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

[sandra L]

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

I'm not sure, nugnug, the statements attributed to this family were very confusing - it was a re-constituted family, so there were different surnames - it was hard to tell if they were talking about family members or not.

[sandra L]

Hoodies have never been a part of St. Davids school uniform. No idea why you're making that leap.

Apologies, the police used the terms hoodie and sweatshirt interchangeably - I've just made the same error. Maroon sweathshirt and black joggers - amazing how easily one tiny detail can unintentionally mislead.

So, the garment found at the Reed Drive end was a hoodie, light blue, with a white number on the front and a hood, the garment found behind the wall was a maroon sweatshirt and that's all we know about it.

[sandra L]

Are you seriously asking us to believe that such small traces of semen suggest the perpetrator ejaculated on Jodi at the crime scene?

What was that you were just saying about it never being your intention to mislead?

No, I haven't said or suggested that anywhere. The quote you've posted here came from a longer post, pointing out that the attack as a whole should have at least alerted the police to the possibility of a sexually motivated attack.

Sometimes, quoting things out of context can be misleading - it's also time consuming because posters then have to re-clarify what they said initially.

I didn't ever suggest the attacker ejaculated on Jodi, therefore, I can't have been trying to mislead anyone with such a suggestion, can I?

[gordo30]

No, I haven't said or suggested that anywhere. The quote you've posted here came from a longer post, pointing out that the attack as a whole should have at least alerted the police to the possibility of a sexually motivated attack.

Sometimes, quoting things out of context can be misleading - it's also time consuming because posters then have to re-clarify what they said initially.

I didn't ever suggest the attacker ejaculated on Jodi, therefore, I can't have been trying to mislead anyone with such a suggestion, can I?

Of course you didn't Sandra just a method used to Undermine what we're talking about, throw people of track. It's good he got through all the new pages and that's the only thing he could find to use though.

[nugnug]

i was thinking considring that siblings will have simaler dna in those days when testing wasnt as advanced and allways use a 10 point testing method could it be posble for your dna to be mistaken four bother or sisters dna.

[gordo30]

I was just about to post something similar mate . If we had two siblings, same sex and same parentage then they would have very similar DNA ! In the absence of unique markers then wouldn't they be explained away as Jodi'? Just thinking in the absence of DNA from JaJ considering it was her t-shirt.

[nugnug]

yes thats the thing if its her t shirt her dna should be on there and its not that means ethere its not her t shirt and sk has some serious explianing to do or her dna has been mistaken for jodis

but i was also thinking is could jafes brother dna have been mistaken for his could that have been his condom

[sandra L]

I was just about to post something similar mate . If we had two siblings, same sex and same parentage then they would have very similar DNA ! In the absence of unique markers then wouldn't they be explained away as Jodi'? Just thinking in the absence of DNA from JaJ considering it was her t-shirt.

Yes! There's one sample with only one marker, but it's labelled "Jodi Jones" even though two female members of her family have the same marker in the same place. There were three full profiles with extra female markers which matched JaJ's profile (although, of course, they would also match any female with those "numbers" at those parts of their DNA profile).

But here's the interesting bit - there were at least 20 incomplete profiles, all labelled "Jodi Jones". Of those, a fairly large proportion could have been JaJ's DNA, AW's DNA, or a combination of any two or three of them - so, Jodi and JaJ, Jodi and AW, JaJ and AW or Jodi, JaJ and AW. How did they ever get away with claiming all of those samples originated from Jodi alone?

Here's another interesting anomaly - there are three sample labelled "Semen, underpants" - the DNA profile is ... ready? ... female, Jodi Jones. Yes, really. Another is labelled Cells - semen- Inside back left T shirt sleeve and its profile is ... you guessed it - female, Jodi Jones.

One more - blood, outside shirt - male and female DNA - the entire reported profile is female, and it's Jodi's. How can that be?

No sorry, last one I promise - Semen - outside upper left front t shirt - male DNA, partial profile (4 markers) - result - Jodi Jones + unknown male. What? There is no female DNA - it is clearly and unequivocally noted as a male DNA sample.

[sandra L]

yes thats the thing if its her t shirt her dna should be on there and its not that means ethere its not her t shirt and sk has some serious explianing to do or her dna has been mistaken for jodis

but i was also thinking is could jafes brother dna have been mistaken for his could that have been his condom

I don't think so, nugnug - it was a full DNA profile - had it been the brother's DNA, some of the markers would have been different. Mind you, since it took the 3 years to actually identify JaF as the contributor of that particular DNA it's not much of a comfort to know they at least got  that bit right!

[nugnug]

I thought it was a bit unlikely I was just checking if it was possible.

[buddy]

Sorry if it has already been asked, but what would have been the motive for Luke to murder  Jodi?

[sandra L]

According to the prosecution, Luke went into a frenzied rage (fuelled by cannabis... yes, I know!) because Jodi challenged him about two-timing her with another girl.

According to everyone else, there was no motive. According to Jodi's family, she was the happiest she'd been for a long time. According to friends who knew them both, they were quite besotted with each other. The "other girlfriend" story is a nonsense - she was a girl he'd met on holiday the previous summer when they were both 13, and they'd kept in touch by phone - hard to see how he could have been "two-timing" Jodi with a girl who lived more than 50 miles away, his only mode of transport was a pushbike, and he was with Jodi nearly every night, except when he was at his dad's for the weekend.

He had seen the other girl at New Year 2003 (before he started going out with Jodi) as part of a family get-together. A story circulated that he was planning to stay with her the week after Jodi was murdered (remember, these were 14 year olds) - the truth is, the family had originally been planning to holiday in the same place, but had changed their minds, so the plans for the holiday were simply abandoned. Luke, Jodi and some other friends had plans for a sleep-over (as part of a birthday celebration) the Friday after Jodi was murdered, so again, no plans for Luke to be anywhere other than with Jodi that week.

[buddy]

I appolgise again if this has been asked.
Were Jodi's family happy with the result of the court case?
I can see no compelling case against Luke.

[sandra L]

Yes, Jodi's family believe that he is guilty, although they did not think that way in the beginning. Jodi's mum went to visit Luke two days after Jodi was murdered to comfort him, and many of her family members told police Luke was a "nice lad" in their earliest statements.

It seems, however, they were told many lies, and led, by police investigators, to believe that the police had a rock solid case against Luke (when, right from the beginning, they had nothing). For example, Jodi's brother told me repeatedly that there were "strands of Luke's DNA all of her body." I told him it wasn't true, I told him I had the DNA results right there in my house and I could show him - he called me a liar and repeated his claims about the DNA. I offered to meet Jodi's mum and show here everything I had uncovered - initially, she agreed, but then cancelled.

When Corinne received information about a credible suspect very early in the case, she called Judith to alert her. The call went to the answering machine. Judith called the police, who came and set up recording equipment on her phone, not to capture Corinne's information about this person, but to try to gather evidence against her and Luke. It's no wonder Jodi's family are so convinced - they were fed a relentless diet of assurance by police, who were simply not in a position to be giving them such assurances.

[sandra L]

I can see no compelling case against Luke.

That's because there isn't one, sadly. How they managed to convince a jury with the cobbled-together nonsense they called "evidence" is beyond me. Even given the 17 months almost relentlessly negative media coverage - they were forced to stop reporting between April 14th, when Luke was arrested and July 24th, when he turned 16, for the "legal reason" that he was a minor. Didn't stop them in the previous nine and a half months, and they were on it like vultures again the minute he turned sixteen and was, legally, and adult.

The courts ruled that the media had done nothing wrong reporting before his arrest because he wasn't the subject of "legal proceedings" - i.e. they could report what they wanted, right up to the point of arrest. There were never any legal proceedings examining the coverage between the July, when he turned 16, and November, when his trial began.

Lord Nimmo Smith, in his wisdom, ruled that jurors would most likely have "forgotten" about the media coverage, and anyway, he gave them a direction to disregard it, so that made it ok. Who was he kidding? It was, as I said, relentless, and the media were allowed to report in the 3 months directly prior to the trial.