Author Topic: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case  (Read 64537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Myster

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2020, 06:24:15 PM »
I have been reading a chapter in the book Forensic Science Reform written by John Lentini.  Mr. Lentini quoted a portion of NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] 921:

24.2.1.2 Separate fires that are not caused by multiple deliberate ignitions can result from the following:
1.  fire spread by conduction, convection, or radiation
2.  fire spread by flying brands
3.  fire spread by direct flame impingement
4.  fire spread by falling flaming materials (i.e.m drop-down), such as curtains
5.  fire spread through shafts, such as pipe chases or air conditioning ducts
6.  fire spread within wall or floor cavities within “balloon construction’
7.  overloaded electrical wiring
8.  utility system failures
9.  lightning
10. rupture and launching of aerosol containers

Mr. Lentini goes on to discuss the case of Han Tak Lee, who was convicted of setting a 1989 fire that was alleged to have nine separate points of origin.  He was released in 2014 after it became clear that the testimony against him was fundamentally flawed.  For one thing the room was fully involved, meaning that it had reached flashover.

I have read several news reports covering Mr. Mortimore's testimony.  There is simply not enough information to verify whether or not he eliminated all other possibilities.  Nor is there even a hint that anyone tested for an accelerant using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
The size of the rooms in the Middleton house is extremely small in comparison to most local council-built houses in the US, I would think... so tiny that it would be impossible to swing a mouse let alone a cat around in. And therefore little distance for a secondary fire to spread and ignite in the hall from the initial one in Billy Middleton's ground floor bedroom.

The only way for you to progress and satisfy your curiosity, Chris, is to contact Stuart Mortimore directly to ask for his views and clarification...

https://www.burgoynes.com/about/profile/?Stuart_Mortimore

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #76 on: November 07, 2020, 07:42:41 PM »
I asked him [Mr. Mortimore] whether or not there was a report available to the public.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 08:43:45 PM by Chris_Halkides »

Offline Myster

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2020, 05:06:37 AM »
I asked him [Mr. Mortimore] whether or not there was a report available to the public.
Sorry, only just noticed your post.  I'm guessing the answer was negative?

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #78 on: November 20, 2020, 10:15:30 PM »
He directed me to other places to look.  That search has been negative so far.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2021, 12:41:06 PM »
There is much to be reinstated on this story since Jackie Preece threatened ProBoards and made them take down the old forum.

There is one fact which has certainly never before been publicised about Billy Middleton and the events which took place on the evening prior to the fire which claimed the life of Annalise.

On the eve of the fire (Friday 19 September 2008), a local newspaper, the Shetland Times, carried a story about a young local girl who had gone on to do well at University.  It featured a photograph of her standing proudly in her robes.  That girl was the former girlfriend of Billy Middleton prior to his relationship and marriage to Kareen Anderson. Kareen remembers a copy of the newspaper being placed on Annalise's pram on the evening prior to the blaze.

I can also share with you the fact that Kareen was due to take up a place on a Psychology course just three days after the fire which killed her daughter. I will leave you all to work out the significances for yourselves.

Billy Middleton was/is a coercive controller
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline rulesapply

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #80 on: July 10, 2021, 12:58:34 PM »
Popular?  I don't think anyone outside of Lerwick knows who he is anyway.  An anonymous admin on a website and a forum, he never posts using his real name any more and hasn't done so for years.  I have heard of low profiles before but if his was any lower he would be a snake.   @)(++(*

Undoubtedly the imminent civil case in which he is the respondent will enhance his reputation somewhat.  From what I hear though he is trying like hell to get out of that one.  So much for his boast after the first criminal trial that he would pursue every opportunity to clear his name.

Hello. I realise I'm late here but do you know what the outcome of the civil case was please?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #81 on: September 04, 2022, 11:10:28 AM »
The following is a reproduction of a post made by Marina Thomason posting as Sunniva Gunn on the Glasgow innocence forum.



Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:12 pm   

Sunniva Gunn writes...

I'm going to write out the following text and ask what people make of it.

This was found on a computer and appears incomplete.

The date is not on the printed copy but it was written in May 2007 when Kareen had left Billy and gone to Brae with the kids.


Quote:   
Although not written on any official document, these are my last will and testimonies.  I hope in the event of my premature death,  should any court proceedings take place, that they be considered legally binding.  To ensure authenticity of this text, I provide certain information which could only be known by myself, that is to say that some parts may be known by some members of the following text, but none by all.

It seems prudent to stipulate these facts from the onset, thus eliminating any confusion or legal rambling of which I do not wish.

Facts.

1.  No one will probably know the fact that I have even written this.  This file will be hidden in a location on the hard disk of this pc and on a physical copy, the location of which is known hopefully only by the medical professionals whom attend me, and any subsequent legal authority whom has interest in my death.  These details will be included on my person at all times.  In the event that I am taken from this world through some destructive force which renders my wallet unfindable, a second proof of authenticity can be found at C & A Thomasons Mussel shed, cullivoe pier, cullivoe, yell. These are by way of an exact copy of this testimont.  To be found above the 2nd H-beam in the depuration shed.  Though not immediately obvious, the location of this second duplicate document is known by anyone searching my known locations.

2.   


Billy Middleton or Sandra Lean never did explain the above


28th February 2010
I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.

This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond.

Mr Middleton was acquitted.

Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.

I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted.  I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.

How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.

Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton?

Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.

Shame on you, Mr Beck.

It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.

Sandra Lean

2nd March 2010
Nugnug
Something rather odd is going on here but im not sure what. could someone
tell me.

4th March 2010
Reuben
Interesting, not proven does not mean not guilty.... 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DAD+CLEAR ... 0196026467

The court heard how the couple quarrelled on the night before Annalise's death.

Kareen accused her husband of flirting with young girls who were staying over.

______________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 935423.stm
Mrs Middleton told the trial at the High Court in Aberdeen that she and her 32-year-old husband had spent the evening enjoying a drink with his 14-year-old niece and two of her friends.
______________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 937993.stm

During the course of the night they were all drinking, the court heard.
A 14-year-old girl told the court Mr Middleton had flirted with her teenage friend.
The girl said his wife Kereen had overheard him tell the girl "I wish I met you before my wife".
She said Kereen Middleton then left the house in tears.
___________________________________________

Any objections please voice them here

reg126 aka Billy Middleton
Reuben take note.
As an example...not a real accusation.
I accuse you of racially abusing me ...you say you did not..with no further evidence to decide either way a sherrif decides on a not proven verdict .
That means you are innocent.

Many false allegations are made...think of all the teachers that get accused by malicious children .
This thread is supposed to be about Luke Mitchell and his case involved some very dubious practises by the media and others.

Better issues to address would be the performance of the Police in not conducting the investigation properly and in Police forces not using best practise/following guidelines should you wish to be critical.

5th March 2010
Reuben
I don't need to "take note" I know all about MOJ and since all I see about this case is bad press, I wanted real evidence to convinced me.  I won't be engaging in conversations about Mr M anymore, as you said this is about Luke.

5th March 2010
Nugnug
im a bit confusiod here is this thread about luke mithell or billy middelton

thankyou angeline your posts have been most helpfull and imformative

does anyone know of a case findleys managed to win


10th March 2010 = reg126 aka Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean at prelim appeal hearing

23rd Match 2010
Nugnug
http://miscarriageofjustice.wordpress.com/blog/


24th March 2010
Corinne Mitchell
nugnug.

thank you for that post. Everyone should read this book. I know,from experience that it can happen to anyone. We were an normal, law abiding family with no problems. None of us had been in trouble with the police. It is really scary, in this day and age that this can happen.

8th April 2010
Corinne Mitchell
Nugnug is well versed with info....because they read "No Smoke" ..as I have said before.....maybe you should

The "tho" thing. I suggest you read that bit again,.,...That was ME saying that.

Sandra didnt become Power of Attorney till well after the appeal...you are ahead of yourself there.

You said "the first thing I would say .............is sack him instantly.
Well you are forgetting Luke was a 16yr old boy with no experience....you, however are a grown man with plenty experience

I had no "experts " on hand at time of trial and waiting for the appeal
.....SEEMPLES.... TCH!

9th April 2010
Guest1
I would imagine it would be a huge task to repost all that information.
Take the time to check out fact and myth ,I have its worth it.

If it helps member " Jigsawman" is very knowledgable,you have the option to serch his posts.

9th April 2010
Nugnug
jigsaw man was posting to the site along time before sandra lean was involed in this if you check the dates of the posts

Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean
Monday June 30th 2003, The Police Version.

(1) Luke set off to meet Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path immediately after receiving the last text at 4.38pm. For him to have been the person sighted by Andrina Bryson at 4.48, it follows that he made the journey in 10 minutes.
By the polices own timings, it takes 5 minutes, walking at a brisk pace, to get from the end of Lukes street to the entrance to the path, and a further 10 minutes (minimum) walking at the same pace, to get from one end of the path to the other.
Therefore, Luke must have been at the entrance to the path when the exchange of texts took place.
But, according to Judy, Jodi had been grounded right up to the point where the texts were exchanged, so Luke could not have known until that point that Jodi would be coming out at all, far less that she would be on the path. He would have had no reason whatsoever to be at the entrance to the path at 4.38. Even if he had left his house on receipt of the first text at 4.34, he would still not have been able to get to the end of the path for 4.38 there are only 4 minutes between the texts, and hed need five minutes from the end of his street to the path, plus 2 3 minutes from his house to the end of the street.
There are no witnesses, anywhere, who saw Luke walking towards the end of his street, or on the Newbattle Road going towards the path at that time.
(2) Luke met Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path, and they began walking back down towards Newbattle. En route, they decided to go behind the wall for some privacy. An argument developed, because Jodi had found out about Lukes other girlfriend.
If it was Luke and Jodi that Andrina Bryson saw, we know from all of the timings that this had to have been nearer to 4.54pm than 4.38pm. (Remember the Rod Stewart track? The 4 minutes left for Jodi to get ready and leave have to include the time it took her to walk to the path itself.) So, Luke and Jodi are having a discussion at the Easthouses entrance to the path at 4.54pm. Bryson does not see them walk towards the path she is quite clear that they are standing still. Assuming, however, that they begin to walk towards the path immediately after Bryson spots them, by 5pm, they are on their way down the path. Its reasonable to assume they were not walking at a brisk pace it was a summer evening, they had no particular plans, and they were both teenagers! For some reason, however, Luke phones the speaking clock while he and Jodi are walking down the path. By 5 past five, they would probably have reached the V where the police have it that they climbed over the wall for privacy. Quite bizarrely, there has never been any mention of forensic traces on the wall itself that show Jodi climbing over the wall no fibres, hair, etc. Allowing a couple of minutes to get over the wall (its not a step through break it does have to be climbed), we have to conclude that the argument erupted immediately they got over the wall.
If the argument about the other girlfriend had begun on the path, what possible reason would they have for going over the wall?
(3) An argument erupted, and, the police claim, Luke hit Jodi in the face. At that point, they claim, she turned to head for home, when he hit her on the head with a limb from a tree. Then he strangled her until she fell to the ground almost unconscious. And then he cut her throat 12 20 times.
But the pathologist says she put up a hell of a fight, right to the end. Unconscious, or semi unconscious people arent in a position to put up a fight of any description. According to the police version, after that first hit to the face, she turned to walk away no mention of fighting back. As she turns away, she is stunned by a blow to the head, and then strangled, No fighting back.
The forensics point to a terrible struggle, with Jodis hair being pulled out by the roots, and her being dragged across the ground. She had extensive defensive injuries.
If we accept that this argument must have started at about 7 minutes past five at the earliest, according to the police, Jodi is dead 8 minutes later. At the same time, [Name removed] and [Name removed] are making their way up the path from the Newbattle end, and their bike is propped against the wall almost directly at the spot where this attack is happening. It would take a very, very cool personality to carry on attacking someone, knowing that other people were literally on the spot. Remember that the bike was noisy - if Jodi was being attacked and killed in the few minutes before 5.15, her attacker would have heard that bike approaching, and stopping within a few feet.
(4) Between 5.15pm and 5.45, the following series of events form the official police line. Jodis body is dragged across the ground to where she was eventually found. She is stripped, her hands tied behind her back with her own trousers. Her body is mutilated, some of the injuries being inflicted with careful precision. At 5.32, just 17 minutes after Jodi was killed, Luke phones Judys house in an attempt to cover his tracks. 8 minutes later, at 5.40pm, he calls again, and is completely normal on the phone. 5 minutes after that, he is on the wall at the end of his street, again, completely normal. Somewhere in this half hour, he has managed to get home, get stripped out of his clothing and clean away all forensic traces from himself and his house, get changed and back out to the end of the street. His hair was not wet at 5.45pm, so we also have to assume that he blow dried his hair in this timeframe as well. In between all of this, he makes two phone calls to Judys house to cover his tracks. His mother is instructed to dispose of the clothing.
(5) Two of the neighbours report smoke coming from the Mitchell garden at around 10pm. One claims to have smelled smoke earlier, at around 7.30, and then again later, at around 10-10.30pm. This, the police claim, was Corinne burning the clothes, although two of the witnesses refer specifically to the smell of wood smoke. With lightning speed, this woman has helped her son clean himself of all forensic traces, but then she waits some 4 hours or more before attempting to get rid of the clothing? She had a car and a dog which she regularly walked in the countryside. Why not take the clothes somewhere miles away and dispose of them? The area where Jodis body was found was well used that evening alone, we can place 7 people there with absolute certainty, and at least one other with a high degree of probability, so the body could have been discovered at any time.
(6) Luke then decides to go out with the search party, in order to appear normal, but then leads the family directly to the body. Given that we are to believe that Corinne aided and abetted Luke to dispose of all of the evidence, is it really feasible that she would then happily send him off to the very scene shed worked so hard to distance him from?
As it happened, she received the call to make her way to the police station less than two hours after this fire was first noted by the neighbours.
(7) After Luke called the police to say theyd found something, they called him back for directions, as they couldnt find the path. When they did arrive, they asked Luke to go back over the wall to show them where the body was. Luke was just 14 years old every other member of the search party was an adult, yet at no point did the police turn to any of the adults in the party their communications were solely with Luke.
(8) The police treated the family members of the search party differently because no one was actually in charge of the operation, and the individual officers just did what they thought was best. They were not treating Luke as a suspect when they stripped him, and had him medically examined and took samples, without an adult present. They had no real explanation for why they did this, or for why they didnt do it with the other members of the search party.

Notes: the police records from that night note that Luke's hair was "unwashed" and his fingernails were "grubby." Neither yielded any forensics linking Luke to the murder.

If you live in the Midlothian area, take yourself outside this evening between 5.15pm and 5.45pm - it is broad daylight, yet the police claim that Luke managed to escape the scene, get home, and get cleaned up, all without being seen. The Frontline Scotland documentary showed the "youth" hanging around at the Newbattle Road in darkness - it was 6pm, and still broad daylight. The prosecution claimed that he knew where to find the body "in the dark." It was still light, although the light was beginning to fade, when Luke left home at 10 to 11 to look for Jodi.

Finally, while Luke was still talking to the police up to 7am on the morning of July 1st, the condom leaking fresh semen had been found at the scene. Is that, perhaps, the reason Luke was treated the way he was? Did they jump to the conclusion that the condom was his? Bad mistake. 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 11:51:51 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #82 on: September 04, 2022, 11:54:55 AM »
Jigsawman aka Sandra Lean

Timeline Monday June 30th 2003.

4.05pm Jodi returns home from school
4.34 4.38pm Series of texts between Lukes phone and Judys phone (Jodis phone was broken, so Jodi borrowed her mothers)
4.39pm (approx) Judy plays a Rod Stewart track which lasts more than 5 minutes to Jodi and Joseph, leaving just 4 minutes for Jodi to get ready and leave in order for Bryson to have spotted her at 4.48
4.48-4.54pm Andrina Bryson sees a girl and a youth on the entrance to the path
4.50-4.55pm [Name removed] leaves on the motorbike to meet [Name removed] at 5pm. It is believed (although not confirmed) that he picked up the bike from [Name removed]s garden and drove along Lady path which runs at right angles to Roans Dyke, before cutting through the woods to meet [Name removed].
4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
4.58pm 5.10 (approx) Shane is on the internet, so the home landline is engaged.
5.00pm Two youths on the moped are chased from the tool hire premises at Newbattle, and head towards the Newbattle entrance to the path
5.03pm Luke phones the speaking clock from his mobile
5.03 5.05pm Mystery man is spotted by 2 witnesses following Jodi on the street, on her way to the path. (Spot the obvious mistake according to the Bryson sighting, she was already on the path some 9 minutes earlier) Bryson did not see the mystery man
5.03-5.15pm Somewhere in this time window, the young mum was seen walking up the same street. She saw nothing.
5.03 5.15pm A cyclist travelling up the path from the Newbattle end hears a strangling sound behind the wall. He does not see the boys on the moped, or the mystery man, or Jodi
5.05pm The youths are seen re-starting the bike, which has cut out, at the entrance to the path
5.07pm Corinne captured on CCTV in the local shop on her way home from work
5.15pm Corinne arrives home from work.
5.15pm Jodi is believed to have been murdered at this time
5.15pm The moped is propped against the wall at the V, but the riders are nowhere to be seen
5.30pm Luke leaves the house and walks to the end of the street
5.32pm Luke calls Jodis house, but the line is engaged
5.40pm Luke calls the house again this time Alan Ovens answers. He says he
told Luke Jodi had left to meet him. Luke doesnt remember exactly what was said.
5.40pm Judy and Alan leave the house to go to the cemetery immediately
following the phone call from Luke (therefore Joseph now has no alibi)
5.45 5.50 Three schoolboys see Luke sitting on a wall at the end of his street (they passed him twice, as one of them got a puncture in his bike tyre, and they had to double back.)
5.50 6.05 6 witnesses say they saw a youth hanging around on the Newbattle Road, between the end of Lukes street, and the entrance to the path (although none of them claims to have seen him at the entrance itself.) Luke says he wandered up the street a little way to Barondale Cottages, which is approximately halfway between the end of his street and the entrance to the path, to see if he could see Jodi coming. He told the police this before these witnesses came forward.
6.50-6.55pm Luke phones some male friends to see what they are doing, as Jodi still hasnt shown
7pm Luke phones his mother to tell her if Jodi comes to the house, he is in The Abbey, and to tell Jodi to come there.
9pm After hanging around the abbey for a couple of hours, the boys head for home. Luke goes up to his room and puts on a video of Red dwarf.
10.30pm Luke takes the dog for her last walk of the evening.
10.39pm Judy sends a text to Lukes phone, Right Toad, say goodnight toLuke. Thats you grounded for another week.
10.40pm Luke phones Judy to say he hasnt seen Jodi all night. Judy says she will call round Jodis friends. Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said.
10.49pm Judy calls back to say Jodi is nowhere to be found, and she is calling the police. Luke says he will go up the path to look for Jodi, and if he doesnt find her, he will make his way to Judys house to decide what to do next. (This story was later changed to claim that Luke had agreed to meet the other members of the search party at the path.)
10.51pm Luke leaves the house with a torch and the dog. It is still light, but beginning to get dark the sky is blue rather than black)
11.03 11.05pm Luke sees people at the Easthouses end of the path. They do not come towards him, but wait for him to approach. It is the family search party.
11.06pm A call is answered on the landline in Alice Walkers house. The family search party claim they left after this call was taken. If the plan had been for Luke to leave immediately (at 10.49pm) to meet the other members of the search party, why did Judy wait until 6 minutes past 11, a full 15 minutes, before calling them to tell them of this arrangement?
And how did they manage to be at the top of the path before this time?
11.10 11.25pm The search party go back down the path, and find the body.
00.00 Luke is taken to Dalkeith Police station, stripped, medically examined, and samples taken for forensic analysis, then a statement is taken, the whole process lasting until 7am.
00.00-00.15 Forensics officer arrives at the scene, but cannot climb over the wall, so leaves. The body is uncovered.
03.00am Craig Dobbie becomes SIO
4.00am-4.30am The family search party is in Judys house, the police begin to take their statements (more than 4 hours after Luke is taken in, and after they have had the opportunity to speak to other members of the family. Their clothes are not taken for forensic examination, neither are they examined, or have samples taken.)
05.00-05.30 Police photographer/videographer records the scene. Overhanging branches have been cut down to make it easier for him to take pictures. During this time, Dobbie has spoken to the pathologist it appears he took the pathologist to the scene, although this is not absolutely clear from the records, and he was never asked directly. The body is still uncovered.
00.00-08.00am Sometime during this 8 hour period, the body was moved, rolled onto a plastic sheet, and items around it gathered up. There is no record of when this was done, or by whom. The body was left uncovered in the rain for the whole of this period.

A condom, leaking fresh semen, was found yards from the body in the early hours of July 1st. It is known, with absolute certainty, that the person who filled this condom did so behind the wall, close to where Jodi's body was found, on the evening of June 30th, and that when he was finally traced, some three years later, the statement he gave to police was demonstrably untrue. He was never investigated for this murder.

Craig Dobbie claims he became Senior Investigating Officer in charge of the case at around 3am. Why, then, did he allow the body to remain uncovered for another 5 hours? And why, 60 to 90 minutes after he became "in charge" did he not ensure the family search party were treated the same way Luke had been some 4 hours earlier?

The discrepancy between the "sightings" has never been explained. If Andrina Bryson "saw" Jodi on the entrance to the path at 4.48-4.54, how could the other witnesses have seen the mystery man following her on the street going towards the path some 9 minutes later? Remember, there were two independent witnesses to the "mystery man" yet these were dismissed in favour of the one "sighting" by Bryson, even though this meant altering the times.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« Reply #83 on: September 04, 2022, 11:58:26 AM »
Continued
👇

Just for interest's sake, I thought I'd put together a list of all the questions which were never addressed in this case, in the one place:

(1) Why did the search party go straight to the path, taking shortcuts to get there in the shortest possible time, when they had already been told (a) Jodi hadn't been in Newbattle and (b) Luke was already searching the path?

(2)Who moved the body and gathered items up before the forensics officer got there?

(3) How does the claim that Jodi's hands were tied behind her back fit with Alice's testimony that her arms were "up."

(4) Why was Luke taken directly to the police station, stripped, examined, samples taken, and questioned for more than 6 hours, when the other members of the search party's statements were not taken until 4am, in Judy's house, and none of their clothing/bodies were examined for forensics.

(5) Why were [Name removed] and [Name removed] "eliminated" before forensic results had been returned?

(6) Why was more not made of the fact that the search party all said that the dog led Luke to the wall for at least two weeks before their stories changed?

(7) Why was the "explanation" for Stephen Kelly's sperm on Jodi's bra so casually accepted?

(8) Why did the existence of another two unidentified DNA samples not provide the requisite "reasonable doubt?"

(9) Why did interest in the "stranger" seen following Jodi suddenly disappear?

(10) Why did all of the men in Jodi's life (except Luke) virtually disappear from the investigation?

(11) Why was the "id" by Andrina Bryson allowed to stand, given that police had completely ignored standard guidelines, and had manipulated that id?

(12) [Name removed] and [Name removed] were on the path, [Name removed] from around 5 to 5, and both of them from just after 5 to 5.15. Why did this not immediately make them suspects?

(13) What did Jodi do, where did she go, and with whom, at the weekends when she was not with Luke?

(14)Why was Luke questioned 3 times, for 6 hours each time, without a solicitor present?

(15)Whose decision was it to use the "bank" timings rather than the supermarket timings to place Andrina Bryson at the bend in the road between 4.49 and 4.54? (The supermarket timings would have put her there before Jodi left the house.)

(16) Since the first forensics officer left the scene, who was responsible for looking after it until 8am the following morning?

(17) Why was the student from Newbattle college (the one with scratches on his face) never investigated?

(18) Why was the hair "cut at both ends" never properly tested?

(19) Why did the absence of any forensics in the ash from the log burner not immediately disprove the suggestion that clothing had been burnt there?

(20) Why were so many witnesses allowed to give uncorroborated testimony?

(21) How do we know for sure that Jodi left the house at 4.50, when she was never seen by anyone?

(22) How do we know for sure that Jodi was dead by 5.15, since no time of death was ever ascertained?

(23) Why did the prosecution claim that Jodi was killed where she was found, when the forensics officer stated in evidence that the body had been moved?

(24) The prosecution claimed that Jodi was killed, then stripped, then had her hands tied behind her back. The forensics officer states that the blood got onto the jeans used to tie her hands after her hands had been tied, suggesting that she was killed after her hands were tied, and not before. Why was this anomaly never highlighted?

(25) How, in light of the fact that no forensics from Jodi were found on Luke and vice versa, was the jury able to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Luke had murdered her?

(26) On the night Jodi died, Judy phoned Alice and Janine, but none of them ever called anyone else to find out if Jodi was with friends, even though they claimed to have done so. Why?


There are almost certainly more, but that's all I can think of for now.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation