Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nugnug]

and why to search the place that judy told the police jodi said she was going to namely scotts caravans.

clearly they knew very well jodi hadent gone there so why tell the police she had.

[nugnug]

also when luke said seen her all night did they that was becouse she chossen to hang about in the woods all night on her own wouldn't it be more logical to think she had gone to see someone else and look there.

yea it seems to me like their automatic reaction to her not having met luke was that she/body must be laying somewhere in the path between hers and Luke's?
This is ridiculous, put yourself in the position, we've all been in, kids have come home late.
There are so many things you do before reaching such an extreme conclusion.
Why would the family send out a search party looking for a body, before even calling round all of Jodis friends.

Did the Jones family have a car?

yes they had a car.

[Jay]

When I was ever late back as a kid, my mum would phone round friends, drive around the area asking local kids if they had seen me, and so on n so forth. I can't picture anyone jumping to the instant conclusion that " something terrible has happened, call the police, lets round up a search party and start looking in dark woods and bushes with torches"

It just seems so extreme. Obviously their intuition sadly turned out to be true, but would you, or do you know anyone who would jump to this conclusion before considering so many other options?


Just a quick question for Corinne also, and I hope you're not offended, but in the Frontline documentary, when asked "Have you ever asked Luke if he did it?" you said that you've never asked, you just know he's not capable. Why not just say "I never asked because I knew it COULDN'T have been him as he was AT HOME, WITH ME!"

also who's decision was it to focus on SF's story, from what i've read there are 3 suspects who have just as much to answer to. Did we not know then what we know now about JaF/GD/JF/SK? Or could they not be mentioned for legal reasons? If not, then how could SF's friend be mentioned? I know his name wasn't mentioned but surely it would have been a wise idea for frontline to mention that 2 local trouble makers had their moped parked up at the scene of the crime at the same time it was supposed to be happening. And then throw in the fact one lad shaved his hair off, and also stashed a pair of gloves down the back of a relatives radiotor with condoms inside. And also the fact they had plans to meet JoJ that night but for whatever reason couldn't face him.
Also a mention of SK's semen and blood being on Jodi's underwear should have maybe been brought up.

Regards,
J

[HaveHope]

Sandra posted - Not only did they know they were going straight to the path, they also knew the route they were planning to take - through the little shortcut behind the petrol station, down through the wooded area at the Mayfield end, through the "complex" and out onto the main road at Easthouses.

No roads or pavements, no street lights. Now tell me, why on earth would they even contemplate that Jodi might be in such an area at that time of night? Surely, the obvious route would have been down onto the main road at the bottom of Mayfield (running from Scotts caravans to the opening into Easthouses), down the main Easthouses Road (passing JuJ's house along the way) and, if they didn't come across Jodi, then onto the path?

They made a huge song and dance about the path being "secluded" - what about the route they took from Mayfield to the Easthouses end of Roan's Dyke path - and much more interesting, why take that route at all?
...........
Thats what I was thinking too.  Jodi was late home, not for the first time either.  If they were used to her "coming the ham" then why react by going and getting torches and going the way they did, when the most obvious walk to do to look for someone who they thought was at it, was pavements, main road, street lighting, a route where you would be able to see someone walking in the distance, rather than dark dodgey paths.

[nugnug]

now the dickies lived next to the path but theres no attempt to contact and ask they have seen jodi.

[openmind]

also who's decision was it to focus on Scott Forbes story,...

Good question. It might well have had something to do with Luke's former "defence" team led by the famous Findlay. They could have mentioned it in passing without making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Jay]

What kind of things are brought to attention at these appeals btw? I can't see why they would get thrown out if all this information is presented to them? It's blatantly obvious Luke's innocent if all the information in this thread is true, which i'm sure it is. Just using common sense and trying to imagine in your mind what Luke must have done that night, it just doesn't fit. There's no indication that he done it atall. I've seen him with my own eyes and can't in my mind put him at the scene of the crime carrying out this act. I just can't buy it.

One thing though, is there any news available to the public that SK's blood was indeed found at the scene? is this something people have been made aware of? I havent heard it til I joined here.

J

[Sandra Lean]

The Frontline Documentary - this was one of my earliest experiences of the media, and I thought we could just tell the documentary team all this stuff, show them the paperwork, and, voila, it would all appear in the documentary. Not so - they have their own reasons for focussing on particular items or aspects, and if the other "stuff" you show them doesn't fit with that focus, it just doesn't go in! As for what Corinne said or didn't say, the documentary was, of course, edited, and a large amount of what Corinne did say never appeared in the finished product - I know, I was there throughout the filming.

All of the others were known about, and had been mentioned at trial, so there was no "new" angle on them, as far as the documentary team was concerned. The traces on the tshirt were simply referred to as "DNA" (although I think there may have been references to semen - I'd have to go back and check.)

[Jay]

Thanks for the reply...

So how do you and Corinne know it was blood and semen? When and where was this first brought to your attention? the excuse for the semen is a weak one, it would be alot harder for SK to explain his blood on there, people don't just bleed, and if JaJ and no one else can remember of any recent times SK was bleeding it would be extremely suspicious.

[Sandra Lean]

The DNA results had always contained this information. we have never really understood why it was not made more of by the defence. Some of the results have been reproduced on the caseblog - this one included

[Jay]

Sandra do you have your personal opinions on who you think is behind this? Not asking you to state the person public as obviously I know you wouldn't and can't do that.

[Sandra Lean]

Just going back a bit to the search party, torches, route, etc...

JoF says he spoke to AW on the phone when he was at YW's. AW was demanding to know if Jodi had been there, or was there, and both JoF and YW claim to have told AW no.

But apprently, AW did not ask if either of them had seen Jodi elsewhere that evening. Her only question appears to have been, was Jodi there. Funny JoF didn't volunteer the information that he'd walked up from GD's at the back of nine - you'd have thought, if he knew a search party was going out looking, he'd have said something like "I came up past Suttieslea from Reid Drive - didn't see her on that road." Especially as no-one was supposed to have any idea where she might be. The thing is, if Jodi had walked the "long way" from Newbattle home, there's a stretch of the road that JoF walked that night which jodi, too, would have to have walked (had she taken that route) - right past the end of GD's street, up onto the main road, and left at the farm shop.

If the family truly believed she would not have used Roan's Dyke, then that is the route she would have been 'expected' to take

[Sandra Lean]

Sandra do you have your personal opinions on who you think is behind this? Not asking you to state the person public as obviously I know you wouldn't and can't do that.

Jay, you've asked this question in a few different formats, whether of individual posters, or of forum members as a whole. I thought I'd answered this previously, but just for absolute clarity, it is not my aim (or business) to try to figure out who may have been Jodi's killer. My only interest, in all of this, is to point out the massive flaws in the police investigation which led to what I believe is a serious miscarriage of justice. When the conviction is finally recognised as totally flawed, then I would happily work with any investigating team, and share with them every scrap of information and evidence which has come to light - it would then be up to those investigators to piece together the truth.

[Jay]

Fair enough but i feel like the way that the past appeals have gone, the best chance you've got at clearing look is to find the real culprit.

btw, is there anywhere I can view the Sky interview from the day of the funeral? I've never seen this as I was Luke's age at the time of it and not much interested in watching the news, let alone on Sky. I would be interested in finally watching it if it is available online or if anyone here has the clip?

Cheers,
J

[openmind]

It doesn't really work that way. Alternative suspects have been presented in an appeal before but they were explained away, rightly or wrongly.

Apparently someone has made a "jailhouse confession" to the JJ murder but it wasn't even considered because the case is "closed".