Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 1055442 times)

0 Members and 24 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
leave his t shirt there and wear the vicems.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
The killers t-shirt would have been covered in blood while the victims if she wasn't wearing it would have been clean.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
its would certanly explian why the description of jodis clothes given by jodis mother was completly wrong.

what about the hoody.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
One problem I have is that the bra being clean of blood proves that it wasn't worn by Jodi at the time of her death but It had been touched,handled and possibly moved so why wasn't there blood from that handling?
Why is it both sets of items namely the bra and shoes were handled methodically and placed neatly folded bra and shoes placed together?
I have always felt that a second person was at that crime scene at some point and that certain aspects of it were staged to a degree, does this prove that these items were being handled by that 2nd person who couldn't contaminate with blood because their hands were clean?
This leads to other problems as why handle two sets of items pertinent to a female! what possible interest could there be in these items, why choose them ?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
to move the body or stage the crime scene would of taken some time how long do you think.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
That's a hard one as we know time was taken after the murder to perform post mortem injuries so I'm guessing 10/15 mins or slightly more , the post mortem injuries appear to be important to the crime that's why whoever was there spent time without worrying how long it would take .

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
if the body was moved was it necasrly by the killer or could it of been somone else.

the patholgist said he thought the body had been moved and he wouldent of said that without good reason.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
There are a number of reasons to think the body had been moved, and possibly more than once. For example, the claim was that Jodi was killed at the wall, facing it. Her body was discovered approximately 6 feet out from the wall at right angles to it (feet nearest the wall). So there's one move.

There were leaves and soil on the front of both of Jodi's thighs, and on her stomach, but one thigh and most of her stomach were not in contact with the ground - had she initially been face down, and someone partially turned the body over?

Then, of course, we have the utterly incompetent "investigators" gathering up items and placing Jodi's body onto a plastic sheet before the forensics officers got there - they moved the body twice - once onto the plastic sheet facing upwards, and then rolling it over to photograph the back.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
if the body was moved was it necasrly by the killer or could it of been somone else.

the patholgist said he thought the body had been moved and he wouldent of said that without good reason.

What was done at the crime scene was enough to have the desired  effect, the police when seeing a naked teenager thought that it was sexually motivated until the autopsy report came back with no evidence to support that, imagine their dismay a few weeks later when the DNA came back with all those semen samples!!
The movement, stripping and post mortem injuries all compose a staging of the crime scene to a point.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
what do you think the motive would be for staging the crime scene.

Offline marty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
Ritualistic, Fantasy, fetish. Something like that.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17245
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
or possibly someone trying to make like a different kind of murder.


Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
That's what I was thinking, Nugnug. The thing is, I can't quite get it all to fit together in my head.

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.

Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?

But, if this was a crime staged to look like a sexually motivated attack, it failed fairly quickly, since police dropped that as a possibility by mid July.

The very clean bra, I agree with Gordo - Jodi could not possibly have been wearing it when the cut-throat injuries were inflicted - apart from anything else, the blood saturation of the t-shirt makes the cleanliness of the bra a physical impossibility, if it was being worn under the t-shirt at the time those injuries were inflicted. But the transfer stain on the clasp area means someone with some level of contamination of Jodi's blood touched (or undid) that clasp. The only other possibility (please forgive me, I include this only because it's the only other plausible explanation) is that a bleeding Jodi undid the clasp herself.

The pathology reports, and the forensic evidence from the scene (drips and splashes of blood on foliage, branches etc) suggest that Jodi had bleeding injuries before the fatal cut-throat injuries were inflicted - her lip was burst, for example.

But here's something that might throw even more confusion into the mix (sorry!) Jodi's hands were filthy - caked with dirt, embedded right under her fingernails - if it was Jodi who undid the clasp, she had to have done so before her hands got so dirty, or the clasp area would have been heavily dirt stained. It wasn't.

So, if we're turning this around and Jodi was not stripped after death (again, something I've been arguing for years), how do we explain the known evidence, and how does Gordo's hypothesis fit with alternative explanations?

The cut t-shirt was "heavily bloodstained" around the neck area. If Jodi was killed in a sitting position, facing the wall, I'd have expected the t-shirt to be heavily bloodstained definitely down the whole of the front, at the very least, over the shoulder areas, and potentially down the back. If the hoodie was being worn at the time, then I'd expect the t-shirt to be possibly less stained, but the hoodie to be saturated. It wasn't - it was bloodstained on one side of the hood.

I never understood the bloodstaining in the armpit of one of the sleeves of the hoodie- there were no injuries on Jodi's body that could account for that heavy staining, and no cuts in the hoodie to suggest an injury inflicted through it. There were also no "matching" cuts in the t-shirt

Which brings me to the "defensive wounds" on Jodi's arms. She couldn't have been wearing the hoodie when these were inflicted - no cuts to the hoodie sleeves in the areas of these injuries, no bloodstaining to match with those injuries, either directly or indirectly (e.g. sleeves rolled up when the injuries were inflicted.) So, what about the t-shirt? Could that have been still worn when the arm injuries were inflicted? Again, I'd be inclined to say no. These were horrific injuries. If Jodi had done the instinctive thing when they were inflicted and drawn her arms towards her body to shield them I'd have expected to see extensive blood staining on the t-shirr around the chest or stomach area, most probably soaking through to the bra. If she was flailing her arms, trying to fend off further blows, then I'd have expected to see splashes of blood from those injuries on the front, back and sleeves of the t-shirt, as well as the jeans, and again, because of the level of blood loss, where those splashes landed on the t-shirt, I'd expect to see soak-through onto the bra.

I have no idea where all of this might lead - I'm just thinking out loud, all these years later, about the anomalies, the things that just don't add up, and never have.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Sandra was the blood in the hoodie and the armpit as well as the injury to the mouth on the same side, if so it's consistent with someone bleeding from a wound on the face while lying on their side arm extended above their head and the head nestled into the arm pit.
The hoodie wouldn't need to be over the head it would naturally fall to that side.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767

Initially, police were convinced it was a sexually motivated attack, which I don't think was unreasonable. But they changed their mind about that, claiming that because there was no evidence of sexual assault, then it couldn't have been sexually motivated. I thought then (and still do) that was a really naïve conclusion to draw - I probably have a dozen examples of sexually motivated crimes that didn't result in what are generally accepted to be "sexual assaults" - by its very nature, deviant sexuality won't necessarily produce standard sexual assaults.


I find this a little misleading as any deviant sexual assault could only be acertainted once the culprit is caught, it would not be wise for the police to assume any crime could have a deviant aspect to it. Some people gain sexual gratification throught simply stealing from shops and other obscure activities.
What the police were saying is that the crime wan't of an "A" sexual nature as opposed to a pseudo
sexual crime.


Then we have all the semen samples and sperm heads.  Do those suggest a sexually motivated attack, or do we accept the "innocent transference" theories?


Thats what im saying there is a third theory where these samples were placed innocently on the garment/s if the garment/s belonged to someone else. This is the point where the police were banging their heads between sexual/non sexual crime but I can't believe they looked for an explanation that discounted these samples from being linked to the crime and not simply being used to solve the crime.