Murder of Jodie Jones

[jason_c]

That is exactly the reply I gave.

If a group of people set out to specifically find a person then how can any inferred guilt be drawn when one of those persons finds the body?

Which reminds me - Jodi's family and extended family all went straight to the path where her body was found. On the way there they did not stop to search anywhere else.
Yet her mother claims Jodi was not allowed to walk on that path alone.

So why was that the first place they went to? Why were they not searching on the way to the path?

I don't know the area. A path to me sounds like a fairly reasonable place to start when searching a wooded/greenfield area. Teenagers do allsorts of things they are not meant to. I suggest Jodi's family knew this.

[Sand87]

"He had headed straight to the V, gone over and immediately turned to his left rather than to the right or walked straight ahead.

If he went over the wall alone then how does anybody know that he turned immediately left and found the body straight away? There is no account of anybody going over at the same time as him. It was also dark. And the wall was a foot higher than it is today.

And of course there is SK's original statement. If he saw him do what is described above then why launch into a very visial description of how Luke's dog Mia reacted? Why not just say...Luke and his dog went straight over the wall? Perhaps because they didn't?

[jason_c]

"Which reminds me - Jodi's family and extended family all went straight to the path where her body was found. On the way there they did not stop to search anywhere else.
Yet her mother claims Jodi was not allowed to walk on that path alone."


I've just found this:

"Easthouses and Newbattle are linked by the Roan's Dyke Path, which provides a shortcut between these settlements. The deceased lived around 250 metres from the east end of the path, and the appellant about 600 metres from the west end. The path was about 900 metres long"

Jodi had told her parents that she was to visit Mitchell. I'll ask you now Sandra, in what way would it be even remotely suspicious that this path was searched first?

[Sand87]

I can assure you I am not Sandra.

And Luke had phoned Jodi's mother to tell her that he was NOT with Jodi. Jodi had NOT turned up to meet him.

So why did they search the path she was not allowed to use on her way to the boyfriend she didn't meet rather than looking at her other friends houses or the Abbey (where they met up and smoked cannabis).

[jason_c]

I can assure you I am not Sandra.

And Luke had phoned Jodi's mother to tell her that he was NOT with Jodi. Jodi had NOT turned up to meet him.

So why did they search the path she was not allowed to use on her way to the boyfriend she didn't meet rather than looking at her other friends houses or the Abbey (where they met up and smoked cannabis).

Apologies, I assumed you were Sandra Lean.

The fact that Jodi said she was going to Mitchell's, but didn't turn up would put the path very high in the priorities of any search. I don't know if they had phoned or attempted to phone Jodi. Assuming they had, but received no reply then this path was an obvious place to search.

[Sand87]

Given that the search party set off around 11pm and Jodi left her house at around 5pm and Jodi was not allowed to use the path alone and the mother knew she had not arrived at Luke's...

Then going straight to the path to search implies that they already suspected foul play i.e she had entered the path but not left it, why else other than foul play would she be on a path a few hundred metres long for 5 and a half hours?

If she'd been 'missing' for 5.5 hours surely the logical assumption is that she was at another friends? That's what I was trying to get at.

I should add that there were two elements to her relatives search party. Two groups. Both groups, independantly, arrived at the path before searching anywhere else.

It's also interesting to note that when the police met the search party on the path and confirmed they had a body the only person singled out was Luke. He was isolated from the rest of the group, had his mobile phone confiscated and later his clothes. Nobody else in the search party had this happen to them. Quite surprising since Luke was not known to the police yet several of the search party were. Luke was the boyfriend, so was connected to Jodi. Yet most of the search party were also connected/related to Jodi.
The police screwed up even before they left the body out in the open for 10 hours (and allowed it to be moved).

[jason_c]

Here's the full verdict/opinion to Mitchell's appeal. Anyone can read it and come to their own conclusions without the opinions of myself or Sand87.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC28.html

[Sand87]

Can I just say one thing, jason.

A few times you have picked me up on something I have said. I have answered you but you don't aknowledge the answer, you don't tell me I am correct and you don't argue the point. You create some argument and then drop it and move on to the next one.
This is totally counter productive, it moves the thread on far too fast and it causes some decent posts/info to be moved back.

I'm taking time to post what I am and it requires a lot of searching through documents and articles and it just gets pushed back by another slightly loaded question or point.
This is not an egotistical thing, believe me. But how can we have a discussion when incredibly important and valid points are just washed over and forgotten?

However, I do appreciate your contribution. Anybody showing an interest in this case is important and without discussion and argument it would sit and fester and the only person caring would be Luke's mother so I would like to thank you for being active and dynamic.

[Ally]

While I agree that Sand87 seems a little uh...fervent... in her discussion of this case, it does appear that he was convicted solely because he found her body.
Which in my mind is a really weak piece of evidence to hang a kid on.

According to what I've read so far she was punched in the face several times. How does one do that without leaving a single mark on your hands? Ever punched someone? You get bruised knuckles at the very least. How was his DNA not found in the wounds? She didn't scratch him at all or fight back in the slightest against him? There was DNA on her, and none of it appears to match him.

I don't know. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But the evidence here is seriously lacking.

[RivkahChaya]

Just noting that I am reading; I just don't feel like I have anything to contribute. As I said, I'm very interested in cases with teenaged defendants, though.

I think you can see the interviews of the Central Park Jogger teens on youtube. Try this. Very eye-opening. It's one of any number of things about the case on American youtube, but it has snippets of the teens actuals "confessions." Police got an extremely ingenuous false confession out of one of the West Memphis Three as well.

FTR: two different cities, two different decades, not the same police.

[Sand87]

To expand on the 'punching' thing.

His hands were described as unwashed alongside his hair.

If you batter somebody with your fists badly enough to draw blood and cause bruising then it is amazing that a few hours later when you are forensically examined by police your hands have no trace of blood, no scratches and show no signs of having been washed.

[RivkahChaya]

I don't know. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But the evidence here is seriously lacking.

Well, part of the problem is that you can't have a verdict of "maybe." There's no provision for a half-sentence because the jury comes back with "maybe." Even though the ideal in the US and I believe the UK as well is that it is better for guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be wrongly convicted, when the crime is especially brutal, juries can become passionate, and decide that someone has got to pay.

I have no idea what kind of jury instructions judges give in the UK. In the US, judges in trials where the crime tends to stir emotions, which is going to be any crime where the victim is a child, the judge is careful to explain what "reasonable doubt" means, but a lot of jurors in those sorts of cases still see themselves as advocates for the victim. Not in all cases-- just in certain kinds of cases.

Again, I don't know about the UK, but older courthouses used to be built so the jury sat closer to the prosecutor, and there was an historical reason for that. Newer courthouses are being built so that neither side has any advantage of being closer to the jury.

[Ally]

The WM3 confession is not surprising to me at all since the kid who confessed had an extremely low IQ to begin with just slightly above being mentally retarded.

If you want a case of forced confessions that blows your mind, read up on the Norfolk Four. That one just leaves you shaking your head in wonderment.

I don't think this trial had a confession though or did I miss that part?

[RivkahChaya]

If you batter somebody with your fists badly enough to draw blood and cause bruising then it is amazing that a few hours later when you are forensically examined by police your hands have no trace of blood, no scratches and show no signs of having been washed.

Well, I can actually see how "no scratches" might be seen as evidence that her attacker was someone she wasn't afraid of, and it isn't all that hard to wash off blood, then rub dirt on your hands, which is maybe what the were getting at, but did they even take samples? Did he do something disingenuous, like touch her as soon as he found her, so there was a reason for her blood to be on his hands?

If the police are the ones stating that his hands and hair were unwashed, that doesn't seem to do much for their case, though, does it? if they are suggesting he got home, washed, then got back and started calling her?

[Sand87]

Ally, you are absolutely spot on.

Despite being verbally destroyed by senior detectives for hours, not once did Luke admit guilt. Not once did he trip himself up. If you read some of my earlier posts it is actually the detectives who end up tripping themselves up.

At one point one of them says:

"Luke, we have a partial match of your DNA at the scene"

Luke, quite rightly replies:

"Well if it's just a partial match it isn't me is it?"

Luke, at 14 years old, sustained this for a prolonged period. Cool, calculating killer or a 14 year old child who is telling the truth and just wants to go home?

I'll need to dig here for the exact wording but in one interview a clearly tired and upset Luke, with no adult or Lawyer, asks the detective in a child like voice "Can't I talk to anybody?".

No, is the answer.


It amazes me that under such pressure he DIDN'T just say "you know what, **** it, I did it.". As many wrongly convicted people have done.