IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Ian Stephen , Jodi Jones , Luke Mitchell , murder cases

Reply
Old 27th February 2021, 01:05 PM   #201
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
One thing I didn't gather from the programme - what happened to the charges against Luke's mother? Did they ever come to court?
No, I think they were dropped before Luke Mitchell's trial.
__________________
Those who have virtue always in their mouths, and neglect it in practice, are like a harp which emits a sound pleasing to others, while itself is insensible of the music. - Diogenes
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 01:06 PM   #202
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,441
Colour me utterly unsurprised.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2021, 02:53 PM   #203
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
The implication from Sandra's book was that Corinne and the brother were charged to cow and threaten them, and to give credence to the police story that Luke's alibi was false. The brother (Shane?) was questioned aggressively for hours, even though at the time he was supposed to be a witness, and when he "changed his story" that was used against him, that he was making it up.

In fact what happened was that originally he said he couldn't remember what they had for tea, but then his mother said "don't you remember, it was pies and Luke burned them," and then Shane remembered, and contacted the police to add that to his statement. So that was a lie he made up to cover for Luke. In contrast the stories of the other people in the search party changed a lot, but in the way the police wanted (principally to remove all mention of Mia - the dog - indicating that there was something of interest on the other side of the wall), and they were never criticised for that. I think Jodi's mother had about three different versions of how she spent the afternoon and evening, which isn't necessarily suspicious, but she was treated very differently when she said she remembered things she'd not originally told the police.

Once they got the conviction against Luke (I think it was after the trial) they dropped the charges against Corinne and Shane. If they had tried to make these stick, it might have become obvious that there was no evidence at all to contradict what they said about Luke being home until about 4.30. There was independent evidence (telephone calls) to support it too.

Oh wait, the charges weren't dropped till after Luke's trial because the fact of the charges meant that Corinne was unable to be in court with Luke to support him, or am I mixing up that they took her evidence absolutely last and she wasn't allowed in court until she'd given that evidence? Anyway, I think it was after the conviction.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 27th February 2021 at 02:55 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 04:15 AM   #204
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The implication from Sandra's book was that Corinne and the brother were charged to cow and threaten them, and to give credence to the police story that Luke's alibi was false. The brother (Shane?) was questioned aggressively for hours, even though at the time he was supposed to be a witness, and when he "changed his story" that was used against him, that he was making it up.

In fact what happened was that originally he said he couldn't remember what they had for tea, but then his mother said "don't you remember, it was pies and Luke burned them," and then Shane remembered, and contacted the police to add that to his statement. So that was a lie he made up to cover for Luke. In contrast the stories of the other people in the search party changed a lot, but in the way the police wanted (principally to remove all mention of Mia - the dog - indicating that there was something of interest on the other side of the wall), and they were never criticised for that. I think Jodi's mother had about three different versions of how she spent the afternoon and evening, which isn't necessarily suspicious, but she was treated very differently when she said she remembered things she'd not originally told the police.

Once they got the conviction against Luke (I think it was after the trial) they dropped the charges against Corinne and Shane. If they had tried to make these stick, it might have become obvious that there was no evidence at all to contradict what they said about Luke being home until about 4.30. There was independent evidence (telephone calls) to support it too.

Oh wait, the charges weren't dropped till after Luke's trial because the fact of the charges meant that Corinne was unable to be in court with Luke to support him, or am I mixing up that they took her evidence absolutely last and she wasn't allowed in court until she'd given that evidence? Anyway, I think it was after the conviction.
I saw this bbc article about Corinne Mitchell's testimony. It isn't very clearly written - the first sentence 'The mother of the youth accused of murdering Midlothian teenager Jodi Jones has been accused of lying during his trial' is ambiguous but from the context means that during the trial she was accused of lying. The article says that the court was told she would not face criminal charges, which I took to mean that the charges were dropped before the trial.

Incidentally, the only things I really remember about the reporting of the case around the time of the murder and trial were Corinne Mitchell purchasing the replacement knife for Luke, and his apparently leading the search team straight to the body. I wasn't paying much attention at the time and didn't realise how weak the case was. The way I recall it, I had the impression that the 'missing knife' was implied to be the suspected murder weapon. The way it's reported in the bbc article also suggests that: 'Prosecuting advocate depute Alan Turnbull QC, suggested it had been bought to replace one Luke had before Jodi's death', with no further clarification. From what I now understand, the missing knife issue relates to Luke's knife pouch which was too small to have held the murder weapon in any case.
__________________
Those who have virtue always in their mouths, and neglect it in practice, are like a harp which emits a sound pleasing to others, while itself is insensible of the music. - Diogenes
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 05:37 AM   #205
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
The murder weapon was never found. There was never any "missing knife" belonging to Luke as far as I know. I do recall, I think, that a knife was found in the woodland strip some time later but the police said they weren't interested in examining it.

Corinne's dog Mia, whom Luke had somewhat appropriated, was being trained as a search dog by a former police dog handler. Luke took Mia with him when he headed along the path towards Jodi's home in Easthouses. On the walk east along the path Mia hadn't been commanded to find anything and apparently didn't give any reaction. At this point Luke and Mia were alone. Towards the eastern end of the path (at the junction with Lady Path) Luke met Jodi's sister and grandmother, with Jodi's sister's boyfriend (Stephen Kelly) and they teamed up. I believe it was Stephen Kelly who suggested going back along Roan's Dyke Path, the way Luke had just come, rather than say going down Lady Path.

At this point Luke gave Mia the command to search, saying "find Jodi". He asked her family if they had anything of Jodi's they could give Mia to sniff, but they didn't, and they decided against going back to her house to collect something even though it was only a few minutes away. So Luke just said, find Jodi, it's anyone's guess if Mia knew who she was being asked to find, but she would have known she was being asked to search for something.

On the way back along the path Luke let Mia choose her route. She went into the barley field on the left a couple of times but came back to the path without finding anything. Then when she was on the path she turned to the right and put her forepaws up against the wall, indicating she had sensed something on the other side. At this stage Janine and Stephen were a bit ahead and Alice was behind. Alice was about opposite the V-break, and Luke, with Mia, turned back to her because that was a practical way over the wall. Luke gave Mia's lead to Alice and climbed the wall. He immediately turned left, because that was the direction back to the place where Mia had indicated she sensed something. Janine and Stephen also retraced their steps to the V-break.

Luke saw something he at first thought was a dumped shop-window mannequin, but then realised it was Jodi's naked body, and started screaming. Stephen came over the wall at that point, but neither Luke nor Stephen went up to Jodi's body or touched it. Alice however demanded to be helped over the wall, and did go right up to Jodi's body and according to some accounts cradled her head in her arms.

Both Luke and Stephen telephoned the police on their mobile phones at this point. Luke was a bit incoherent, saying he'd "found something", but it was actually Stephen's call that was said by the operator to be "emotionless", and this allegation (that Luke had been emotionless on the phone) was dropped when they realised it wasn't Luke the operator had been referring to at all.

The four searchers remained on the path until the police eventually arrived, having gone to the wrong place despite clear directions. This was also blamed on Luke, with one officer saying he'd "led us a merry dance" when in fact he hadn't moved from the path by the V-break and hadn't at any point led anyone to a different place.

The searchers were led back to a car park at a nearby school where Luke was already separated from the others and treated differently, as a suspect. He was taken to a different police station, strip-searched and forensically examined, and aggressively questioned for a long time, with police saying things like "just confess you wee bastard and we'll see it's all right." Bear in mind that this is a 14-year-old boy who has just found the dead and mutilated body of his childhood sweetheart.

The others were taken together to another police station, treated quite politely and not forensically examined at all. They were allowed to go home and wash anything they wanted to wash. It was quite some time later (a fortnight?) when they were asked to provide the clothes they had been wearing that evening, and they couldn't even remember for sure what they'd been wearing.

The main thing that seems to have happened is the changing of the statements of Jodi's family. In their initial statements they all mentioned seeing Mia turn to the wall and jump up against it, signalling she'd sensed something. Their final statements didn't mention this at all and in court they all said they didn't remember that happening. The case against Luke was that Mia had done nothing and he had gone unerringly to the break in the wall, climbed it and known to turn left to go straight to the body. (Later the police went to quite a lot of trouble to try to "prove" that Mia couldn't have sensed Jodi's body, but these tests were all a load of nonsense as far as I can tell.)

Then they had to break his alibi by manufacturing a sighting of him at the east side of the path when he said he had stayed on the west side all evening (and hadn't even gone near the west end of the path), so they could call Corinne and Shane liars. The rest of it, the knives and the bloodstained parka and Luke's alleged changes of clothes (partly to explain that the people supposed to have been Luke seen by witnesses were described as wearing clothes nothing like what Luke was wearing and partly to explain why he had no blood or traces of Jodi on him) were entirely invented.

When he was taken into custody Luke was wearing the same clothes he'd been wearing when he came home from school that afternoon. There was never any evidence that he'd changed at all, let alone twice, and changed back. He had greasy hair and his neck and fingernails were dirty, suggesting he hadn't washed. The time in which he was supposed to have accomplished all this was very tight indeed, and would have involved him running up a residential street in broad daylight in bloodstained clothes, but one of the sightings supposed to be him (after the time of the murder) was of a lad standing leaning against a five-barred gate with apparently all the time and not a care in the world.

Go figure.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 28th February 2021 at 05:45 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 06:07 AM   #206
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,049
Where did Janine live?

One thing I was never completely clear about is whether or not Jodi and her sister Janine lived in the same household. I believe that they did not, but I am not sure. Does anyone remember this?
EDT
"Further, Jodi lived with her mother, and Janine lived with her Grandmother." link So how would Jodi have been able to borrow a shirt from her sister?

On another subject, here is something from a reporter (and I use that word loosely) at the Daily Record. "To this day, Judy has refused to sit down and discuss her daughter’s death in detail with any journalist. She’s always maintained a dignified silence even when Mitchell and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops." One wonders why they cannot consult a thesaurus.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 28th February 2021 at 06:21 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 06:21 AM   #207
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
One thing I was never completely clear about is whether or not Jodi and her sister Janine lived in the same household. I believe that they did not, but I am not sure. Does anyone remember this?

On another subject, here is something from a reporter (and I use that word loosely) at the Daily Record. "To this day, Judy has refused to sit down and discuss her daughter’s death in detail with any journalist. She’s always maintained a dignified silence even when Mitchell and his supporters have been shouting from the rooftops." One wonders why they cannot consult a thesaurus.
I thought I read somewhere that Janine was not living in the household at the time.

I'm not sure if this is in Dr Lean's book. Unfortunately I've misplaced my copy. My house is so cluttered at the moment it might take a major excavation to find it.
__________________
Those who have virtue always in their mouths, and neglect it in practice, are like a harp which emits a sound pleasing to others, while itself is insensible of the music. - Diogenes
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 07:37 AM   #208
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,049
an unidentified DNA donor

"DNA found on Jodi‟s underwear and trainer belonged to two people, neither of which was Luke. The DNA on her underwear, shown to be from semen, belonged to Stephen Kelly, her sister‟s fiancé. This was explained away thus: Jodi had borrowed her sister‟s T shirt, and the DNA had transferred from the T shirt to her bra. The only proof that this was the case is the word of Janine Jones and Stephen Kelly himself. Further, Jodi lived with her mother, and Janine lived with her Grandmother. Judy Jones claimed Jodi had "gone upstairs to get ready to meet Luke" that evening. Therefore, she had changed into a semen stained t-shirt, borrowed from her sister at an earlier date, but not washed? The DNA on her trainer remains unidentified, in spite of later police claims that "no DNA at the scene was unaccounted for" – this statement would later come back to haunt the investigating team." link

One of the curious aspects of this case is that pro-guilt commenters who think that DNA is very important in other cases, wave away the DNA in this case. That is not to say that there is no such thing as DNA deposits that are unrelated to the crime (the Annie Le case is a very good example); it is to say that DNA should be accounted for.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 07:45 AM   #209
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Did the investigation have the same OIC throughout? Was that person subsequently promoted? Are they still in the job?

Careers are made in the police by getting detections/convictions.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 08:39 AM   #210
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
Nessie, I don't know the answer to that. I did read in Sandra's book about some confusion about exactly who was SIO at the very beginning and at what point he became SIO. The implication was that there was a bit of buck-passing going on as to who had supposedly been in charge right at the very beginning when Luke was separated from the rest of the search party and treated as the only suspect. Who exactly took the decision to do that has never been clear as far as I know.

I don't think this was really so much about getting a conviction, any conviction, though of course that was part of it, but that it was more about doubling down on Luke Mitchell because investigating anyone else would have revealed the negligence that went on at the very beginning.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 08:52 AM   #211
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
About the t-shirt thing, I don't believe it was ever proved that that t-shirt was Janine's. There was some confusion about how many black t-shirts Jodi (and Janine) had (nobody accusing them of being evil Goth murderers on the basis of the colour of their t-shirts I notice), and whether there were identical shirts among them. I think Judy had bought identical shirts for her daughters at least once. But it was all very confused and I never saw any conclusive evidence that the shirt Jodi was wearing when she was killed was actually Janine's.

The shirt was allegedly clean. The forensic technician said it smelled of washing powder. Which would make sense if Jodi got changed to go to meet Luke. The dispute, I gather, was whether the semen on the shirt would have survived the washing machine, and apparently sperm heads can do that. But was it just sperm heads they found?

I don't know who first came up with the theory that the shirt was Janine's. I have a crawling suspicion it might even have emanated from the police themselves, when they got the forensics results and they still wanted to keep Luke as the suspect. But I'm not sure. I mean, that should have been one hell of a conversation. "Well Mr Kelly, it appears Jodi put on a freshly washed t-shirt that afternoon, but we have found your DNA in semen/sperm on it. Can you explain this?"

Forgive me, but this once again reminds me of something that happened in the Lockerbie investigation, Bedford's statement about the brown Samsonite suitcase. You'd think the police would have been sending up Eurekagrams when that one came to light, it was such an obvious clue. The question after that should surely have been, well, if that wasn't the bomb, how did you rule it out? Weren't you really disappointed you had to rule it out? But no, they hand-waved it away with a spurious "nothing to see here."

Same with this. A huge clue that should have had the police all over it, and all over Stephen Kelly, and we simply don't see the reaction you'd expect to that information being received.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 08:57 AM   #212
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
By the way, I read this afternoon that C5 have pulled the second episode of the documentary because someone's name could be read on-screen on a list of suspects, and that person is not allowed to be identified.

This is a bit of a mystery. There is a person in Sandra's book who Sandra says was identified at a later stage, but she never says who the man is. I think it was someone walking on the path a bit behind Jodi that afternoon. I asked Sandra twice who it was and she didn't answer. Now we hear there is someone linked to the case as a possible suspect whose name is not allowed to be made public. This is very odd as the criminal justice system isn't usually shy about naming people who might be perpetrators of crime, and indeed Stephen Kelly's name and others are bandied about quite regularly.

Something smells a bit off here.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 09:07 AM   #213
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
Good grief. Just seen on Twitter. Stephen Kelly and James Falconer arrested over the weekend for breach of the peace, and Joseph Jones sectioned himself.

Stephen Kelly is Janine's boyfriend (or was then), whose sperm/semen was on the freshly-washed t-shirt Jodi was wearing when she was killed. James Falconer, I think, is the man whose fresh semen was found in a condom very close to where Jodi's body was found. Joseph Jones is Jodi's older brother, who was living with Judy and Jodi (and Judy's bidie-in Alan Ovens) at the time of the murder, and who had pre-existing mental health problems.

All three have been subject to speculation about possible involvement in the murder.

Some dignified silence.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 09:31 AM   #214
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Nessie, I don't know the answer to that. I did read in Sandra's book about some confusion about exactly who was SIO at the very beginning and at what point he became SIO. The implication was that there was a bit of buck-passing going on as to who had supposedly been in charge right at the very beginning when Luke was separated from the rest of the search party and treated as the only suspect. Who exactly took the decision to do that has never been clear as far as I know.

I don't think this was really so much about getting a conviction, any conviction, though of course that was part of it, but that it was more about doubling down on Luke Mitchell because investigating anyone else would have revealed the negligence that went on at the very beginning.
That has shades of Stephen Lawrence about it. I have it on good authority that the start of that enquiry got off to a bad start due to some poor decisions by the first officers on scene and so there was a bit of a bun fight as to who was to sort out the mess.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 09:57 AM   #215
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
I see what you mean. Didn't they pile in on the assumption that because Stephen was black he must have been the aggressor, when in fact he was the one who'd been assaulted?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 10:57 AM   #216
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I see what you mean. Didn't they pile in on the assumption that because Stephen was black he must have been the aggressor, when in fact he was the one who'd been assaulted?
I do not know the full details, but the Inspector in charge of the shift that responded was credited with doing very little and described as a rabbit in the headlights. Crime scene preservation poor and issues with Lawrence's friend.

I was told that the first briefing of the DCs was normal, in that they had a murder to investigate, but there were already issues and evidence likely lost.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 04:22 PM   #217
Siam
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Good grief. Just seen on Twitter. Stephen Kelly and James Falconer arrested over the weekend for breach of the peace, and Joseph Jones sectioned himself.

Stephen Kelly is Janine's boyfriend (or was then), whose sperm/semen was on the freshly-washed t-shirt Jodi was wearing when she was killed. James Falconer, I think, is the man whose fresh semen was found in a condom very close to where Jodi's body was found. Joseph Jones is Jodi's older brother, who was living with Judy and Jodi (and Judy's bidie-in Alan Ovens) at the time of the murder, and who had pre-existing mental health problems.

All three have been subject to speculation about possible involvement in the murder.

Some dignified silence.
Some worried people out there now, hopefully something comes out of this, they will have their DNA taken again on arrest.
Police should look at the moped boys and SK.
We have come a longways since 2003 with dna technology they should analyse Jodies clothing again.

I have been thinking about the sighting of Luke by that lady in the car, could she have not seen the couple in her rear view mirror after passing them ? I know she had to 2 weeins in the car as well.
Siam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2021, 06:03 PM   #218
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
Doesn't seem possible to me. I've occasionally tried to see a road sign I've just passed in my rear view mirror (I mean one facing the other way, meant for oncoming traffic) and I never can. Also, she certainly didn't say anything about seeing them in her mirror and if you look at the detail of what she eventually claimed to see, it's scarcely possible she saw all that even if she was driving south and looking straight at them for as long as possible. Especially the bit about the man walking ten yards down the path. To have seen it driving north, mirror or no mirror, forget it.

Remember she was going round a bend at the time. You need to watch the road in front of you when you're going round a bend. She might have seen two people standing on the pavement going either way, but she spoke of seeing into the path and you can only do that when you're driving towards Bryans, not going the other way. But she was driving towards Bryans nearly an hour too late for that sighting to be any use to the case against Luke.

She originally said she saw the couple on her way home (she lived in the Bryans) and I'd give a minor body part to know the sequence of events that led to her apparently acceding that she'd seen them on her way from the Co-op at Gorebridge to Easthouses. (Actually you probably wouldn't even take that road if you were going to Easthouses from Gorebridge. But she couldn't remember...) This is what Chris calls witness cajoling, par excellence.

I'm quite prepared to believe she did catch a glimpse of a couple of people that afternoon, standing about there, but if she knew they were at the entrance to the path at all she had to be going south, because you can't even see that there's a path there if you're going north. I don't believe she could possibly have had time to see all the detail she later "remembered" including the man walking 10 yards down the path, and describing the clothes they were wearing (nothing like what Luke was actually wearing) and then claiming to recognise Luke from a photo - when she originally put the man's age at late teens or early 20s (Luke was 14) and talked about reddish or brown hair sticking up at the back, when Luke had dead straight blond hair.

And that bloody idiot Donald Findlay grasped all this so well he didn't even ask her whether the couple were on her left or her right when she saw them.

ETA: Welcome to the forum, Siam!
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 28th February 2021 at 06:15 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 02:15 AM   #219
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
This was the police response to the documentary;

"Response from Det Chief Supt Laura Thompson, Police Scotland;
Following the discovery of 14-year-old Jodi Jones' body within a woodland area in Easthouses, Midlothian on 13th June 2003, a thorough investigation was conducted by Lothian & Borders Police.
Extensive forensic analysis was carried out along with door-to-door inquiries and other investigative techniques and a full report of the circumstances was submitted to the COPFS.
As a result Luke Mitchell, who was 15 at the time, was charged with Jodi's murder, before being convicted and sentenced in 2005.
We are satisfied that we do not need to trace any other individuals in connection with this investigation."

It is deluded and shows that the police have a narrative that is not backed by the facts. It was not a thorough investigation, for example the lack of forensic examination of any person other than Luke Mitchell. It is not true that there was extensive forensic analysis and in any case, it goes unmentioned that the enquiry failed to find any forensic link between Mitchell and Jones. It suggests that Mitchell was only a suspect after all the enquiry work had been done, which is not the case. The police have closed their minds to any possibility of errors and that there are other evidenced suspects.

I have watched episode 1 so far, episode is downloaded to watch tonight. It is clear that Mitchell was decided as the person responsible and then the evidence manipulated to point only at him.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 02:58 AM   #220
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,485
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
This was the police response to the documentary;

"Response from Det Chief Supt Laura Thompson, Police Scotland;
Following the discovery of 14-year-old Jodi Jones' body within a woodland area in Easthouses, Midlothian on 13th June 2003, a thorough investigation was conducted by Lothian & Borders Police.
Extensive forensic analysis was carried out along with door-to-door inquiries and other investigative techniques and a full report of the circumstances was submitted to the COPFS.
As a result Luke Mitchell, who was 15 at the time, was charged with Jodi's murder, before being convicted and sentenced in 2005.
We are satisfied that we do not need to trace any other individuals in connection with this investigation."

It is deluded and shows that the police have a narrative that is not backed by the facts. It was not a thorough investigation, for example the lack of forensic examination of any person other than Luke Mitchell. It is not true that there was extensive forensic analysis and in any case, it goes unmentioned that the enquiry failed to find any forensic link between Mitchell and Jones. It suggests that Mitchell was only a suspect after all the enquiry work had been done, which is not the case. The police have closed their minds to any possibility of errors and that there are other evidenced suspects.

I have watched episode 1 so far, episode is downloaded to watch tonight. It is clear that Mitchell was decided as the person responsible and then the evidence manipulated to point only at him.
Women are gender neutral in these unfortunate determinations.
This always has the effect of destroying my faith in the human race.
There seems no hope.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:08 AM   #221
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 150
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
This was the police response to the documentary;

"Response from Det Chief Supt Laura Thompson, Police Scotland;
Following the discovery of 14-year-old Jodi Jones' body within a woodland area in Easthouses, Midlothian on 13th June 2003, a thorough investigation was conducted by Lothian & Borders Police.
Extensive forensic analysis was carried out along with door-to-door inquiries and other investigative techniques and a full report of the circumstances was submitted to the COPFS.
As a result Luke Mitchell, who was 15 at the time, was charged with Jodi's murder, before being convicted and sentenced in 2005.
We are satisfied that we do not need to trace any other individuals in connection with this investigation."

It is deluded and shows that the police have a narrative that is not backed by the facts. It was not a thorough investigation, for example the lack of forensic examination of any person other than Luke Mitchell. It is not true that there was extensive forensic analysis and in any case, it goes unmentioned that the enquiry failed to find any forensic link between Mitchell and Jones. It suggests that Mitchell was only a suspect after all the enquiry work had been done, which is not the case. The police have closed their minds to any possibility of errors and that there are other evidenced suspects.

I have watched episode 1 so far, episode is downloaded to watch tonight. It is clear that Mitchell was decided as the person responsible and then the evidence manipulated to point only at him.
Luke Mitchel is guilty. This "documentary" is just another money grabbing propaganda piece like Netflixs Making a Murderer.

Nobody ever solves a crime by watching a TV show.
Essexman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:15 AM   #222
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
Nobody ever solves a crime by watching a TV show, and that show wasn't even a particularly good one, omitting numerous points where the police invented evidence, changed evidence, and simply screwed up. What can be accomplished by such shows however is raising public awareness of cases where an obvious miscarriage of justice has happened.

I'm not sure I really have the energy to go through all this again, it's all there earlier in the thread, but do tell. What is the evidence you rely on to assert that Luke Mitchell is guilty?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:33 AM   #223
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Women are gender neutral in these unfortunate determinations.
This always has the effect of destroying my faith in the human race.
There seems no hope.
The "it" is Police Scotland. The Det Chief Super is just the one who issued the statement, which will have been approved and is unlikely her own words.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:34 AM   #224
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
By the way, I read this afternoon that C5 have pulled the second episode of the documentary because someone's name could be read on-screen on a list of suspects, and that person is not allowed to be identified.

This is a bit of a mystery. There is a person in Sandra's book who Sandra says was identified at a later stage, but she never says who the man is. I think it was someone walking on the path a bit behind Jodi that afternoon. I asked Sandra twice who it was and she didn't answer. Now we hear there is someone linked to the case as a possible suspect whose name is not allowed to be made public. This is very odd as the criminal justice system isn't usually shy about naming people who might be perpetrators of crime, and indeed Stephen Kelly's name and others are bandied about quite regularly.

Something smells a bit off here.
I have access to the recording on Box of Broadcasts, but I can't make out any name on the list other than those already openly named.

It does seem rather odd that this mystery person seems to have been treated differently to the named potential suspects from the outset.
__________________
Those who have virtue always in their mouths, and neglect it in practice, are like a harp which emits a sound pleasing to others, while itself is insensible of the music. - Diogenes

Last edited by Elaedith; 1st March 2021 at 04:36 AM.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:44 AM   #225
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
It has been confirmed to be by two sources that the name is Joseph Jones, Jodi's older brother. It's looking as if he is the person known as "stocky man" who was seen following Jodi along the path that afternoon. Joe had mental health issues and appears still to have mental health issues, which may be why his name seems to be prohibited from being discussed as a possible suspect.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 04:48 AM   #226
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Luke Mitchel is guilty. This "documentary" is just another money grabbing propaganda piece like Netflixs Making a Murderer.

Nobody ever solves a crime by watching a TV show.
Its timing of the programme is astute, appearing along with a high profile malicious prosecution and the failed prosecution of a senior politician. The Scottish legal system has always been a source of pride in Scotland and it is coming as a shock to many that it is in fact deeply flawed, prone to mistakes, politicised and in dire need of reform.

It acts merely to publicise what happened, as sadly an appeal failed and he is doomed to stay in prison and spend the rest of his life on licence for a conviction that is not safe.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...0-ff0000d74aa7
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 05:35 AM   #227
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
How did the prosecution explain away the lack of a forensic connection between Mitchell and Jones? There was clearly a struggle, there were a lot of injuries on Jones and that would mean DNA, blood and fibre transfer.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 05:58 AM   #228
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,049
blood on Jodi's body

"The reports also show, the new defence team says, that a blood sample found on her produced a full DNA match with a named individual and a second full DNA profile, for an unknown male, was retrieved from a condom found near the body...They also reveal that there were 122 items taken from the murder scene from which attempts to obtain DNA profiles proved unsuccessful, including a number of hairs and saliva on Jodi's body and clothing."

I quoted a portion of this Guardian article on page one of the thread. Does anyone know where the blood was? If it were under her fingernails, that individual should have been a person of interest at the very least. There is a decent body of forensic literature on fingernail DNA, and it suggests that foreign DNA underneath one's fingernails is unusual. It is unclear to me whether or not her fingernails were swabbed for DNA, but they obviously should have been.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st March 2021 at 06:03 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 06:31 AM   #229
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...0-ff0000d74aa7

"[13] The deceased's body was found naked apart from some socks on the front part of her feet. Other items of clothing were strewn around the area. Her trousers had been used to tie her hands behind her back. There was no evidence of recent sexual abuse. There was no sign of a struggle except in the area around the body. She had a number of injuries, including cuts to the throat, the right cheek, the left breast, numerous cuts to the stomach and cuts round both eyes. Some of these injuries appeared to have been inflicted post-mortem. Defensive injuries suggested that the deceased had struggled with her assailant. The cut to the neck had severed the deceased's windpipe and jugular vein, as well as the carotid artery on the left side. This would have caused death within a couple of minutes. According to the pathologist, Professor Anthony Busuttil, the implement which caused the injuries to the throat was a stout, sharp-pointed, bladed weapon."

No blood, no DNA, no hair, no fibre transfer. Impossible.

"[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it."

What about Luke's other clothing and shoes? What about inside Luke's house? Why nothing there? Even back in 2003, forensic science was advanced enough that transfered DNA etc would be found, if there was any.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 07:29 AM   #230
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
There was no such parka. Corinne even had the receipt for the parka Luke was wearing in several press photos, it was bought after the murder, and after the police had taken away every stitch of clothing he owned for forensic examination. The police decided he had had one before the murder and that Corinne had bought an identical one to conceal the fact that it was missing, but they made that up.

Luke was taken directly from the scene of the discovery of the body to the police station where he was stripped, searched and a full set of forensic samples taken. His clothes were all taken away and he was put into a set of paper overalls. Of course he could have washed and changed, but in fact he was still wearing the clothes he'd had on at school that day (despite various alleged "sightings" describing quite different clothes, including clothes he never possessed). If he washed he somehow managed to leave his neck dirty and his hair greasy and his fingernails dirty. (Grotty little tyke, but hey, 14, and that doesn't make him a murderer.)

Later they came and took away all his other clothes. They found one trace of Jodi's DNA on another pair of trousers he hadn't been wearing that day, but she was his girlfriend, that's hardly surprising. They also did a number on the house. Nothing.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 10:10 AM   #231
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...0-ff0000d74aa7

" There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it."

"There was no evidence establishing what was burned within the log burner, and in particular that it included a jacket belonging to the appellant. During the search of the appellant's house on 4 July, the contents of the ash can were removed and subsequently analysed, but gave a negative result. The evidence of the burner was therefore of limited value."

Limited value? That proves the alleged jacket was not burned in the log burner. The more I read about this case, the more appalling it gets. The Crown used the smell from the log burner as part of the circumstantial case, despite it being examined and not found to contain anything of note, let along the remains of a jacket.

I still think that all of that circumstantial evidence is a smoke screen to obscure the lack of forensic evidence linking Luke to Jodi's body. It is disturbing that there are police and prosecutors who have actively framed a young boy for a crime he could not have committed.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 11:24 AM   #232
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
The only "evidence" there was that Luke had ever worn a parka-style jacket before July 2003 was after his picture had appeared in newspapers wearing the one Corinne bought for him that month. Then the police went round asking people if they'd ever seen him wearing a parka, and got a few "oh aye"s from assorted rubberneckers. They took away every photograph in the house, apparently trying to find a picture of him wearing a parka before the murder, and found nothing. The smell could have been anything, and there was no evidence it even came from the Mitchell house, never mind that the log burner had been used. The people next door were apparently burning joss-sticks...

It's absolutely impossible to destroy a heavy canvas jacket with zips and eyelets and buckles in a small home-made garden barbecue burner. And I suspect there would have been more than some vague stories of a strange smell that some people in the group of houses didn't notice at all, if anyone tried.

They were really struggling on this one and this entire parka thing seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. The actual sightings of Luke that afternoon and evening all had him wearing the clothes he was agreed to have worn to school that day, and he was still wearing the same clothes when he found the body, and there was no parka involved. The police seem to have suggested "parka" to some of the witnesses, but the fleeting glimpses of "someone" reported by the three or four eyewitnesses all had different clothes attached to them, and these changed from statement to statement. They seem to have imagined Luke was a quick-change artist with a surprisingly varied wardrobe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 12:26 PM   #233
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
His wardrobe would need to have included rubber gloves, a full paper suit, shoe covers and some sort of face mask, which could then be disposed of perfectly and quickly between the murder and when he was next seen. He would have had to have gone to the lane, dressed in the forensic outfit, murder Jodi and then disposed of said outfit.

I am not crime scene trained, but as a response cop, we would often be first at the scene and number 1 job was to secure the locus to preserve evidence. Anyone entering is a form of contamination. Luke would need to know that and have a plan to prevent any contamination. He would also need to make sure there was no cross contamination from his forensic suit onto her body. He was 15.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 01:02 PM   #234
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,213
He was 14. (He turned 15 about a month later.) And it wasn't supposed to be pre-meditated, though they could never come up with a coherent motive.

Is it possible the Jones family had some connections within the local police who were shielding them from other allegations? I'm just wondering how they leaped into treating a child as the sole suspect and absolutely not even considering two adult males close to Jodi, at all, right from the get-go.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 01:26 PM   #235
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,441
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Luke Mitchel is guilty. This "documentary" is just another money grabbing propaganda piece like Netflixs Making a Murderer.

Nobody ever solves a crime by watching a TV show.
I think I'm going to need just a bit more than that.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 01:46 PM   #236
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,049
Locard's principle

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
How did the prosecution explain away the lack of a forensic connection between Mitchell and Jones? There was clearly a struggle, there were a lot of injuries on Jones and that would mean DNA, blood and fibre transfer.
In a 2015 report Foran and colleagues wrote, “For instance, of the 750,000 aggravated assaults in the United States in 2011, approximately 25% were committed using hands, fists, or feet (Uniform Crime Report, 2011). As a victim struggles with an assailant, there is a chance of transfer of trace material between them, such as epithelial cells, fibers, hair, or blood. Given this, assault victims are routinely checked for transfer evidence.”

Foran D, Hebda, L Doran A, “Trace DNA from Fingernails: Increasing the Success Rate of Widely Collected Forensic Evidence “ Report to the NCJRS 2015. Link

I realize that this is an obvious point, but if anyone wanted a citation, here it is.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 03:02 PM   #237
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,485
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Luke Mitchel is guilty. This "documentary" is just another money grabbing propaganda piece like Netflixs Making a Murderer.

Nobody ever solves a crime by watching a TV show.
For real comparisons look at Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy,
As in this case, they are in prison, they had cast iron alibis, and following from this there is no forensic evidence linking them to the crimes.
The Steven Avery case is quite different.
Like others here, I am interested in the evidence you find that this guy is guilty.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2021, 09:48 PM   #238
Siam
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Doesn't seem possible to me. I've occasionally tried to see a road sign I've just passed in my rear view mirror (I mean one facing the other way, meant for oncoming traffic) and I never can. Also, she certainly didn't say anything about seeing them in her mirror and if you look at the detail of what she eventually claimed to see, it's scarcely possible she saw all that even if she was driving south and looking straight at them for as long as possible. Especially the bit about the man walking ten yards down the path. To have seen it driving north, mirror or no mirror, forget it.

Remember she was going round a bend at the time. You need to watch the road in front of you when you're going round a bend. She might have seen two people standing on the pavement going either way, but she spoke of seeing into the path and you can only do that when you're driving towards Bryans, not going the other way. But she was driving towards Bryans nearly an hour too late for that sighting to be any use to the case against Luke.

She originally said she saw the couple on her way home (she lived in the Bryans) and I'd give a minor body part to know the sequence of events that led to her apparently acceding that she'd seen them on her way from the Co-op at Gorebridge to Easthouses. (Actually you probably wouldn't even take that road if you were going to Easthouses from Gorebridge. But she couldn't remember...) This is what Chris calls witness cajoling, par excellence.

I'm quite prepared to believe she did catch a glimpse of a couple of people that afternoon, standing about there, but if she knew they were at the entrance to the path at all she had to be going south, because you can't even see that there's a path there if you're going north. I don't believe she could possibly have had time to see all the detail she later "remembered" including the man walking 10 yards down the path, and describing the clothes they were wearing (nothing like what Luke was actually wearing) and then claiming to recognise Luke from a photo - when she originally put the man's age at late teens or early 20s (Luke was 14) and talked about reddish or brown hair sticking up at the back, when Luke had dead straight blond hair.

And that bloody idiot Donald Findlay grasped all this so well he didn't even ask her whether the couple were on her left or her right when she saw them.

ETA: Welcome to the forum, Siam!
Hi Rolfe, thanks for the welcoming.
I have my views now and after watching a video with Corrine I believe it was carried out by 3/4 or even 5 people, and everyone covered up for themselves and took Luke to the murder vicinity,
Someone had a sexual interest in both sisters and as Corrine stated this was a punishment killing.
Siam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 01:55 AM   #239
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,114
Something that annoyed me from the documentary was that there were various references to important or crucial evidence, which ignored that evidence has an inherent hierarchy.

Physical evidence, forensics and medical evidence is inherently more reliable than witness evidence. The experiment with the drive bys of the end of the lane and the use of suggesting was a very clever way of exampling how witness evidence can be unreliable and easily influenced. Hearsay and anecdotal evidence is thankfully not usually admissible in court, but it is often used in trials by the media and Luke was certainly subjected to that.

That there was no physical/forensic link between Luke and Jodi's body is the single most important piece of evidence in determining his responsibility. Everything else is below forensics in the evidence hierarchy and cannot be used to overrule the forensics. If a witness contradicts the forensic evidence, the witness is wrong.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2021, 04:14 AM   #240
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,441
Originally Posted by Siam View Post
Hi Rolfe, thanks for the welcoming.
I have my views now and after watching a video with Corrine I believe it was carried out by 3/4 or even 5 people, and everyone covered up for themselves and took Luke to the murder vicinity,
Someone had a sexual interest in both sisters and as Corrine stated this was a punishment killing.
That all sounds highly unlikely too.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.