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

[Baz]

What like the Middleton case?

Knew you would say 'not proven,' predictable.

So better to have a 'not proven' verdict in a murder case like this in your opinion? You think the people of Scotland would have been okay with that?

More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

[Stephanie]

That's a good question. Not one that I really have a formed opinion on, and without legal expertise I'm not sure I'm that qualified to say. But if the basis of a fair trial is innocent until proven guilty then I think the media attention would have made that a lot more difficult, if not impossible. I also think a fair trial is dependent on the strength of the evidence presented and this is dependent on the people collecting that evidence. 

However, I also think Luke had a top-notch lawyer and has had his case revisited with appeals. I know that people question the defence's performance, and there are things that seem lacklustre about it to me, but there are entire day's lost to legal wrangling as well so he can't have been that weak.

As I say, And wasn't at the trial, so it's hard to say.

Human beings aren't infallible. From my own experiences, I now realise that police mistakes will get made along the way, especially in cases like this. You cannot expect an investigation to run like clockwork...

[Baz]

Jodie and her family didn't deserve justice, is that what you are suggesting?

It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.

[Stephanie]

More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

How is it irrelevant? The WAP organisation was run by Middleton and Sandra L which advocated for the LM case for several years. Sandra L then disassociated herself from the organisation, one has to ask the question why? It's relevant imo.

[Stephanie]

It's Jodi.

And I won't dignify that with a response.

It's Jodi what?

You mean you won't answer because to do so leaves your theory of a not proven verdict wide open for critism... 

[Baz]

It's Jodi what?

You mean you won't answer because to do so leaves your theory of a not proven verdict wide open for critism... 

I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.

[Stephanie]

C) Not proven

"The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again".[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

[Stephanie]

I was just explaining that you've spelt her name wrong. There is no 'e' at  the end. Easy mistake.

And no I won't answer because it's a completely ridiculous question to ask. I'm pretty sure anyone interested in the case ultimately wants justice for Jodi and to imply that someone with a different opinion to you doesn't think the Jones family deserved justice is petty and reductive.

And these circles we are going round in are pointless.

Night.

I get a strong sense from your posts that you have a personal agenda or score to settle as opposed to a genuine interest in the facts of this case?

Unless of course you were goading?

[sandra L]

Good morning.

Nugnug, Andrina Bryson was asked on the stand if she knew any of the Jones family. She said she didn't. Janine was asked if she knew Mark "Bill" Bryson - she said she did, but played down the relationship between him and her family. Mark "Bill" Bryson wasn't called to give evidence, neither was his brother (Andrina's husband.) Nobody was ever asked how MBB came to be in Alice Walker's house by 9am on the morning of July 1st, and how he had come by AB's story of a "sighting" so quickly. The formal identification of Jodi's body was not made public until around 3pm on July 1st.

For the record, the description he is reported to have given is different again from the one given by AB in court- it was of someone wearing "army clothes" and "army style boots."

[sandra L]

Shane did not initially state he was "home alone" that afternoon - he said he had no idea whether or not he came straight home from work, and gave the time/route he would normally take/arrive home, with the proviso that he might not have come straight home.

Police checks showed he had stopped off to help a friend with a car problem (which Shane instantly agreed was corrrect, he had simply forgotten about it on what must have been, by the Tuesday afternoon/evening, the most shocking and surreal experience.) That meant Luke would have been home before Shane, and not the other way around. He said he usually came in from work and went straight upstairs to his room, and believed he did so that afternoon. If Luke was in the kitchen, Shane would not have seen him, and, unless they called out to each other, may not even have known Luke was there.

I knocked at Corinne's front door and let myself in one day - Mia was lying on the settee in the living room and didn't bark (because she knew me), I said hello to Mia, then walked through to the kitchen (there were heavy curtains on the door between the kitchen and the dining room) and almost gave Corinne a heart attack because she hadn't heard me come in.

None of the questions about Shane which have been posed here take account of the phone call made from Corinne's landline to Scotts Caravans, or the fact that Shane and Corinne ate a cooked dinner which they did not prepare themselves.

The treatment of Shane by police was outrageous - one officer kept telling him "I'm ot accepting "I don't know" or "I don't remember" - that's not good enough" before aggressively telling Shane to picture crtain scenarios in his head. If that isn't a blatant attempt to interfere with witness recall, I don't know what is.

[sandra L]

Donald Findlay may have been a "top notch" lawyer, but when a lawyer, any lawyer, takes a tactical decision not to be "too hard" on members of the victim's family, for fear of putting the jury "offside" (curious, given the months of negative publicity) then how robust can that defence really be?

I'd heard many years ago that this decision had been made, but never had anything solid to back it up - things the solicitor had said certainly seemed to point that way. I have now seen documentation which confirms that such a decision was, indeed, taken.

Much of the immediate family's testiony was unsubstantiated and allowed to be taken at face value. Take, for example, Judith's claim that she returned to the Mitchell home a second time to ask Luke why he hadn't called back that night when Jodi didn't show.

From the statements, this was claimed to be after the first raid on Friday 4th July (specifically, the evening of Saturday 5th.) By the police's own admission, Luke was a suspect from July 3rd (it has  now been proven it was earlier than that) - why did they allow Judith to enter the home of their prime suspect? In any other case, that would be considered an attempt at entrapment (as was the deployment of the liaison officer.) But Judith's claim - that she asked Luke why he hadn't called back- is completely unsubstantiated. Joseph was with her that evening - why wasn't he called to the stand and asked to corroborate Judith's claim? Why was what was, in law, simple hearsay, allowed to stand as evidence? They had the means to corroborate it - why didn't they use it? So many rules broken in this one piece of "evidence" alone.

[nugnug]

Good morning.

Nugnug, Andrina Bryson was asked on the stand if she knew any of the Jones family. She said she didn't. Janine was asked if she knew Mark "Bill" Bryson - she said she did, but played down the relationship between him and her family. Mark "Bill" Bryson wasn't called to give evidence, neither was his brother (Andrina's husband.) Nobody was ever asked how MBB came to be in Alice Walker's house by 9am on the morning of July 1st, and how he had come by AB's story of a "sighting" so quickly. The formal identification of Jodi's body was not made public until around 3pm on July 1st.

For the record, the description he is reported to have given is different again from the one given by AB in court- it was of someone wearing "army clothes" and "army style boots."

what i cant grasp is why they denied it i mean that wouldent of made mrs brysons testomany any less valid.

[Stephanie]

More irrelevance.

I wasn't saying Not Proven, I was just pointing out that your "it's simple either a or b" was incorrect.

You said not proven.... Here...

C) Not proven

[sandra L]

what i cant grasp is why they denied it i mean that wouldent of made mrs brysons testomany any less valid.

I think the problem, nugnug, is that the to-ing and fro-ing of Mark Bill Bryson amongst immediate family members could have undermined Andrina Bryson's testimony as potentially contaminated. The initial description changed after he had spoken to Jodi's family members, but before Mrs Bryson gave her first statement - had that been before the jury, they may have wondered why the description changed so quickly.

Also, MBB was with Jodi's family on July 4th, telling them the same story about the "sighting" and AO claims it was not long after that that he began to have doubts about Luke.

The identification from photographs would potentially have been further undermined (Luke's photos hadn't been in the paper prior to that "identification") if it was known that there were such close ties between the Brysons and the Jones family - if AB already knew, by the time of the photo id what Luke looked like, it's not difficult to see how such knowledge, along with the family certainty that Luke was the killer, might have influenced her "identification."

[Baz]

Donald Findlay may have been a "top notch" lawyer, but when a lawyer, any lawyer, takes a tactical decision not to be "too hard" on members of the victim's family, for fear of putting the jury "offside" (curious, given the months of negative publicity) then how robust can that defence really be?

I'd heard many years ago that this decision had been made, but never had anything solid to back it up - things the solicitor had said certainly seemed to point that way. I have now seen documentation which confirms that such a decision was, indeed, taken.

Thanks for the information. That goes some way to explaining why stories are allowed to change so much from original statements without being seen as suspicious.

I should probably know all the names by now but who is AO?

Edited: just worked it out. Allen Ovens, Jodi's Stepdad.