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

[nugnug]

I see, so Luke actually came up with the cunning plot not to be the one who found the body alone at precisely the point where Alice suggested they double check? Isn't that a different argument to the one we've already spent so much time on? And how does this new one work?

Surely the best way to avoid being the one to find the body alone would have been to not go out looking at all - he was 14 years old, it was coming up to 11pm - his mum could have put the foot down and said, "No way - Judith's called the police, they'll know what to do. You're not going out there on your own at this time of night."

He could have chosen not to put the dog in tracker mode and then, as Findlay pointed out, they would all have "walked right past" Jodi's body - as Mia was so excitable, the family wouldn't have known if she'd "reacted" to something.

"Safely tucked up in bed?" This lad's got superpowers! He didn't know he was going to meet the family en route, so he was heading for Judith's house. how could he (a) have known how long he would be there and (b) when Jodi's body would be found?

im still rather baffeled what the search party were doing there in the first place.

they shouldent of had any clue that jodi had been there.

[nugnug]

You're right. Alone it isn't compelling enough to suggest guilt or innocence. Wouldn't leave something like that up to a dog's behaviour.

Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?

id like to know how the could say for a fact it wasn't viable from the murder seen.

and theres also the fact he has seen her at school that day.

[sandra L]

If anything, the limited forensic results gathered from the Jodi Jones murder scene assisted Luke Mitchell's defence so I cannot see why you are complaining about it?  It wasn't the forensic evidence which put Luke away for twenty years but it was the circumstantial evidence.

I'm "complaining" (although I posted the article because I thought the subject was both interesting and pertinent) that junk science is allowed to pass as evidence in our courts, with absolutely devastating consequences. As John knows, my interest is in justice, not in one single case. I have seen convictions obtained where the so-called science is literally unbelievable - a biologist unable to say whether sperm heads on a victim's body came from a man who was vasectomised 14 years previously, selective interpretation of "results" which studiously ignore information which would make those "results" a laughing stock ... it goes on and on.

As for the last part of John's post, our justice system is supposed to be based on the right to be presumed innocent until proven[/i guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Luke was never afforded the right to be presumed innocent, from the moment the body was found. The SCCRC determined that he was a suspect from the moment he was "medically" examiined in the police station in the early hours of July 1st, and arguably from the point where he was separated from the other searchers. As for beyond reasonable doubt, where does one begin? Unidentified male DNA, not Luke's, on the victim's clothing and at the crime scene. Claimed alibis for others which, on closer inspection are nothing of the sort - or, at least. were nothing of the sort until opportunities were offered to changes stories and statements. Failure to follow up critical evidence (including identification evidence, plausible and corroborable evidence which shed others in suspicious lights), leading questioning and selective recording of statements and interviews... all of that before we get to the questionable forensic evidence!

As is always the way with these cases, it's as much what was not done as what was done that raises the doubts and questions.

[sandra L]

Baz what do you make of Luke telling the police Jodi was wearing a red scrunchie in her hair when she died when this was demonstrably near impossible to see at the murder scene?

Like the "oak tree" evidence, this is not as straightforward as it appears- from memory, Luke did not mention a red scrunchie initially (or any scrunchie for that matter), but I would have to check my notes for the details.

I've not forgotten my promise to look out the stuff about Shane's evidence, I just haven't had time to do so yet - I have some holiday time coming up, so will look for what notes I have on both of these subjects in the next few weeks.

[John]

I'm "complaining" (although I posted the article because I thought the subject was both interesting and pertinent) that junk science is allowed to pass as evidence in our courts, with absolutely devastating consequences. As John knows, my interest is in justice, not in one single case. I have seen convictions obtained where the so-called science is literally unbelievable - a biologist unable to say whether sperm heads on a victim's body came from a man who was vasectomised 14 years previously, selective interpretation of "results" which studiously ignore information which would make those "results" a laughing stock ... it goes on and on.

As for the last part of John's post, our justice system is supposed to be based on the right to be presumed innocent until proven[/i guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Luke was never afforded the right to be presumed innocent, from the moment the body was found. The SCCRC determined that he was a suspect from the moment he was "medically" examiined in the police station in the early hours of July 1st, and arguably from the point where he was separated from the other searchers. As for beyond reasonable doubt, where does one begin? Unidentified male DNA, not Luke's, on the victim's clothing and at the crime scene. Claimed alibis for others which, on closer inspection are nothing of the sort - or, at least. were nothing of the sort until opportunities were offered to changes stories and statements. Failure to follow up critical evidence (including identification evidence, plausible and corroborable evidence which shed others in suspicious lights), leading questioning and selective recording of statements and interviews... all of that before we get to the questionable forensic evidence!

As is always the way with these cases, it's as much what was not done as what was done that raises the doubts and questions.

I will happily agree about the junk science Sandra with the polygraph being top of the list.

[John]

I've not forgotten my promise to look out the stuff about Shane's evidence, I just haven't had time to do so yet - I have some holiday time coming up, so will look for what notes I have on both of these subjects in the next few weeks.

Look forward to it.

[marty]

Yeah, would be interesting to be fair

[Michaela]

there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

[John]

there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

Not so much really, the evidence might be circumstantial but it certainly adds up.

[John]

Still waiting on Sandra Lean to rush back with her version of Shane's evidence.  You  know, the bit where he states his brother wasn't in the family home otherwise he would have heard him.

[nugnug]

there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

i agrea.

[John]

there seems to be so many questions and theories in this case, that the only way is to have a re trial and show all the evidence on both sides.  What harm would it do to re try it and know once and for all?

No need, that has already been acomplished.  What's left is the bullshit!

[nugnug]

id rather hear that from her.

[marty]

Looking for a reaction I would say

[guest154]

So I've just discovered Sandra now believes Luke is guilty.

Oh dear.

Would explain her sudden silence when she said she was coming back to answer John.