Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 1057797 times)

0 Members and 69 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Sorry, I got back much later than intended, so I'll do this in stages tonight and tomorrow.
Quote
Prosecution Timeline:

4:50 Jodi leaves the house to meet Luke.
Previously 5.30 and 5.05 respectively. The police reconstruction exactly a week later had the Jodi lookalike leaving her mother's house at "a few minutes after 5" to place her on the Easthouses road at 5.05 to coincide with the "stocky man" sighting.

Quote
4:49 - 4:54 Adrina Bryson witnesses a couple at Jodi's end of the path.

This is the timeframe in which it was claimed AB could have been driving past the entrance to the path. According to the prosecution, Jodi didn't leave home until 4,50, so the AB sighting couldn't have been 4.49. It takes 2 mins 40 seconds to walk from Jodi's house to the entrance to the path, so AB's sighting couldn't have been before 4:52:40, so the actual window for this sighting is 1 minute and 20 seconds - 4.52.40 - 4.54 (using the prosecution and police timings.)

Quote
5:00 John Farris and Gordon Dickie are on and around the path and the gap in the wall. They do not see Luke or Jodi.

5:00 - 5.15 - and John Ferris

Quote
5:40 Luke phones Jodi's home and discovers she has left.

5.32, Luke calls Jodi's home, but the call does not connect (engaged or unanswered). 5.40 he calls again and is told she has left.

Quote
5:40 - 5:55 Lorraine Fleming and Rosmary Walsh witness Luke hanging around near the path.

Originally almost 6pm - no earlier time possible because of people's finishing times at work. Original sighting claimed to be at Newbattle Abbey College entrance, not "close to the path." Police timings place the walk to Newbattle entrance to the path from the end of Luke's street (directly opposite the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College) at 5 minutes, at a "brisk" pace - that's a police "brisk" pace, not a civilian one.

Quote
5:55 - 6pm A group of teenagers (Holbourn, Houston, Elliot) witness Luke on a road near the path entrance.

At the end of his street, directly opposite the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College - see above.

Quote
6:05 Carol Heattie witnesses Luke hanging around near a driveway.

The entrance to Barondale Cottages, a few yards from the end of his street/the entrance to Newbattle Abbey College. She sees "a youth" - she does not know Luke

Quote
6:32 Luke phones David High to meet up.

6:30 - 7:30 Mrs Frankland smells a fire.

There was a second call between Luke and David High - don't have the time or direction of the call to hand - will come back to you on this - Luke had wandered into the Abbey grounds, from memory, one called the other saying "where are you" because the meeting point was an area where there was a bridge, but there were, in fact two bridges. (Having since checked out the area, there are several bridges, so I can only assume that Luke and David each knew of "a" bridge, and initially assumed each other was talking about the same bridge.)

Mrs Frankland said she smelled "woodsmoke."

Quote
7:05 Luke meets David High in the woods.

9:00 Franklands both smell a fire.

Mrs Frankland said she smelled smoke around 6.30 - 7pm, because she had been out feeding the rabbit, and again later - she thought it was around 9 o'clock. Mr Frankland didn't initially mention having smelled smoke himself at 9 o'clock- he later said his wife had mentioned smelling smoke sometime after 9 o'clock -  later still, he said he saw Luke passing the window, must have been around 10 o'clock, and somehow, his recollection of smelling smoke himself is timed at just a few minutes before he sees Luke - around 10pm.

Quote
10:00 George Ramage smells a fire.

No time originally claimed for this other than "late evening" - he had been doing some DIY and was putting the tools away when he smelled "funny smelling smoke." Specific time coincides with Mr Frankland's almost 10'oclock smelling of smoke (see above).

Quote
10:00 The Frankland neighbours see Luke.

Mr Frankland claims to have seen Luke. No statement from Mrs Frankland supporting Mr Frankland's claim of a conversation between them as Luke passed the window.

Quote
10:40 Judith Jones texts Luke's phone.

10.38 - Judith texts Luke. 10:40 Luke calls back - second try, call did not connect first time. Appeal documents have Luke's call back timed at 10.41 - I don't know where the extra minute came from - the phone logs show 10.40.

Quote
11:00 Jodi's sister, her fiancé and grandmother set out searching for Jodi.

11.09, Search trio leave Alice's house (according to official timings).

Quote
So the path that this all centres around runs between where Luke and Jodi lived. How long a walk is it from Jodi's to the path and Luke's to the path? And roughly how long would it take one to walk the length of the path; I've seen statements of between 15-30 minutes.
What are the areas at each end called? I have Jodi's end as Newbattle in my head?

Jodi lived at the Easthouses end of the path, Luke at the Newbattle end. Official police timings - the end of Luke's street to the Newbattle entrance to the path - 5 mins at a brisk pace. The path itself, 11 mins at a brisk pace. No timings from the end of the path to the entrance to the path (this was a track through wasteland)- having walked it, I'd say 2 - 3 mins normal pace, entrance to the path to Jodi's house 2 mins 40 seconds. (For completion, Luke's house to the end of his street where official police timings began) 2 mins.

So, path itself, 11 mins at a police "brisk pace." Luke's house to Jodi's house approximately 24 minutes at a march. Normal walking speed would make that a fair bit longer. I walked from the entrance to the path with someone Alice Walker's age, for example, and it took a fraction under 20 minutes for us to reach the V break, which is just over halfway down the path - even allowing the police "brisk pace" for the remainder of the journey to Luke's house, it would still have taken another 12.5 minutes to reach Luke's house.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 09:54:PM by sandra L »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
JF probably is lying. I think it's safe to assume he was more than likely having sex in the woods with someone whose name he doesn't want to disclose (could be many reasons for this - cheating on a partner? a male? an underage girl? or for the same reason loads of people prefer to keep their sex life private.) If it was anything to do with Jodi, her DNA would surely be on the outside of the condom, but we already know she wasn't raped. Unless he randomly decided to murder a stranger and masturbate over what he had done. (While being cautious enough to use a condom to avoid leaving DNA - then daft enough to dump the condom nearby.)

Missing the point again. Nobody is claiming Falconer was guilty of anything (apart from lying 3 years after the event!) The argument as far as I'm concerned is that the so-called investigation was a farce. A full DNA profile, 20 yards from the mutilated body of a 14 year old girl is found in a condom with semen less than 24 hours old contained within it, and they can't find the person to whom it belongs, even though he lives 300 yards from the murder scene? They are in his house within 24 hours of the murder, and they still don't make the connection? He decides it's a very good idea to wander into a full blown murder investigation, yards from where the body is still lying and masturbate behind a tree, with cops swarming everywhere, and they still don't find him in order to eliminate him from the enquiry?

Don't you see, Lithium, these questions should have been answered in 2003. We shouldn't still be discussing them 12 years later. Falconer should have been traced, questioned and eliminated 12 years ago, if the police had done their job properly.

But if that's how badly their investigative skills failed (a) how can we be sure they properly "investigated" Luke, and (b) how confident can we be that they properly investigated anybody who could, and perhaps should, have been considered persons of interest?

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Thanks Sandra. I'm going to digest before responding but wanted to say thanks.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Wrong question, I'm afraid - it should have been, when did this increase from 20 to 50. The first references to the condom stated "20 yards from the body," This later changed to "within a 20 yard radius" and then, later still, to "within a 50 yard radius."

Each of the subseequent changes were in reports from experts who were asked to examine specific factors - the DNA and the condom lubricant - so these changes occurred over a 6 month period. By the time the case came to trial, the "50 yard radius" was the favoured term.

It always struck me as a strange way to refer to something speciific found near a murder scene - within a "radius" means it could have been north, south, east or west of the body. 20 yards in a particular direction is very specific, and allows investigators to make assumptions about the owner of the condom - either he came from the west (Newbattle end) and dropped the condom 20  yards from body, or he came from the east, passed right by the body and carried on for another 20 yards before dropping it. Of course, they had no information about the owner in 2003, and were clearly of the impression the condom could have been linked to Luke, hence the amount of interest in it. Falconer's own explanation in 2006 tells us the owner came from the east, passed the body and carried on for 20 yards, dropped the condom, then retraced his steps, passing the body a second time.

If he didn't see the body, this raises serious questions about the claimed time of death - the route he claimed to have taken meant he had to literally step over the body twice - he could not have failed to see it. So either (a) he lied about not seeing the body, (b) he dropped the condom before 5.15, but told the police it was much later or (c) the body was not lying where it was found between 8pm and 9pm. Interestingly, this is one of the estimated times (8-9pm) given by Dickie senior as to when he was over the wall with 8 dogs, and neither he nor they noticed anything either.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
"What I said" (or, indeed, what others involved in the applications said) is centred specifically around the points being made for the Commission to review - applications to the commission are not intended to cover every single aspect of the case.

Unless the distance of the condom from the body was a point of contention which the commission was being asked to review, then the "official" information has to be used.

The application asked the commission to consider the fact that individuals who would, in what we consider "normal" circumstances in a murder enquiry, become persons of interest were not properly investigated, and therefore the investigation and prosecution built against Luke from that investigation, were both biased from the off. The distance of the condom from the body is irrelevant to that point (although not irrelevant to the overall case.)

Quoting information out of context leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, and it's better if people don't do that if they genuinely want to discuss the case factually and accurately.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
I'm still obsessively reading about this case and happened upon a long forgotten forum in which people were discussing the case (some familiar names from here!) and found some helpful maps with routes and drawings of Jodi's clothing with what forensic evidence was found and where.

I don't know who created these pictures/maps or for what purpose or how accurate they are. I took screenshots on my iPad of them and wondered if I could/should post them here? I don't know anything about intellectual property, so it might not be allowed.

I might be able to find links to the image files rather than posting them directly if that is more acceptable?

« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 03:52:PM by Baz »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
If it's the pictures I'm thinking of, then there's no copyright issue that I'm aware of - if you post the links/screenshots, I'll be able to tell right away whether or not they are the same pictures and diagrams.

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
I'll just post one as an example:

http://i.imgur.com/gr9cb.png

Did that work and is it what you were thinking of?

If that one seems ok then I'll find the others. Sandra, I'm obviously taking your word for it that I'm not breaking any laws in posting them so if I end up in trouble I'm expecting you to fight pretty hard for me!
« Last Edit: October 13, 2015, 06:39:PM by Baz »

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Are they accurate?

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Well I remain unsure of how accurate these diagrams are but they can always be removed if they aren't.


Shoe
http://i.imgur.com/gr9cb.png

Underwear
http://i.imgur.com/K3apn.png

Trousers
http://i.imgur.com/pSctL.png

Body-front
http://i.imgur.com/uVNOy.png

Body-back
http://i.imgur.com/AmPsW.png

Jacket
http://i.imgur.com/9CToK.png

T-shirt
http://i.imgur.com/uzKcB.png

Bra
http://i.imgur.com/Tcnqq.png

A helpful map
http://i.imgur.com/8g52b.jpg

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Good morning, these are not the pictures I was thinking about. They appear, at first glance, to be quite accurate, but I will check later this evening and report back then.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
You guys have been busy

Offline Baz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Thanks, don't want to be sharing things that give misinformation.

I have another question. I hope they're not becoming annoying.

Is Jodi's time of death being between 5 and 5:45 based only on Luke's whereabouts and a lack of witnesses seeing her? Is there any forensic evidence to base this on?

The reason I ask is that surely without any definitive evidence surely Jodi could have been alive for hours longer than is presumed.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
Her proposed time of death is 5.15. I think it's the only time they could come up with that could fit with luke being the killer.
I don't think there is anything forensic that makes the time of death fact.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
She could well have been killed hours later, but where was she in that time. No one seen her or is admitting being with her.