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

[gordo30]

I'm also guessing that all of Luke's footwear were taken by the police a long with clothes and such, so why didn't none of his footwear not match? Footwear tends to be something you wear consistently more so males.
So not only do we have the perceived parka jacket that everyone shouts about but also a pair of shoes going missing, I expect friends would and could have said Luke owned this type and that type of shoes and would have been harder to explain why he no longer had them.

[sandra L]

Bruising on Jodi's hands, head and face was visible - it's not possible to say whether she was gagged or not.

Police took the clothes he was wearing when Jodi was found immediately (including the boots with the distinctive treads) and the remainder of his belongings on July 4th.

The reason I think they didn't go down the "missing footwear" route to explain why none of Luke's footwear matched the recovered prints was because they were a different size to Luke's shoe size.

They didn't even bother to take casts of some of the footwear imprints, so convinced were they that Luke was their man.

[gordo30]

Bruising on Jodi's hands, head and face was visible - it's not possible to say whether she was gagged or not.

Police took the clothes he was wearing when Jodi was found immediately (including the boots with the distinctive treads) and the remainder of his belongings on July 4th.

The reason I think they didn't go down the "missing footwear" route to explain why none of Luke's footwear matched the recovered prints was because they were a different size to Luke's shoe size.

They didn't even bother to take casts of some of the footwear imprints, so convinced were they that Luke was their man.

wouldnt that work the other way though? there so sure that early on that they would take the casts, even although they were the wrong size which of course puts luke out the frame.

[sandra L]

You could be right - I think they were so convinced the DNA results were going to come back positive for Luke that they really weren't bothered about anything else.

Remember in the first week  they were saying that DNA results expected "within a week" (i.e 2 weeks after the murder) would "prove or disprove their main line of investigation." They'd been telling people since July 2nd they "knew" Luke was the murderer, so maybe they just thought boot print casts and preserving the crime scene weren't necessary?

[gordo30]

Sry again not the best subject but you say there were bruises to the face and head were these likely caused by assault i.e area marked or cut,swollen or was it caused by levidity as if at some point Jodi was face down and moved, were their levidity bruises elsewhere that could point to the way she was left?

[sandra L]

The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?

[marty]

Was there any signs of blood still flowing when her body was found. Did anyone state that they seen this or was it all stopped

[notsure]

Hi sandra

I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?

Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.

[gordo30]

The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?

Rigor starts between 2-4 hrs after death and full rigor will have set in as early as 12 hrs, only factors that would change that would be temperature and high concentration of lactic acid in the muscles. The temperature was perfect that night for the normal advancement of the on set of rigor, Jodi fought and sustained a great deal of trauma so lactic acid would be present in her muscles but not enough as say someone who had ran a marathon.
I haven't seen the photos so it would depend on how natural the positioning of the arms and head were but certainly a later time of death would aid a more natural positioning of the body.
The problem is that even if it was as late as 10 pm then rigor starting at 12 am then by say 7 am when the photos are taken rigor would be at an advanced stage, the smaller muscles affected first then shoulder early on. No expert but doesn't make much sense.

[gordo30]

The bruising I was talking about earlier was "in life" bruising, for want of a better way of putting it.

The difficulty with lividity is it can be altered up to six hours after death by movement of the body and (sorry, there's no other way to say this) there was so little blood left in the body to "pool" that it's really hard to say. Also, the crime scene photographs were of quite poor quality, so it was difficult to say whether marks were shadows, over exposure making areas seem discoloured, etc. What was surprising, though, was a complete lack of any apparent lividity on her back - that was the largest area in contact with the ground when she was found, yet there were no imprints, no discolouration, no leaves or soil staining. Her front, on the other hand, from the rib-cage to her knees, was soil stained and had leaves, twigs, etc clinging to it (although strangely, the uppermost part of her front did not have any of these, apart from some loose soil.)

However, there are a couple of other things that I find concerning. The front of both of Jodi's thighs appear to have been in contact with the ground after death - the skin was discoloured (possible lividity) there was soil staining and leaves on both, and her right thigh had what appeared to be "imprints" (as did her upper left arm and shoulder and left thigh).  The problem with this is that the front her right thigh was not in contact with the ground when she was found - this could suggest that at some point, she had been on her front (or at least the lower part of her body had), but had been moved into the position in which she was found.

That got me thinking about rigor. If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm on June 30th, it would be expected that, by 5.15am on July 1st, her body would have been in the full "rigid" state. But the photographs showed Jodi's head and left arm in different positions between the frontal photographs, and those taken from the back. How could that be possible?

The area where the body was found was in a clearing right? but the area the initial assault and murder was further on towards Newbattle, where the blood spray and smear were found on the wall. Wouldn't the movement of the body have created the debris on the thighs and lower part of the body?
Still trying to remember what i can but weren't the clothes spread around where the body was found mainly with a few exceptions (bra strap) being further away. If so would that suggest she was clothed when moved.

[sandra L]

Was there any signs of blood still flowing when her body was found. Did anyone state that they seen this or was it all stopped

There were no reports of blood still flowing, as such, but there was some evidence of "wet" blood which was never reported officially. I'm going to have to look out those notes - I'm doing most of this from memory, so don't have all the details.

[gordo30]

Sry Sandra but this happens when your on call and up all night so more questions.

You were pretty sure that the footprint casts that were taken weren't the same size as Luke's can you remember what size they were .

The jeans were twisted and used to bind the hand around the back but only one hand was tied in a knot around the wrist, which wrist? Could the jeans be used to aid the movement of the body from where the initial attack took place to where Jodi was found?

[sandra L]

Hi sandra

I know it's a bit off topic, I'm really interested in what's being g posted at the moment but do you know what the general feeling g regarding luke and his guilt or innocence is within the local community now.?

Surely there is doubt and if so is it spoken about at all.

Doubt about his guilt or his innocence? For years, daring to speak out about the possibility of Luke being innocent was a pretty risky thing to do - feelings ran high for a very long time, and the media (fed by the police) had done a sterling job of convincing  the public that Luke was guilty.

That's changed over time and people are more likely, locally, to ask questions, rather than stick rigidly to the "he dunnit" approach. I'd say it's still a majority opinion that Luke is guilty, but there's no longer that blanket certainty - I think being able to put out so much information between 2008 and 2014  that had never been in the public domain helped, especially when it could be stated categorically that it all came from the case papers - until then there had been nothing for the general public to go on, other than the extremely negative media coverage. The lie detectors helped as well - it's a shame a lot of that information is gone now

[sandra L]

Sorry, I can't remember the sizes of either Luke's shoes or the boot prints - I only remember that they were different sizes. I probably have a note of that somewhere as well. Looks like I really am going to have to dig out those notes - I'll try to do that I the next couple of days - problem is, I have to empty a whole room to get to them!

The jeans were knotted round Jodi's left wrist, wrapped around her right wrist. I'd say it was possible that the jeans could have been used to drag her body - her right arm was angled slightly outwards from her body, rather than being by her side, like her left arm.

The area where the body was found was in a clearing right? but the area the initial assault and murder was further on towards Newbattle, where the blood spray and smear were found on the wall. Wouldn't the movement of the body have created the debris on the thighs and lower part of the body?
Still trying to remember what i can but weren't the clothes spread around where the body was found mainly with a few exceptions (bra strap) being further away. If so would that suggest she was clothed when moved.

There were blood stained branches, etc, further towards Newbattle, but the blood spray on the wall was only about 3' or so from where Jodi was found. Most of the clothes were found in a trail over about 15' between the V break and Jodi's body - i.e. in the Easthouses direction - in order, they were found, from furthest away from the body to nearest - bra strap and two pound coins (these were found "later?"), hoodie to the right in some shrubs, glasses (missing one lens) and T shirt  midway, bra, underwear  and shoes nearest the body.  By nearest the body, I mean less than 5' away. Jodi was claimed to have been fully clothed when she was murdered, her throat cut while she was in a sitting position at the wall where she was found, and stripped afterwards.  Yet the bra was pure white, the laces and trims on the shoes were pure white, there was no visible blood staining on either. Is that possible?

[gordo30]

Not possible with how saturated the front and back of jodis t-shirt were, was there any blood on the hoodie?

The bindings of the trousers had no blood on the inside suggesting they were tied when the throat was cut but the t-shirt was cut up the back and the arms weren't cut to allow the t-shirt to be taken off the body , there's so much that doesn't make sense.