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

[Baz]

Here is why it has been bugging me:

The original time that Judith Jones said Jodi left the house was 5:30 and I've never seen a reason for the change to 40 minutes earlier. Add this to the fact that the time of death is based only on circumstantial evidence. Add also that the police investigation seemed to focus on Luke from very early on and other suspects seemed to be cleared without due consideration.

Well, I'm left wondering what I really KNOW about what happened.

Maybe there were other sightings or evidence that didn't emerge until after the investigation was on its myopic course already, and so was incorrectly deemed to be unrelated. There's also the chance of course that someone with important evidence never came forward or didn't realise they knew something important because the murder happened hours before they saw a girl like her (or whatever their evidence might be!)

Does that make sense? I fear I rambled again.

[marty]

I know exactly what you mean Baz.
I'm not aware of any other sightings later but I'm sure sandra will fill us in on that.

[sandra L]

I think it's interesting that there were, in fact, three claimed sightings - two of Jodi, and one of someone who could have been Jodi (the Andrina Bryson "sighting.")

The first two were after 5pm (between 5.05 and 5.10pm), placing Jodi on the Easthouses Road, a few minutes away from the Easthouses entrance to the path, meaning there was not enough time between those sightings and the claimed time of death of 5.15pm (Jodi would have needed a minimum of 8 minutes at a "brisk pace" to get to the Entrance to the path, and from there to the V break, taking the time to 5.13 - 5.18). We know from the evidence that the beating/strangulation before the fatal cut-throat injuries took place on the woodland side of the wall so, however it's presented, these sightings rule out a 5.15pm time of death and, as a result of other timings, rule out Luke as the killer.


But it's the Andrina Bryson sighting which interests me most. Firstly, Mrs Bryson placed the timing of her sighting much later (5.30pm 5.40pm) She based her timing on a call from her husband - she had been home for about half an hour, had unloaded the car and put away the shopping and had started cooking dinner, she told police. In her next statement, she produced her phone to show officers the time the call came in from her husband - 6.17pm, meaning she had returned home, after her "sighting," at 5.50pm.

The till receipt (originally) was timed at 16.45 - the prosecution allowed just 5 minutes for her to get out of the store, load up the car (with two small kids) and drive the 12 - 17 minutes to the point where she made her sighting - that's, absolute minimum, 5.02pm - 5.07 - 20 - 25 minutes before her earlier estimates, but still after 5pm. (In my opinion, the 5.30 - 5.40 timing is much more likely to have been accurate because (a) she would have needed more than 5 minutes to get out of the shop, load up the car, etc, and she was looking for a house that was for sale, so drove slowly into and out of a couple of streets - that wasn't factored into the police "timing" of her route.)

But here's where it gets crazy - police investigators "discovered" the time on the till receipt was wrong - it should have read 4.32pm. Taken with other timings, this means she did a large shopping, with two small children and had cleared the checkout in just 17 minutes. But without the till receipt being 4.32, she could not have made her sighting between 4.49 and 4.54pm - any time after that, and they could not have claimed Luke was the killer.

Sorry it's a bit confusing - I'm having to rush this as I have other work I need to do.

[Baz]

What explanation was given for the change in time of the receipt? Surely a copy of the receipt is physical evidence? How can you get that wrong?

[marty]

The prosecution said there was evidence the time of the receipt was wrong, but I don't think the evidence was ever produced.

[sandra L]

Well remembered, marty - there was never any evidence provided to the defence of bank records themselves - only the claim that they showed the shop's receipt machine must have been wrong.

I know for certain there was cctv technology available for the area at the time - why wasn't that cross referenced to see which was right - the claimed bank times or the actual receipt?

[Baz]

That seems like something the defence should have contested.

[Baz]

I'm reading a part of the appeal opinion from 2008.

At the end of 92, which details the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, it says "The evidence regarding Marilyn Manson was not founded upon." And then something about Janine buying a cd.  What does this mean exactly?

[sandra L]

It means that even though they paraded all the nonsense about Luke, Manson, the Dahlia, the dvd, etc before the jury, they did not then "rely" upon it for the conviction - it was, in the prosecution's opinion, unnecessary for the jury to believe that stuff, because there was sufficient other evidence for the jury to convict.

Just another example of legal "trickery" intended to influence the jury's overall opinion of Luke, although there was nothing whatsoever to back up the impression given. Even the judge, at the sentencing hearing, if I remember corrrectly, said he believed Luke had "carried those images (of the Dahlia paintings) in his mind."

Luke having one Manson CD, bought after the murder, was put to to the jury as evidence of Luke's "obsession" with Manson and its apparent effect on his state of mind (i.e. turning him into a crazed murderer). Janine, it turned out, not only had exactly the same cd, but every cd Manson had ever released, she said she didn't think he was "weird" or "strange," and that was apparently ok - no explanation of why all those Manson cds didn't have the same effect on her state of mind! She was never asked if her fiance, Kelly, shared her clear liking for Manson.

[nugnug]

i dont see how the music somone likes constitures evedene anyway.

[lookout]

It would clearly show an unhealthy obsession,nugs beyond the norm, that is.

[nugnug]

it would show crap musical taste but thats all.

[Baz]

It means that even though they paraded all the nonsense about Luke, Manson, the Dahlia, the dvd, etc before the jury, they did not then "rely" upon it for the conviction - it was, in the prosecution's opinion, unnecessary for the jury to believe that stuff, because there was sufficient other evidence for the jury to convict.

I see. When do the prosecution state this opinion?

How do we know that it doesn't have an effect on the jury? Are they specifically told to ignore this evidence?

[Baz]

It would clearly show an unhealthy obsession,nugs beyond the norm, that is.

I do not understand this opinion at all. And it's this kind of thinking I worry was in the jury's head.

[sandra L]

If a person having one cd/dvd demonstrates an "unhealthy obsession," then what about someone with several cds/dvds of the same ilk by the same artist? And where is the evidence to back up the claim that one cd/dvd of an artist, or 100 cd/dvds "demonstrates an unhealthy obsession"?

The jury is not told, per se, that the prosecution is not founding the case on this evidence - in his speech to the jury, the prosecuting QC sums up the evidence he thinks is most important for the jury. The judge gives an overall direction that it is for the jury to decide what evidence it believes/rejects - in this case, the jury was warned to forget about everything jurors had read or heard about the case, and make its decision on the "facts before them." we don't know what effect this "evidence" has on jurors, because they are not allowed to discuss their verdict, and it is an offence to ask them about it.

The claim that the prosecution had not founded the case on the Manson/Dahlia evidence was the opinion of the appeal court judges, long after the evidence had been before the jury in a technical interpretation of what evidence meant what - it's all sleight of hand, and smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid.