shane's statement was wrong because it was just a regular day and nobody can remember what they are doing at any given minute. But when you ask a teenage boy what he was doing a week prior and he tells you the wrong time for mucking about in a field on a moped - he's a murderer.

You can't have it both ways!

That's not the whole story though is it. He cut his own hair off after the description of the two boys on the moped who the police were looking for were released. Was one of their stories not that granny had told them to lie about the time they were on the path.
The thing that bothers me about those two moped chaps is they waited a week to come forward. They could have possibly mistook the time they were there but they knew the polis were looking for them without doubt, they still took a week.

[Neil]

That's not the whole story though is it. He cut his own hair off after the description of the two boys on the moped who the police were looking for were released. Was one of their stories not that granny had told them to lie about the time they were on the path.
The thing that bothers me about those two moped chaps is they waited a week to come forward. They could have possibly mistook the time they were there but they knew the polis were looking for them without doubt, they still took a week.

Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects.  They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen. 

I don't find their initial reluctance to come forward as overly suspicious. 

[marty]

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.

Maybe not frame luke exactly.Definitely been persuaded by the polis that they were sure they had their man. Asked, are you sure the dog reacted or did you just think it did.
Manipulated slightly.

[marty]

I was talking about the parka that his mother replaced, the same one numerous witnesses (including school teachers) confirmed Luke owned prior to the murder. I'm willing to believe them over one person (Sandra Lean) who didn't know Luke before conviction so has no idea what items of clothing he owned.

None of his friends came forward that he owned a parka before the murder(if I have remembered correctly).Was it not only one school teacher who said this. He was in every paper in the land with the parka his mum bought after the murder for months before the trial. Simple mistake to me. Strange none of the other school teachers remember him in that jacket, no photos or such like either.

[nugnug]

Maybe they were worried that they would be treated as suspects.  They would understandably, have been a little fearful of what might happen. 

I don't find their initial reluctance to come forward as overly suspicious.

well the police had already stated they wernt suspects so and less thought this statement was lie that dident really have any reason not to.

[marty]

So what's your theory mate explain what you think this suggests.

Not sure to be honest pal, haha, just niggles me. And the fact they couldn't account for what they were doing.

[Neil]

well the police had already stated they wernt suspects so and less thought this statement was lie that dident really have any reason not to.

I wasn't aware of that, to be honest.