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

[sandra L]

One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.

[sandra L]

Police did not interview 3000 people. They originally claimed, via the media, to have taken 2000 statements - this later changed to 3000. Those statements included statements from all of the officers working on the case - e.g. "On Friday 3rd July, I was tasked with completing house to house enquires between X and Y address" is a "statement" for these purposes.

From memory, they interviewed less than 200 people.

[Stephanie]

From memory, they interviewed less than 200 people.

I doubt that very much.

Unless you are referring to 200 suspects? 

With all the questions posed to you and the pointing out of misleading information contained in your posts - you choose to respond to this?

There were around 40 police officers involved in initial door to door enquiries - so that could be 40 plus statements there. Some people in cases like this give 2,3, 4 or more statements each. Then there would have been statements from forensic experts, friends, family members and other people of interest.

I'm certain there would have been more than 200 statements in a case like this.

[marty]

One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.

This would possibly also explain why Ferris and Vickie seen nothing when over the v at 515

[marty]

Does anyone have or has anyone seen a photo of the crime scene? It allegedly looks similar to the black dahlia case (Elizabeth Short) I find this hard to believe.

It's f all like the black Dahl is as explained by the pathologist on the documentary , the devils own.

[marty]

I doubt that very much.

Unless you are referring to 200 suspects? 

With all the questions posed to you and the pointing out of misleading information contained in your posts - you choose to respond to this?

There were around 40 police officers involved in initial door to door enquiries - so that could be 40 plus statements there. Some people in cases like this give 2,3, 4 or more statements each. Then there would have been statements from forensic experts, friends, family members and other people of interest.

I'm certain there would have been more than 200 statements in a case like this.

It says interviewed, people were asked to hand in statements not about what they knew, just what they knew about luke mitchell. So they were never interviewed just asked to hand a statement.
Who's misleading here, I can see only one.

[Stephanie]

It says interviewed, people were asked to hand in statements not about what they knew, just what they knew about luke mitchell. So they were never interviewed just asked to hand a statement.
Who's misleading here, I can see only one.

You are misleading yourself by the looks of it? The police would have taken statements - the general public would not have written their own!

[marty]

Mike. It's ridiculous to conclude that Luke is innocent due to lack of evidence while claiming it was Shane. There is absolutely nothing to support this.

Yes, Ferris and Dickie may know more than they let on, but perhaps being the type of people they were, they didn't want to grass or get involved with the police. Didn't Ferris point the finger at Luke early on? Maybe they did see something after all. Might JF's refusal to come forward with important evidence against Luke be the reason the Jones family hate him and for Joey wanting to beat him up?

2 witnesses claimed to see a stocky man, late teens or early 20's, messy ginger hair following Jodi as she made her way to meet Luke. The thing is though, one of these witnesses claimed to see the same man a week later in the police reconstruction. This man recognised the description of himself and came forward. So why do you place these sightings above others such as those of Luke Mitchell? If it were stocky man currently in jail for jodi's murder with Sandra defending him, no question she'd be totally discrediting this witness for such an error. And would you, being a moj campaigner, be satisfied with such a witness? How does this constitute a "no brainer"?

The description given of the girl like sandra says is nearly spot on. Better than any other description given of jodi. Then there is all the other witnesses who were wrong about the Times they made there sightings.( changed over time) The time jodi left home, purchases in shops being altered,Ferris and dickie being at the v at alleged time of murder yet seeing less than Stevie wonder. STOCKY man is far more likely.
Know one in saying, or I'm not , than he could be convicted of anything on the two witnesses alone. But he was never found so further evidence or a case could not be built, if he became a suspect.
It wasn't investigated properly imo

[marty]

You are misleading yourself by the looks of it? The police would have taken statements - the general public would not have written their own!

They were asked to write a statement of what they knew about luke Mitchell, not what they knew about the crime.
A lot of the statements were from school boys.
So I presume the school may have been asked to do this part.

[Stephanie]

They were asked to write a statement of what they knew about luke Mitchell, not what they knew about the crime.
A lot of the statements were from school boys.
So I presume the school may have been asked to do this part.

To quote a previous post of yours:

Phahahaha 

[David1819]

And I'm unsure what relevance this has with regards the conviction?

The prosecution argued that Luke was interested in the Black Dahlia and that there were similarities with both crime scenes.

[Stephanie]

The prosecution argued that Luke was interested in the Black Dahlia and that there were similarities with both crime scenes.

It was a theory.....

[Stephanie]

One of the witnesses to stocky man gave a description of a girl which was far closer to what Jodi looked like that evening than the one given by Andrina Bryson: very baggy clothing, dark top with what seemed to be a large collar laying across the shoulders, girl's hands in "pouch pockets" at front of top, zip front, brown hair parted in the middle, no fringe, either tied back or tucked behind her ears."

Compared to Andrina Bryson's "boot cut blue jeans a shade lighter than a plain blue sweatshirt, no recollection of hair style (originally).

The problem with the more accurate description is that it was timed after 5pm, and the time couldn't be manipulated the way the Bryson one could, because of other, concrete factors. But if this other sighting was of Jodi (and, given that they accepted that Bryson's description "could have been Jodi," then clearly, this other description also could have been Jodi, we have a bit of a problem with the prosecution case:

1. If it was after 5pm, Jodi could not have been murdered at 5.15pm where her body was found, because there is not enough time between the sighting on the Easthouses Road and the location of the body

2. If it was after 5pm, "fishing jacket man" described by Andrina Bryson becomes irrelevant - it couldn't have been Jodi at whom he was gesticulating at 4.54pm, because she was not there.

3. If it was after 5pm, and therefore the murder was, of necessity, later than 5.15pm, Luke could not have been the killer.

Could all of this be the reason police (contrary to Lithium's claims) did not follow up on this witness, even though the witness returned to the police with further details?

Notice, as well, in the newspaper article posted earlier (the one dated 2nd July) police were looking for anyone who had been in the vicinity between 5pm and 8.30pm. Why, so early in the investigation, did they choose 8.30pm as significant? Surely it should have been any time between when Jodi left home and when her body was found at just after 1.30pm? And why, later did 8.30pm change to 10pm, still an hour and a half before the body was found?

We know that a witness reported a scream frm the woodland strip at 8.30pm. The only "significant" thing I can think of for 10pm is that it was Jodi's curfew time.

Is this from 'memory?'

Source please.

'WE?' - who are we? Again, source please.

[nugnug]

the crime scene looks nothing like black dali elisbeth short was cut in half.

[marty]

To quote a previous post of yours:

Phahahaha 

Asked to write a statement, not all interviewed.
What you on about