I’ve said several times on here now that I think Luke murdered Jodi, but cannot say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Here are a few reasons why I’m still not 100% sure he’s guilty:
Just back from a camping hol there, so had some time to read more of IB. In ch.13, from p.233 - 244, SL offers an account that suggests that there may have been a mistaken identity between Luke and Mark Kane on the NB rd on 30.06.03. She makes it clear that MK was in the case files as early as the first week of the investigation, as a person to be traced an interviewed. Although no names are given, an independent witness, according to what MK himself had allegedly told another witness, is said to have seen MK running up the NB rd on the early evening of 30.06.03, on his way to buy alcohol from either the Morning, noon & night store or Eskbank Trading store. Furthermore, he was named by another 3 separate people to police in the incipient stages of the investigation, as someone the police should speak to. Why did these people draw MK to the police’s attention? Well, the inference is that he was an erratic character, often carried knives, regularly consumed drugs and alcohol (was even on a methadone programme at the time) and was an avid fan of Marilyn Manson and Nirvana. Above all, however, it was his strong resemblance to Luke; he had the same colour & structure of hair to Luke’s, albeit that his was shorter at the back, was of the same build, had the same shape of face, and wore similar clothing (it was established as fact that MK had wore a parka jacket often since 2002). Only difference was that MK was 7 years older and was taller (does anyone know how much taller?). SL indicates, rightly, imo, that given he was on the NB rd that evening, it is possible that the sighting by F & W could have been MK and not Luke — especially as this ‘parka’ type jacket they seen the suspicious looking youth at the gate wearing @ 1744 on the NB rd that fateful night was the type of garment he wore habitually since 2002. Also, F&W said that the person they saw was wearing dark trainers, whereas LM was wearing white trainers/snowboarding boots. (Those 3 cyclists that saw Luke on the nb rd @ 1755 & then 1 of them again at 1820, I know they testified and identified him as wearing the green bomber jacket, but what did they say he was wearing on his feet? Anyone remember? Maybe they never mentioned footwear.)
It seems strange that when the appeal came around, the crown never checked those 2 stores above to see if MK was in them in the early evening, but accepted the footage which placed him in an off-licence at closing time (2200 HRs) meant he had no involvement in the murder? And, more importantly, why was MK deemed ‘untraceable’ when he was living in the student accomodation 6 weeks after the murder?
The above is just one of several little elements of the case that prevent me from saying LM was categorically guilty or that his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. I will add some more examples of aspects of the case that effuse niggling doubts re LM’s guilt when I have time.
Oh, btw, while I’m here ........ did Leonard Kelly say where behind the wall he heard the disturbing ‘strangling’ noise? Did he say it was nearer to the west or east? Or about halfway? Did he mention the V break in the wall?