Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Luke Mitchell and the murder of Jodi Jones => Topic started by: Parky41 on October 24, 2019, 11:55:PM
-
44mins:
One can theorize away about what took place in that 44mins - one thing that can not be changed.
That is the time frame - from this girl being reported missing to the police until that 999 call to say -
Something had been found at 11.34pm
Let us for this - go on Luke's timings, presuming them to be accurate to meeting with this search trio.
These timings of course - adding extra time onto the reality.
10.50pm Judith calls the police.
She does this, immediately after coming off the phone to Luke at 10.49pm.
In this call. Luke claims that Judith informed him, that she was going to be calling the police.
In this call, there is a claim of a discussion - that this discussion was about meeting at Judith's.
That this meeting at Judith's was to go through some friends phone numbers, and to organise a search.
That Luke had offered to help search for Jodi, and to go through some numbers, of friends to phone.
That he came off the phone and had a discussion with his mother.
That he told his mother of this search. of going to Judith's. of looking through friends phone numbers, that he had.
That his mother had said "not at this time of night laddie, you're not"
That he was having none of this, it was not up for further discussion.
That he went upstairs and asked to borrow Shane's torch - filling his brother in also, as to the reasons why.
That Shane went downstairs, located the torch, gave it to Luke and returned upstairs.
That he got himself and the dog ready, lead on and left his house.
That whilst starting his walk on this path, he received a further call from Judith.
He informed Judith that he was on this path, with his dog.
SL:
Luke and Jodi's mother are consistent with him leaving his home at 10.52pm (following a call from Jodi's mother at 10.49pm) and arriving at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59pm, when they spoke again on the phone.
Luke had told her he was "coming up the path on his bike" and that statement wasn't corrected until almost a month later when Judith told police she'd made a mistake - Luke hadn't said that at all, he'd said he was coming up the path "with his dog.
"
Luke went up to ask if he could borrow the torch, Shane got it for him and then went back up to his room.
The times of this were as follows.
That after that call at 10.49pm he had these conversations with both his mother and brother,
of getting the torch, getting ready and out the door at 10.52pm.
That he was on this path at 10.59pm when he received the call from Judith.
The one in which he informs her - he is on the path with his dog.
That he hurried up this path - shining his torch on it, he did not see Jodi whilst doing so.
That he hurried up this path - as he wanted to get to Judith's as quickly as possible.
CM makes this point clearly in her podcast, of how fit and fast - both Luke and the dog were.
As does Ms Lean:
The dog was not tracking on the way up. Luke was on his own, he wanted to get up the path as quickly as possible – if the dog had pulled over to the wall, he would have pulled her away – at that stage, he was only looking for Jodi on the path.
That whilst he was approaching the top end of this path he saw torchlight.
That this was from AW. JaJ and SK.
That they met, that he let them know that he hadn't really looked on the way up, but did not
see Jodi lying on this path.
That if they had anything of Jodi's, he could use this to allow his dog to scent.
That the purpose of this meet was to look/search for Jodi.
That he had not searched, he had not used his dog, that they then decided to
all search this path together.
Back to Luke's arrival on this path at 10.59pm.
We are told it takes 7mins at a brisk pace to walk from the junction of the path to the V point.
In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes
We know that the V point is much closer to the Newbattle end of this path.
Surely this would take no more than 3mins at Luke's pace.
Let us add on another 5mins - the time now is 11.14pm.
The reality of course by Luke's speed, should really be nearer to 11.10pm.
For all of this, at this point and this post - I'm going to skip the reality of timings by the search trio.
We are going here, solely on Luke's account of seeing this search trio - near the top of this path -
between 11.10pm and 11.14pm.
Take some time off for the conversation and we are now under 20mins.
In under 20mins of this search trio being together that call to 999 is made of something being found.
What we do know for sure is this.
That this search trio were looking in different places.
In the field, on the path, in the undergrowth on the path side of the wall, and in the woodland.
There is a spot. The Gino spot, named as such due to graffiti on the wall.
The top part of the wall here is broken - the top stones missing.
This is a high wall in parts - some 6-8ft in difference, along it's length.
Picture in your minds - an estate land/castle.
The type of old stone dyke, thick and high.
This is the type of wall - aptly named Roansdyke.
When this search party reach this Gino spot -
Luke climbs up onto this wall, he shines his torch into the woodland.
Why?
Does he claim his dog is reacting at this point, and if so why not go into the woodland, to see
what his dog may be reacting to?
He doesn't of course. He just takes the notion - to look over this high wall and into the woods.
They continue down this path.
They reach a break in the wall. The famous V.
Remember here - Luke's claims of never noticing this V until that evening.
So by Luke's account, they walk passed this V some considerable distance.
Only 3 of them, he states that AW had falling some way behind.
That his dog started, only then acting franticly, bounding over to this wall, paws up air sniffing.
That he backtracked to this V, that he hadn't looked over previously, why would he, he didn't even know
it existed?
He still backtracked to it though, by his account.
That JaJ and Kelly, continued to walk down this path, that by the time he got to this V, AW had just reached it.
That he handed the lead to her and climbed over.
That he immediately turned left - as the dog had reacted down to the left of this V. (some 40ft down)
That he walked along a narrow passage, on the inside of this wall in the dark.
That he had walked a certain distance when he saw something.
That he shouted out.
That Kelly then came over the V.
That AW then came over the V.
That this call to 999 was made at 11.34pm.
19mins:
Ms Lean is somewhat under generous here in her estimation of 2mins each.
I know the timings section of the book is very confusing, but the 11.18 call is disputed, both in where the search trio was when it was answered and what was said in the call. In short, the walk from the junction of the paths to the V point at a "brisk pace" in daylight was timed at 7 minutes. Allowing a couple of minutes extra for the discussion when the trio met with Luke at the junction of the path (no more than 2 minutes, according to the statements) and another couple of minutes for the slower walk in the darkness (all of the statements referred to the slow pace), the return journey down the path required at least 11 minutes. If the trio were in the "complex" at 11.18, they would not have reached the junction of the paths until 11.23 - add the 11 minutes required to get to the V point and the time is 11.34 - almost the exact time Luke called 999 the first time. But there's no time for the three members of the search party climbing over the wall, one at a time, finding Jodi, getting back to the V point and climbing back over etc. Even allowing 2 minutes each (and all of the searchers spoke of the struggle AW had getting over the wall, so it's likely to be more than that), the first 999 call would have to be around 11.40pm, based on these timings (which are, in turn, based on the search trio's own statements). That's after the police call back to Luke. There's a lot to take in about this aspect of the case - might be better as a stand alone question!
The search trio are some 40ft passed this V according to Luke.
That he has to backtrack to this V to climb over.
Kelly and JaJ would be some 60ft plus passed by now.
That after he climbs over, he surely takes his time, walking down this narrow passage,
in the dark, on the inside of a wall, in part of a woodland, he claimed never to have been before.
Kelly and JaJ still walking, whilst Luke is walking on unfamiliar ground, in the woods.
Are Kelly and JaJ now some 80+ft passed this V.
They rush back.
Kelly goes over, Luke shows him.
The gran goes over, she is helped, by who?
That call has been made.
By the above account - does this show us instantly - that there was no walking, some distance passed this V, at all.
That they simply reached this V, Luke went over and within seconds, he shouted he had found something.
So there we have it.
A girl who was left hidden by her killer.
Was found in the space of minutes by her boyfriend.
In the dark, in unfamiliar territory.
Luke didn't follow the 'normal' path on the woodside.
Why?
How did he know, that the dog was reacting to something, directly behind this wall?
How in the space of mere minutes -
Did this partially trained dog - not only manage to sense this girl - but its trainer knew this to be
directly behind this wall.
That within seconds of going over this V, he did not deliberate in this unfamiliar woodland.
He made his way, easily down this narrow gap, to the exact location.
That he most definitely did not follow the clear footpath in front.
To try and determine, to see what this dog may have been reacting to.
Instead - he easily made his way, down the inside of this wall.
Not only that, he had only managed to walk some 10-15ft when he shouted he had found something.
That this something lay behind a large Oak tree - with a red hairband.
So, plain and basic - that the reality is, that in less than 15mins (Luke's timings) of this search trio, actively searching together.
This girl was found where she had lay hidden, that evening. And the emergency services were phoned.
Hidden by the person who killed her.
She was not discovered.
In daylight, by dog walkers, by anyone who may have been in this woodland.
It Is not to say that a dog may not have been alerted - a dog running around in these woods. (not the path)
A dog that may have simply been shouted back by its master.
Why? because this girl was hidden off any beaten track - any usual walkway.
Unless It was a stubborn dog, that paid no heed to it's master - then and only then, may someone,
have looked for access through this woodland - to this hidden spot. But that's all IF's.
This access was easily and instantly found by Luke - who claimed not to know of this V, to have never
been in this woodland. Yet easily located this access in the dark, both the V and the narrow passageway.
That he knew instantly that his dog - was reacting to something, directly behind this wall - not into the woodland itself.
Not just an expertly, partially trained dog - but amazing skills also by it's handler.
Remember here also - Ms Leans claims of how hard this V was to locate, in daylight, whilst actively searching for it.
Yet we have this easy spotting in the dark, noticed whilst walking passed it.
We have this car from the Beeches - claiming to see this bike, near to this V.
You can't see the wall from the Beeches - far less the V break in it.
-
how do you know I happened in 44 minutes.
-
44mins:
One can theorize away about what took place in that 44mins - one thing that can not be changed.
That is the time frame - from this girl being reported missing to the police until that 999 call to say -
Something had been found at 11.34pm
Let us for this - go on Luke's timings, presuming them to be accurate to meeting with this search trio.
These timings of course - adding extra time onto the reality.
10.50pm Judith calls the police.
She does this, immediately after coming off the phone to Luke at 10.49pm.
In this call. Luke claims that Judith informed him, that she was going to be calling the police.
In this call, there is a claim of a discussion - that this discussion was about meeting at Judith's.
That this meeting at Judith's was to go through some friends phone numbers, and to organise a search.
That Luke had offered to help search for Jodi, and to go through some numbers, of friends to phone.
That he came off the phone and had a discussion with his mother.
That he told his mother of this search. of going to Judith's. of looking through friends phone numbers, that he had.
That his mother had said "not at this time of night laddie, you're not"
That he was having none of this, it was not up for further discussion.
That he went upstairs and asked to borrow Shane's torch - filling his brother in also, as to the reasons why.
That Shane went downstairs, located the torch, gave it to Luke and returned upstairs.
That he got himself and the dog ready, lead on and left his house.
That whilst starting his walk on this path, he received a further call from Judith.
He informed Judith that he was on this path, with his dog.
SL:"
The times of this were as follows.
That after that call at 10.49pm he had these conversations with both his mother and brother,
of getting the torch, getting ready and out the door at 10.52pm.
That he was on this path at 10.59pm when he received the call from Judith.
The one in which he informs her - he is on the path with his dog.
That he hurried up this path - shining his torch on it, he did not see Jodi whilst doing so.
That he hurried up this path - as he wanted to get to Judith's as quickly as possible.
CM makes this point clearly in her podcast, of how fit and fast - both Luke and the dog were.
As does Ms Lean:
That whilst he was approaching the top end of this path he saw torchlight.
That this was from AW. JaJ and SK.
That they met, that he let them know that he hadn't really looked on the way up, but did not
see Jodi lying on this path.
That if they had anything of Jodi's, he could use this to allow his dog to scent.
That the purpose of this meet was to look/search for Jodi.
That he had not searched, he had not used his dog, that they then decided to
all search this path together.
Back to Luke's arrival on this path at 10.59pm.
We are told it takes 7mins at a brisk pace to walk from the junction of the path to the V point.
We know that the V point is much closer to the Newbattle end of this path.
Surely this would take no more than 3mins at Luke's pace.
Let us add on another 5mins - the time now is 11.14pm.
The reality of course by Luke's speed, should really be nearer to 11.10pm.
For all of this, at this point and this post - I'm going to skip the reality of timings by the search trio.
We are going here, solely on Luke's account of seeing this search trio - near the top of this path -
between 11.10pm and 11.14pm.
Take some time off for the conversation and we are now under 20mins.
In under 20mins of this search trio being together that call to 999 is made of something being found.
What we do know for sure is this.
That this search trio were looking in different places.
In the field, on the path, in the undergrowth on the path side of the wall, and in the woodland.
There is a spot. The Gino spot, named as such due to graffiti on the wall.
The top part of the wall here is broken - the top stones missing.
This is a high wall in parts - some 6-8ft in difference, along it's length.
Picture in your minds - an estate land/castle.
The type of old stone dyke, thick and high.
This is the type of wall - aptly named Roansdyke.
When this search party reach this Gino spot -
Luke climbs up onto this wall, he shines his torch into the woodland.
Why?
Does he claim his dog is reacting at this point, and if so why not go into the woodland, to see
what his dog may be reacting to?
He doesn't of course. He just takes the notion - to look over this high wall and into the woods.
They continue down this path.
They reach a break in the wall. The famous V.
Remember here - Luke's claims of never noticing this V until that evening.
So by Luke's account, they walk passed this V some considerable distance.
Only 3 of them, he states that AW had falling some way behind.
That his dog started, only then acting franticly, bounding over to this wall, paws up air sniffing.
That he backtracked to this V, that he hadn't looked over previously, why would he, he didn't even know
it existed?
He still backtracked to it though, by his account.
That JaJ and Kelly, continued to walk down this path, that by the time he got to this V, AW had just reached it.
That he handed the lead to her and climbed over.
That he immediately turned left - as the dog had reacted down to the left of this V. (some 40ft down)
That he walked along a narrow passage, on the inside of this wall in the dark.
That he had walked a certain distance when he saw something.
That he shouted out.
That Kelly then came over the V.
That AW then came over the V.
That this call to 999 was made at 11.34pm.
19mins:
Ms Lean is somewhat under generous here in her estimation of 2mins each.
The search trio are some 40ft passed this V according to Luke.
That he has to backtrack to this V to climb over.
Kelly and JaJ would be some 60ft plus passed by now.
That after he climbs over, he surely takes his time, walking down this narrow passage,
in the dark, on the inside of a wall, in part of a woodland, he claimed never to have been before.
Kelly and JaJ still walking, whilst Luke is walking on unfamiliar ground, in the woods.
Are Kelly and JaJ now some 80+ft passed this V.
They rush back.
Kelly goes over, Luke shows him.
The gran goes over, she is helped, by who?
That call has been made.
By the above account - does this show us instantly - that there was no walking, some distance passed this V, at all.
That they simply reached this V, Luke went over and within seconds, he shouted he had found something.
So there we have it.
A girl who was left hidden by her killer.
Was found in the space of minutes by her boyfriend.
In the dark, in unfamiliar territory.
Luke didn't follow the 'normal' path on the woodside.
Why?
How did he know, that the dog was reacting to something, directly behind this wall?
How in the space of mere minutes -
Did this partially trained dog - not only manage to sense this girl - but its trainer knew this to be
directly behind this wall.
That within seconds of going over this V, he did not deliberate in this unfamiliar woodland.
He made his way, easily down this narrow gap, to the exact location.
That he most definitely did not follow the clear footpath in front.
To try and determine, to see what this dog may have been reacting to.
Instead - he easily made his way, down the inside of this wall.
Not only that, he had only managed to walk some 10-15ft when he shouted he had found something.
That this something lay behind a large Oak tree - with a red hairband.
So, plain and basic - that the reality is, that in less than 15mins (Luke's timings) of this search trio, actively searching together.
This girl was found where she had lay hidden, that evening. And the emergency services were phoned.
Hidden by the person who killed her.
She was not discovered.
In daylight, by dog walkers, by anyone who may have been in this woodland.
It Is not to say that a dog may not have been alerted - a dog running around in these woods. (not the path)
A dog that may have simply been shouted back by its master.
Why? because this girl was hidden off any beaten track - any usual walkway.
Unless It was a stubborn dog, that paid no heed to it's master - then and only then, may someone,
have looked for access through this woodland - to this hidden spot. But that's all IF's.
This access was easily and instantly found by Luke - who claimed not to know of this V, to have never
been in this woodland. Yet easily located this access in the dark, both the V and the narrow passageway.
That he knew instantly that his dog - was reacting to something, directly behind this wall - not into the woodland itself.
Not just an expertly, partially trained dog - but amazing skills also by it's handler.
Remember here also - Ms Leans claims of how hard this V was to locate, in daylight, whilst actively searching for it.
Yet we have this easy spotting in the dark, noticed whilst walking passed it.
We have this car from the Beeches - claiming to see this bike, near to this V.
You can't see the wall from the Beeches - far less the V break in it.
What are you trying to say? this post is way too long.
-
The posts says, in a nutshell, Luke didn't pass the V but went straight to it. The "reasoning" for this conclusion is flawed and the post contains a number of inaccuracies or errors.
-
The posts says, in a nutshell, Luke didn't pass the V but went straight to it. The "reasoning" for this conclusion is flawed and the post contains a number of inaccuracies or errors.
Thanks. I didn’t bother reading it as it probably would have taken 44 minutes to read and get my head round it.
-
Sandra.
How comes the full trial transcript Al Megrahi is on the internet, if that stuff is not allowed to be published?
-
A "special court" was convened for the Megrahi trial - there were no jurors, it was the judges who decided whether they thought he was guilty or not guilty.
The law covering what can and can't be released in Luke's case is complex and comes down to "ownership" of the case papers and who is considered to be a "third party" - one mistake and I could find myself inadvertently breaking the law.
Technically, trial transcripts are a matter of public record and should, therefore, be able to be published, but that still wouldn't help in Luke's case because I still couldn't publish original statements, etc, so it would still provide only a partial picture
-
A "special court" was convened for the Megrahi trial - there were no jurors, it was the judges who decided whether they thought he was guilty or not guilty.
The law covering what can and can't be released in Luke's case is complex and comes down to "ownership" of the case papers and who is considered to be a "third party" - one mistake and I could find myself inadvertently breaking the law.
Technically, trial transcripts are a matter of public record and should, therefore, be able to be published, but that still wouldn't help in Luke's case because I still couldn't publish original statements, etc, so it would still provide only a partial picture
Any discrepancies in statements should have been addressed in cross examination. A partial picture is better than no picture at all.
-
Any discrepancies in statements should have been addressed in cross examination. A partial picture is better than no picture at all.
Tell that to every wrongly convicted, exonerated person ever!
A partial picture is all that's been available in this case for over 16 years - how much good has that done? You seem to put a lot of faith in official process, David - it's a well recorded fact that official process is a large part of all wrongful convictions.
I've said this before, but for absolute clarity, CPS stands for Crown Prosecution Service - there's a clue right there in the name! It's not the Crown Prosecution and Defence Service, or the Crown Fair Trial Service!! The defence can only cross-examine on (a) what the prosecution brings as "relevant" to the case and (b) what it (the defence) knows about.
How, for example, can the defence address discrepancies it knows nothing about because the information has never been released to them?
I've already been heavily criticised for posting excerpts from documents ( a risk to me in itself) - I'm not about to walk into a situation where I post say one or two documents that I think I can post in full and have instant demands to post "everything."
And before anyone quotes cases in England and Wales, this is Scotland, the rules are different.
-
I've said this before, but for absolute clarity, CPS stands for Crown Prosecution Service - there's a clue right there in the name! It's not the Crown Prosecution and Defence Service, or the Crown Fair Trial Service!! The defence can only cross-examine on (a) what the prosecution brings as "relevant" to the case and (b) what it (the defence) knows about.
What civilised society does not have an institution to prosecute those who have done wrong? Take that away and you would end up with public lynching.
The defence service/Fair Trial Service is known as legal aid. Which Luke received almost half a million pounds from.
The only way to overturn a conviction is either - provide fresh evidence that if presented at trial could have resulted in a different verdict. Or technical errors such as the judge instructing the jury with wrong information.
So seeing what the Jury heard is of vial importance. Even if they did not get the full picture.
-
What civilised society does not have an institution to prosecute those who have done wrong? Take that away and you would end up with public lynching.
I didn't say take it away. I said recognise its limitations. Its aim is to win a "contest" in which it controls all the rules, including how to lay out the "battlefield" in a way that is least advantageous to its opponent. The pertinent point is to prosecute those who have done wrong. What happened to the right to the presumption of innocence? Is the CPS's job to prosecute those who have done wrong, (remember the name) or to oversee an arena in which evidence is tested to discover whether someone has done anything wrong or not? It can't be both.
The defence service/Fair Trial Service is known as legal aid. Which Luke received almost half a million pounds from.
The imbalance between funds and resources available to the defence and those available to the prosecution is enormous and well documented. The defence is not even entitled to see everything the prosecution holds - in what was is that balanced or fair? Your previous point was that "Any discrepancies in statements should have been addressed in cross examination" - lack of funding, judges directions and any number of factors can prevent a QC being able to adequately cross examine a witness (or even, to be able to call or cross examine a witness at all). You did not answer my point about how the defence can address that which was not released to it.
Luke did not receive a single penny. The Legal Aid funding went to his legal team who initially had just under 16 weeks to construct a defence against a case the prosecution had had 9.5 months to prepare.
The only way to overturn a conviction is either - provide fresh evidence that if presented at trial could have resulted in a different verdict. Or technical errors such as the judge instructing the jury with wrong information.
Why do you include this here? Most posters know what is required to overturn a conviction - having documents online isn't going to alter or affect that.
So seeing what the Jury heard is of vial importance. Even if they did not get the full picture.
Why is that so? If posters only get to read what jurors heard and we know that is already compromised, both by the system itself and by failings in that system, what is it that is of vital importance that posters on an internet forum should see?
Any society calling itself civilised would strive to recognise the potential failings in its institutions and provide the means (if not the funds) to address those. The fundraiser, for example, did not ask the state to pay for re-examination of the evidence - this was members of the public willing to pay, from their own pockets, to see just such a review carried out in order to hold public institutions accountable. What "civilsed society" would block such an attempt?
-
I didn't say take it away. I said recognise its limitations. Its aim is to win a "contest" in which it controls all the rules, including how to lay out the "battlefield" in a way that is least advantageous to its opponent.
CPS does not control the rules in the "battlefield". The CPS and defence counsel are two players in a game with the Judge being the referee making sure the laws are followed.
Is the CPS's job to prosecute those who have done wrong, (remember the name) or to oversee an arena in which evidence is tested to discover whether someone has done anything wrong or not? It can't be both.
Its the CPS's job to prosecute those who have done wrong. If they bring an innocent person to a preliminary hearing then they are not doing their job properly. But the world is not perfect.
The imbalance between funds and resources available to the defence and those available to the prosecution is enormous and well documented. The defence is not even entitled to see everything the prosecution holds - in what was is that balanced or fair?
The defence is entitled to see everything. If they are not then that is prosecutorial misconduct.
Why is that so? If posters only get to read what jurors heard and we know that is already compromised, both by the system itself and by failings in that system, what is it that is of vital importance that posters on an internet forum should see?
Who's we? You claim its "compromised" but that's merely your conclusion. And you could very well be wrong.
The irony here is you are doing exactly what you accuse the CPS of doing. You put forward a narrative to people here, but don't disclose enough (if anything) to allow people to challenge the claims or offer any constructive criticisms of their own.
-
The defence is entitled to see everything. If they are not then that is prosecutorial misconduct.
Not in the UK
-
Not in the UK
"The prosecutor must—
(a)disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused"
That applies to all the UK.
-
"The prosecutor must—
(a)disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused"
That applies to all the UK.
Yes but it is not all of the material which has to be disclosed.
-
Too long for what was categorically too short: 44mins.
Skip this 44mins for now.
Let us go on just 10mins.
It took just 10mins of this party, starting on their walk together,
on Roansdyke path - for this discovery.
The police, (IMO) did not become suspicious because all four people gave the same
account - they became suspicious due to the vast differences in them.
Of the impossible differences.
It would appear, that in that first week, one thing became clear - that was clarification,
as to where everyone was.
Where they were, when this dog was up against this wall - scrabbling or sniffing.
It is dark. It is dreek. They are on an isolated path, out of all streetlight.
Importantly and vital, is this - They nor this dog are in this woodland,
this woodland is cut off from this path, by a 6-8ft high, thick wall.
In that first week, Luke gives an account of walking passed this V, not even 20yards.
He is with Kelly and JaJ.
The dog reacts.
Some 36-48hrs later he puts this into a diagram for his FLO.
X marks the spot.
We have this V. Some distance passed this V we have two X's, one on the path and one in the woods.
He describes this scenario as being parallel to the other.
That where he, Kelly, JaJ and the dog were, was parallel to where Jodi was, on the woodside.
This was a distance of some 13.6mtrs - 44 ft.
The other members of the search party have given their account.
They give descriptions.
Kelly describes this dogs head as being level with this V.
They give an account of the dogs leash being handed to AW.
They give an account of Luke going into the woodland.
They give an account of seeing him shine his torch to the left - of following the torchlight.
They give an account of continuing to walk this path.
That they had barely walked some 10-15ft when Luke shouts.
The police are right to be suspicious here.
If this search party had even been 10-15ft passed this V when this dog reacted, and they continued
as Luke claims, when he backtracked.
They would not have been able to refer this dogs head as being level with this V
They would not have been able to see the leash getting handed over.
They would not have been able to see Luke climb over, shine his torch anywhere, far less to the left.
These discrepancies appear to far outweigh what may tally.
It is not just the account of where everyone may have been, there is this timescale also.
The police are already aware of two main things, when those first accounts were given.
That first call to the police at 10.50pm.
That call to the emergency services at 11.34pm.
They know there has to be a level of organisation.
A timescale for everything to happen.
The main one, apparent, from the off - is that very short time frame, of all four meeting.
To that very call to 999.
On top of this - we have the claim of never been in this woodland before, by Luke.
Of not knowing of the existence of this V until that night.
One set of accounts - explains things as happening around this V point.
The other of it happening some distance passed.
This short time frame - can not be changed.
The short time frame - once over this wall, can not be changed.
There was no sign, at all - that the ground he entered, was unfamiliar to him.
The way I see, IMO, is - if these people had been in the actual woodland searching,
they would have been hard pushed, with the dogs help, to make this discovery as quick.
They were not, they were on this path - yet still, this discovery was made, very quick.
In a place, where it appears abundantly clear - this girl was left hidden.
-
"The prosecutor must—
(a)disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused"
That applies to all the UK.
That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?
-
That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?
If its not capable of undermining the defence, then the prosecution have no need or motive to suppress it in the first place.
If information is withheld from them by the police. Not much I can do about that. It shouldnt happen but it does.
The police Knew Stefan Klitzko was innocent and suppressed the reports of sperm cells on the victim. Stefan Klitzko was impotent and could not produce sperm. The police did not want that to come to light for obvious reasons. But events like that are rare.
What could the police have withheld from Luke's team? Due to the circumstancial nature of the case, the only thing capable of undermining the case would be an alternative suspect with circumstantial evidence also. Such a thing would be difficult to hide, as they must have investigated him to know that in the first place.
-
If its not capable of undermining the defence, then the prosecution have no need or motive to suppress it in the first place.
Obviously, and it's of no use to the defence anyway. But what if it is capable of undermining the defence? might there be a need or motive to suppress then? Can you think of any famous UK cases where exactly that happened, David? If not, I suggest you do some research
If information is withheld from them by the police. Not much I can do about that. It shouldnt happen but it does.
This isn't about you David. The argument you were making (as far as I can fathom) is that the system, generally, works well. It's just as well the families of 96 innocent, unlawfully killed people didn't take your approach, otherwise we wouldn't, today, have as much concrete proof that the police can, and do, willfully withhold information. Do you accept that innocent people should rot in jail because police withhold evidence? Does that fit with the justice systems of your "civilised societies?
The police Knew Stefan Klitzko was innocent and suppressed the reports of sperm cells on the victim. Stefan Klitzko was impotent and could not produce sperm. The police did not want that to come to light for obvious reasons. But events like that are rare.
Once is one too many - I'm pretty sure that's what you'd be maintaining if it happened to you or someone you love. I'd love to see the evidence to back up your claim that "events like that are rare." Again, I'd suggest some research on the subject.
What could the police have withheld from Luke's team? Due to the circumstancial nature of the case, the only thing capable of undermining the case would be an alternative suspect with circumstantial evidence also. Such a thing would be difficult to hide, as they must have investigated him to know that in the first place.
And again, you relate the unrelated in order to made a completely invalid point seem as if it's important. Let me just say this - if it wasn't difficult to hide, in plain view, the truth about the deaths of 96 people in a public place, caught on tv cameras across the country for almost three decades, what on earth makes you think it would be difficult to hide anything in any case?
-
Obviously, and it's of no use to the defence anyway. But what if it is capable of undermining the defence? might there be a need or motive to suppress then? Can you think of any famous UK cases where exactly that happened, David? If not, I suggest you do some research
Already pointed out Stefan Klisko
This isn't about you David. The argument you were making (as far as I can fathom) is that the system, generally, works well.
The system generally works well yes. 40% of crown court cases are resolved through guilty pleas. The other 60% that go to trial, 80% of them result in a guilty verdict. Its estimated that between 1 to 5 percent of the prison population is innocent. If you exclude the guilty pleas then we have less than 3% at most. That figure I expect to go down as technology advances.
An 80 percent conviction rate of trials to me reflects a fair and balanced justice system. Where as Russia for example has a conviction rate of 99.8%! that's not good.
Do you accept that innocent people should rot in jail because police withhold evidence? Does that fit with the justice systems of your "civilised societies?
Like I said. It should not happen. But the world is not ideal. In Saudi Arabia the prosecution only needs two male witnesses to a crime to punish the accused by be-heading. Or four fe-male witnesses as their testimony only carries half the weight of men in Sharia courts.
-
The UK prison population in 2018 was approximately 93,000. 3% of that is 2790. That is not a "small" number of lives ruined, especially when you add family members etc.
There are no official statistics concerning wrongful convictions of factually innocent individuals, because records of those claiming factual innocence are not kept.
I think that we'd both agree that neither the Russian nor the Saudi justice systems can be called "civilised."
Sine we both agree that the system is "not perfect," my question is a simple one - what do we do to reduce incidences of wrongful conviction or to rectify those which do happen? I'm assuming you haven't missed the massive outcry over false allegations of sexual assault which have emerged in recent years? Or the scandals surrounding "failure to disclose," or widespread failings in forensic labs used by police forces? Or what about the select committee convened to examine failings in forensic science used in courts?Those events surely indicate a trend towards increasing wrongful convictions (or, at the very least, a strong suggestion that those "estimates" you floated at the beginning of your post are very possibly significant under-estimates).
-
Sine we both agree that the system is "not perfect," my question is a simple one - what do we do to reduce incidences of wrongful conviction or to rectify those which do happen?
Simple amendments can be made to help reduce the error rate. And to help rectify any future cases if the jury was wrong.
- Screening potential Jurors with basic IQ tests prior to a trial to determine eligibility. Ensuring the jury is made up of reasonable people.
- A guilty verdict can only be reached by juror unanimity.
- Allow Jurors to openly express what took place in deliberations. That way there will be much less wiggle room for the judges at the appellate courts.
-
Simple amendments can be made to help reduce the error rate. And to help rectify any future cases if the jury was wrong.
- Screening potential Jurors with basic IQ tests prior to a trial to determine eligibility. Ensuring the jury is made up of reasonable people.
- A guilty verdict can only be reached by juror unanimity.
- Allow Jurors to openly express what took place in deliberations. That way there will be much less wiggle room for the judges at the appellate courts.
How would an IQ test help? An IQ test does measure reasoning and problem-solving abilities but this ia centred around visual, mathematical and language abilities as well as your memory and information processing speed - it doesn't measure practical intelligence. And using such screening would mean that jurors weren't randomly selected.
What happens in cases where a unanimous verdict isn't reached? Risk letting a guilty person go free?
Discussing deliberations will just lead to the relaying of the type of squabbles regularly found on this forum.
-
That does. What you said was that the defence was entitled to see "everything." You were wrong, even by your own quote. Who decides what "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution" and what if that information is withheld from them by the police? Who sees it then, in order to decide what should and shouldn't be released to the defence?
what the defence sees also depends on what the proscution admits to having.
and yes the police dont allways disclose everything to the proscuter.
-
How would an IQ test help? An IQ test does measure reasoning and problem-solving abilities but this ia centred around visual, mathematical and language abilities as well as your memory and information processing speed - it doesn't measure practical intelligence. And using such screening would mean that jurors weren't randomly selected.
IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process.
In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.
What happens in cases where a unanimous verdict isn't reached? Risk letting a guilty person go free?
A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.
Discussing deliberations will just lead to the relaying of the type of squabbles regularly found on this forum.
Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.
-
IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process.
In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.
A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.
Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.
I wouldn't hold the USA judicial system in such high esteem. Look at the OJ Simpson case for one. The plea bargain system is just a way to cut public expenditure and not a means of searching for truth.
-
on thing i will say about the us systm is there much better than the uk at admiting they were wrong.
-
IQ tests would help ensure nobody on the jury is stupid. Another option is to interview potential jurors in a screening process.
In America they do such interviews because they need a unanimous verdict. Hence they try to prevent having blockheads in the Jury room.
A retrial. Just like if a majority verdict is not reached.
Don't follow. Jurors in the US can speak out and often do. I don't see a problem with it.
A. IQ isn't the way to go because it doesn't measure practical intelligence and by doing so, you would be omitting people who would make good jurors. They interview jurors in the US to determine bias ie. in instances where the price of guilt is the DP.
B. Retrials would be expensive
C. I'm not aware that jurors in the US can speak out?
-
I wouldn't hold the USA judicial system in such high esteem. Look at the OJ Simpson case for one. The plea bargain system is just a way to cut public expenditure and not a means of searching for truth.
The OJ case has no relevance today.
How many innocent people take a plea bargain? ???
-
The OJ case has no relevance today.
How many innocent people take a plea bargain? ???
I think that would be an unknown quantity.
-
Yes but it is not all of the material which has to be disclosed.
Do you mean the Prosecution can get round the law?
-
The OJ case has no relevance today.
How many innocent people take a plea bargain? ???
Race is a huge issue in America today.
Due to lack of resources I'm quite sure many innocent people will take a plea bargain.
-
Do you mean the Prosecution can get round the law?
Technically, no, but in reality, yes.
The law was changed to stop the defence being able to see everything, on the grounds that it was too costly and time consuming. Some of the changes included the defence having to give "good reason" for requesting to see something (and thereby disclosing potential defences to the prosecution, who would then have an opportunity to circumvent those defences) and a disclosure officer being appointed to decide what should and shouldn't be disclosed to the defence (on the basis of whether it would undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence).
A recent all select committee group found there was widespread abuse of the disclosure system, with a mindset amongst police officers that upholding their case was paramount and keeping potentially helpful material from the defence was decided as a matter of course.
Anyone who has the time and inclination can read the whole report here
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/disclosure-criminal-cases-17-19/