Forensic entomology is 90% crime scene assessed and the removal of the body to a plastic sheet meant it was impossible to establish anywhere near a credible time, although again any eggs could have been incubated and brought to a condition where there could be a relative time of death ascertained.
No soil samples appear to have been taken from the area at the bottom of the wall (where it is claimed Jodi's throat was cut), or from under where her body was found - again, absolutely criminal, since insects/eggs in blood soaked soil could also have yielded critical evidence.
This, however, raises another question for me. I do not believe that the "blood spray" discovered low down on the wall is, in fact, arterial spray from a cut-throat injury. Without being too graphic, there is not enough of it, and it is far too finely misted to have been deposited with the force arterial spray would involve.
Other bloodstains raise further questions - the branch found several meters (sorry, I don't remember exactly how many) beyond Jodi's body, towards Newbattle which, it was claimed, could have been used to strike Jodi, but had characteristics of having been moved after the blood was deposited on it - was this branch used to strike Jodi beyond the point where she was found? (The prosecution claim has always been that she went over the V break in the wall, and all of her injuries occurred between there and the point, 16.3 metres west, where her body was found.)
A poster on one of the newspaper sites, claiming to be a relative, made reference to a branch being found in the wasteland at the Easthouses end, in the entrance to the path area. Was this a case of mistaken labelling, or did the attack on Jodi begin
before the junction of the paths, and before the V point, and carry on well beyond the point where Jodi's body was found? If that is the case, and Jodi's throat was not cut at the wall, the prosecution case of an argument gone wrong begins to fall apart (inasmuch as it ever held together) - in this new potential scenario, Jodi was hunted for an extended period of time in that woodland strip.
The horrific defence injuries to her arms were, according to the pathologist her final, desperate attempts to fight for her life - his point was that they were "peri-mortem" - at or near the time of death. Had these been before her throat was cut, they would have bled profusely - if they were inflicted as the cut throat injuries were being inflicted, they would not, as the rapid blood loss from the cut-throat injuries would very quickly reduce the amount of blood, and the pressure of it, circulating in her body. Does the pathologist reference to them as "peri-mortem" suggest the latter? If so, does that cast doubt on the prosecution claim that her throat was cut from behind - was she actually facing her attacker, trying to shield herself from a bladed attack to her neck, with her arms? The other injuries - the extensive bruising to her face, head and hands, the potential teeth marks on her hand, the clumps of hair pulled out by the roots, the non-fatal strangling (either manual or by ligature) all point to a prolonged attack. The distance from the body of the lens from one side of her glasses and the bra strap, along with blood stains found in other parts of the woodland strip point to an attack which was moving from place to place (i.e. did not all happen in the small area claimed by the prosecution).
