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

[sandra L]

Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change

From all the cases I've seen, the defence teams are always disadvantaged from the off. For example, in Luke's case, the defence wanted to get an expert analysis on the mobile phone data - that would have shown whether Luke's phone moved from the Newbattle area to the Easthouses area and back that evening, or did it stay in Newbattle the whole evening? (It couldn't, of course, have pinpointed exactly where Luke was at any given moment, but that didn't matter - as long as it showed that he didn't travel in those directions, the "sighting" at Easthouses, and the prosecution claims about all of his comings and goings would have been discredited.) Also, that could have allowed for the missing texts to be recovered.

Here's what went wrong. Firstly, Luke wasn't arrested until April 2004, nine and a half months after the murder. The trial started on 15th November that year - almost exactly 7 months later. During those 7 months, the defence team had to gather whatever it could. It applied to the legal aid board for funding for the mobile phone analysis. The application went back and forth a couple of times, the last communication being the Legal Aid board saying the expert the defence had found was "too expensive" and they should try to find a more local and cheaper alternative. (The expert they found was, at the time, one of the best in the field.)

Not only were they struggling to get the funding, time had run out in the process - back then, the records they needed were only kept for 12 months - by the time Luke was arrested (and therefore actually had a defence team) there were only two and a half months left to get those records.

The court can instruct organisations not to destroy certain data, if it is thought to be central to a case, but in this example, by the time all the necessary paperwork was in place (i.e. the defence would have had to make an application to the court to have the data preserved, the court would have to decide whether to make the order or not, etc), it would have been too late anyway.

The law did change in 2005 - previously, the "disclosure officer" (working for the police/crown) decided what got released to the defence and what didn't. That decision originally was based on what the disclosure officer thought might help the defence case (yes, really!) In 2005, the law was changed so that they had to release anything that might help the defence or undermine the prosecution case.

There was something (I don't remember what, now) that the defence argued later should have been released because it could have been shown to undermine the prosecution case - the appeal judges responded that it would not have been released because the law hadn't changed in 2004, when Luke's trial began, and that was the end of that.

The other disadvantage for the defence is the way the unused evidence is listed - items will be listed as  "hairs," "piece of fabric" etc - how in the name of all things sane is a defence team supposed to know what might be significant evidence from a list like that? If they want to see what an item actually is, they not only have to ask for it specifically, but to give "good reason" for doing so. If they don't know how the prosecution is going to run the case, they can't know, in advance, what they might need, that might be on that list.

[sandra L]

There were loads witheld from the defense in this case but not everything is as sinister as it appears, the law requires proper corroboration and i feel he police have their hands tied to a point. I also think its easier for us to see how things may help with hindsight.
This doesn't excuse the proceedural problems with this case that got to the point where almost nothing could be relied on and very basic mistakes were made.

I agree that not everything is sinister, however, the real point is that the police/crown can't know what might be significant for the defence in every instance, especially as they are viewing the case, from the off, from the perspective of "what do we need to prove our case?"

Without any sinister intent, that question alone makes it far more likely that they will overlook, ignore or discount anything that doesn't serve a purpose in proving their case.

[notsure]

I agree that not everything is sinister, however, the real point is that the police/crown can't know what might be significant for the defence in every instance, especially as they are viewing the case, from the off, from the perspective of "what do we need to prove our case?"

Without any sinister intent, that question alone makes it far more likely that they will overlook, ignore or discount anything that doesn't serve a purpose in proving their case.

I don't get it, why can't both sides see everything. How each side use that is up to them then. Second guessing defence teams can't be on a level playing field.

OK the law changed in 2004 , why can't they backdate on cases where evidence would have helped the d e fence.

very unfair in my opinion. How can we trust the crown and polie when non disclosure is the most prominent thing in MOJ's

I know one thing it would save a he'll of a lot of money .

[sandra L]

Ironically, the claimed reason for not disclosing everything is money - it would cost too much!

The backdating thing absolutely infuriates me. Luke's was a cut and dried Cadder case - he was interviewed not once, but  three times as a suspect without a solicitor - when the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that this was unlawful, the Scottish courts spat the dummy and said firstly that they would only backdate cases where there were live proceedings. There were in Luke's case - his appeal against sentence was still outstanding - after months of sitting on it, they made their decision the day after Luke's team got his Cadder application in. Then it was decided that appeals against sentence didn't count as "live proceedings" and refused permission for him to apply to the Supreme Court.

At that time, it was possible to apply directly to the Supreme Court, who ruled that Luke's case was closed (because the Scottish courts had just closed it), so they couldn't accept his application.

I know of another case where, as a result of the Cadder ruling (which also applied),it was the decided  the new evidence which proved he wasn't the killer (and proved who really was) had come "too late" - this was because, after the Cadder ruling, the Scottish courts resurrected an old doctrine of certainty and finality. What it means, basically, is that the Scottish courts can rule, arbitrarily, on when a case is "final" (to allow for certainty for victim's families and the public in general), and therefore new evidence or legal arguments won't be allowed. The case I'm talking about meant he, also, couldn't go to the Supreme Court under the Cadder ruling, because his case was now "closed." - Talk about a catch 22.

This is at the same time as cold case reviews are being allowed years later, and the double jeopardy protection has been removed.

So it's not too late to convict, on the basis of "new evidence", someone who was acquitted by a jury ten years ago , but it's definitely too late to overturn a wrongful conviction on the same basis. That's not justice.

[marty]

I have learned so much about the justice system that you would not believe was possible on this forum and others.
You wouldn't think it was possible in a noble country like ours.

[nugnug]

Very depressing sandra. Do you think defence teams have a disadvantage from the off . Why are some things with eld from the defence.? I think the law should change

to stop them wining the case or mounting a credible appeal.

[nugnug]

wasnt there another blue hoody found near the rime scene 1 that was suposed to have belonged to jafs brother.

[sandra L]

There was, nugnug - it was a really odd part of the case.

JaF's younger brother had given his hoodie to a pal the week before, because the pal was cold, but the pal didn't want it, and threw it away in the waste ground behind Reed Drive (the opposite end of Lady Path from where it meets Roan's Dyke Path.) Or, at last, this is what the mother told police later.

On the morning of July 1st, the younger brother "found" the hoodie and pointed it out to police. Bit of a problem here - the hoodie was within the police cordon. This is the same morning JaF said he went behind a tree and masturbated (again!) ... within the police cordon.

I'm thinking it wasn't much of a cordon, really, when two members of the same family were wandering around within its boundaries.

Anyway, I digress, brother has pointed hoodie out to police by lunchtime, mother then calls the police around midnight to say her son pointed out a hoodie to investigators earlier in the day, but there's an innocent explanation for it.

The hoodie was blue, in the style of a baseball/ basketball top, with a number in white on one side of the front chest area.

Sometime later (much later), JuJ tried to claim on a forum that Jodi had borrowed a blue hoodie from Luke, and may have been wearing it on the evening of June 30th, which may have explained the "wrong description" of clothes attributed to the girl who could have been Jodi. JuJ also claimed that Luke had a "missing" hoodie (alluding to the fact that the hoodie found behind Reed Drive may have been the "missing hoodie.")

Problems!
(1)The hoodie belonging to JaF's brother was light blue with a white number on it - description of girl-who-could-have-been-Jodi hoodie was navy blue, plain.
(2) Even if it had been navy, JuJ was asking us to believe that Jodi was somehow wearing a navy hoodie over the top of her very baggy Deftones hoodie (to account for AB not noticing the bright orange Deftones logo)
(3) Police knew from the 1st day of the investigation that that hoodie didn't belong to Luke.

When the blue hoodie was photographed, the grass beneath it was withered and yellowed, so it had been there for some time.

However, another hoodie and joggers were found behind Roan's Dyke (wall) in the woodland strip. These were never photographed in situ, but what I always found interesting was that the hoodie was in the school colours of St David's High School uniform. Remember, although Jodi and Luke attended St David's, Jodi was found behind Newbattle High School (the two schools are about a mile apart, as the crow flies.) Maybe there's nothing in it - we'll never know now, because nothing was done about this hoodie and joggers.

We don't even know if it was a school hoodie (i.e. with a school badge) or it just happened to be the colour of St David's uniform - my question has always been, what was the equivalent of a St David's school uniform doing behind the wall near Newbattle High School, to whom did it belong, and why did L&B think it was unimportant?

[sandra L]

I have learned so much about the justice system that you would not believe was possible on this forum and others.
You wouldn't think it was possible in a noble country like ours.

Fourteen years ago, nothing would have convinced me that all of this was going on, right under our noses. Sometimes, I look back and wish I didn't know - there are so many cans of worms opened by this stuff, it's pretty terrifying if you think too long about it.

It's possible, I think, because so many people just can't accept that this could be happening - they think there would be a huge outcry, or the media would be all over it (I know that's what I would have thought, back then).

[nugnug]

There was, nugnug - it was a really odd part of the case.

JaF's younger brother had given his hoodie to a pal the week before, because the pal was cold, but the pal didn't want it, and threw it away in the waste ground behind Reed Drive (the opposite end of Lady Path from where it meets Roan's Dyke Path.) Or, at last, this is what the mother told police later.

On the morning of July 1st, the younger brother "found" the hoodie and pointed it out to police. Bit of a problem here - the hoodie was within the police cordon. This is the same morning JaF said he went behind a tree and masturbated (again!) ... within the police cordon.

I'm thinking it wasn't much of a cordon, really, when two members of the same family were wandering around within its boundaries.

Anyway, I digress, brother has pointed hoodie out to police by lunchtime, mother then calls the police around midnight to say her son pointed out a hoodie to investigators earlier in the day, but there's an innocent explanation for it.

The hoodie was blue, in the style of a baseball/ basketball top, with a number in white on one side of the front chest area.

Sometime later (much later), JuJ tried to claim on a forum that Jodi had borrowed a blue hoodie from Luke, and may have been wearing it on the evening of June 30th, which may have explained the "wrong description" of clothes attributed to the girl who could have been Jodi. JuJ also claimed that Luke had a "missing" hoodie (alluding to the fact that the hoodie found behind Reed Drive may have been the "missing hoodie.")

Problems!
(1)The hoodie belonging to JaF's brother was light blue with a white number on it - description of girl-who-could-have-been-Jodi hoodie was navy blue, plain.
(2) Even if it had been navy, JuJ was asking us to believe that Jodi was somehow wearing a navy hoodie over the top of her very baggy Deftones hoodie (to account for AB not noticing the bright orange Deftones logo)
(3) Police knew from the 1st day of the investigation that that hoodie didn't belong to Luke.

When the blue hoodie was photographed, the grass beneath it was withered and yellowed, so it had been there for some time.

However, another hoodie and joggers were found behind Roan's Dyke (wall) in the woodland strip. These were never photographed in situ, but what I always found interesting was that the hoodie was in the school colours of St David's High School uniform. Remember, although Jodi and Luke attended St David's, Jodi was found behind Newbattle High School (the two schools are about a mile apart, as the crow flies.) Maybe there's nothing in it - we'll never know now, because nothing was done about this hoodie and joggers.

We don't even know if it was a school hoodie (i.e. with a school badge) or it just happened to be the colour of St David's uniform - my question has always been, what was the equivalent of a St David's school uniform doing behind the wall near Newbattle High School, to whom did it belong, and why did L&B think it was unimportant?

seems strange to me that he had to point the police if it was within the cordon im suprised they hadent allready found it.

im also puzzeled why he pointed it out to the police as he knew it was noting to do with the murder

and why dident he explian this all to the police at the time pointed it out.

[notsure]

What we need is a tv programme like the avery one.get people talking about it

[nugnug]

sandra did the lad who jafs brother supposedly lent the hoodi to confirm his story.

[sandra L]

seems strange to me that he had to point the police if it was within the cordon im suprised they hadent allready found it.

im also puzzeled why he pointed it out to the police as he knew it was noting to do with the murder

and why dident he explian this all to the police at the time pointed it out.

It was quite early in the morning, nugnug - they were concentrating on the actual crime scene - the cops at the Reed Drive end were busy diverting kids arriving for the school day away from Lady Path. Since the forensics officer didn't get there until 8am, I'm not really surprised they were "late" finding things.

It was strange the way it was pointed out and the giving of the explanation - why did the mother call the police at midnight? If her son came in and said, "I pointed out my hoodie to the police" and she knew he hadn't explained why, why didn't she just call them there and then to explain?

[sandra L]

What we need is a tv programme like the avery one.get people talking about it

Working on it , nottsure. It could never be as compelling as Making a Murderer, because there's so much that couldn't be broadcast under Scots Law, but that doesn't make it impossible.

[sandra L]

If people are now suggesting Jodi wasn't on her way to meet Luke, who was he hanging around waiting for at the other side of the path?

I think you may have misunderstood, Lithium. What people are discussing is that Jodi may not have been heading to meet Luke at the time the prosecution claimed she was. And that's important, because if she didn't die at 5.15pm, hen Luke wasn't her killer.