I read on the blue forum that they'd had that argument in school that Monday morning/afternoon, so presumably it had been discussed previously (maybe on the old WAP forum?). There is no smoke without fire, FL; it's probably been discussed previously, but because it probably wasn't deemed a main part of the prosecution's case it gradually petered out of discussions over the years? Perhaps it's just hard luck that no cite is available to back it up (the media didn't report every single piece of evidence led at court). As I said, it would be helpful if someone could expand on it, as it ties in with their confrontation spotted by AB at the top end of that path in Easthouses (the eastern side of Roan's Dyke Path).
He was still convicted by a majority verdict (9/6, from what I heard), such was the strength of the circumstantial evidence. Besides, juries are made of people with different abilities, intelligence and personalities. People with different analytical skills, different reading and listening comprehension abilities and different concentration levels and attention spans. Yes, this could work for or against a defendant, but I believe the circumstantial evidence led against LM as very robust. Hardly surprising he was convicted, imo.
Very telling you chose to evade those questions of LM's whereabouts during those times. He met up with DH at 1930, not 1900. Big difference, especially of what one can do in such time when full of adrenalin and when time is of the essence.
Yes, nearly 2 hours. He initially said he left his house at just after 1730 (but it subsequently and, ahem, conveniently changed to 1745 when evidence came through of his calls to the Jones' landline and CM being captured on CCTV at 1710; the whole alibi debacle would be hilarious if this wasn't such a heartbreaking and tragic case) and he met up with DH and co at 1930.
I presume he didn't call, as the police would have been able to ascertain this by obtaining phone logs from the Jones' landline (as they had done with LM's calls to the Jones' landline at 1732 and 1740). I believe most mobile phone operators, unlike with text messages -- which are not retained at all -- retain call records for a certain amount
of time (varies from operator to operator) so maybe the police looked into that (probably not, though, imo). And again, LM had wiped his entire phone history before the police took it on 01.07.03. As I understand it, Jodi had only failed to meet Luke once in their time of dating, and even on that single solitary occasion she had phoned Luke to let him know. So, yes, it was out of character for her not to show up. Also, she told her mother just before she left that she'd be "mucking around up there" (meaning Easthouses), and yet LM claimed she was coming to meet him at nbattle (which was a far less frequent occurrence than LM meeting her at Easthouses).
He was religiously with Jodi since they met (most nights as their relationship went on, and certainly most nights by the 30.06.03). But, on the night she uncharacteristically fails to show up, he uncharacteristically called DH (hopefully a cite will be provided in due course, confirming meeting up with him was not what he'd normally do)? I feel uneasy.
Luke banked on Jodi deleting their communications on Judith's phone; he probably instinctively knew that she would delete their messages, them being a private convo and all. Besides, even if Judith's phone held incriminating info, LM would obviously deny it (although, info of their meeting, especially at 1700 in Easthouses, would be important for the defence). Still, LM deleted everything from his phone before the police took it. Very telling.
There are so many questions simply because it was an entirely circumstantial case; it is inevitable and could go on til the end of time. It's also important to bear in mind that there were a few coincidences (eg, that 2 known delinquents were nearby when Jodi was murdered) and LM got lucky in some instances (like Jodi deleting those texts between 1634-1639, but the main slice of luck that LM had was that he never left any incriminating DNA behind . . . any incriminating DNA was likely on that Parka, and jeans and boots that were all likely disposed of in a fire). Calling the Jones' landline more would've alarmed them and that's what he would definitely not have wanted, especially as it was the height of summer and still light outside; he needed time to cover his tracks, which he did, but there were things that went against him (AB, RW and LF sightings, most notably and the police's foresight). He was very cunning calling the Jones' landline when he did; it was just enough time to set the alibi in place, give the Jones family the impression that he cared and that nothing was wrong. And I believe he had called them at a time just after he'd murdered Jodi and hid her body. So calm and collected beyond his years. Chilling. As for saying to DH that she wasn't coming out, I guess that because they were inseparable by that point he (DH) would not have believed it and to avoid any more questions from DH that that answer would have incited (by telling him she would not be out is direct and straight to the point; a conversation stopper, if you will). LM saying he'd been stood up probably would have been better, but I suspect he had let his guard down here and had a lapse in concentration (inevitable, after what he'd recently done). He may well have been very intelligent and advanced, but he did, imo, give the police several things to use as evidence against him, which was bound to happen because of stress and pressure (he told police that Jodi borrowed clothes and the exact clothes and led them to that body far too quickly to escape suspicion, imo).
Sorry for any typos, etc. My iPhone is broken and I'm using a really substandard phone temporarily.
