John also stated back then
John - May 2010
As far as I can see the behaviour of Luke was wholly consistent with having gone out to meet Jodi. He checks the time at 5.03 whilst on way to meet her and then phones her home at 5.32 and 5.40. He later leaves messages for her as any teenager would and goes off to mess in the Abbey.
Corinne Mitchell
John
Luke was in the house between 5 and 5.30 ....eating his dinner. And here lies the problem they say we are lying.
should add to that.....I was also in the house eating my dinner as was Shane, albeit differnt rooms. Shane was in his bedroom , upstairs, I was outside and Luke was in the livingroom.
Jodi didn't have a "normal" time to come to our house. different days different times. They usually hung about outside and went to her grans quite a lot
Sandra Lean
the SIO Craig Dobbie said that there was no DNA which had been "unaccounted for" (ie, every DNA sample they found had been traced to someone identifiable) and this, therefore, ruled out an "unknown" killer.
But when the DNA reports were finally revealed, there were five "unidentified" male DNA profiles, and five unidentified "mixed" profiles (Jodi+ unknown person, in three of them, the other two simply labelled "unknown.")
Therefore, Mr Dobbie's claim that all of the DNA recovered from the scene had been "accounted for" and matched to "known persons" was not true.
No explanation was ever given as to why Findlay dropped interest in Falconer. This came as a total surprise to the family, especially when it emerged that Falconer's "explanation" was demonstrably untrue.
If he had been behind the wall discarding the condom at the time he said he was, he would have had to step over the body twice - once on the way down, and again on the way back. He claimed to have been given the condom by a particular person, but it turned out that he did not even know the person at the time.
The only person who knows why this man was allowed to go without further investigation is Findlay himself.
John
By your logic then there is also not a shred of evidence that connects Luke with Jodi Jones. So why drop one suspect and retain the other, rather convenient me thinks!
Off course it was found 50 metres away, he was hardly going to throw it on top of the corpse now was he?
Definition of a lie! A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood or something intended or serving to convey a false impression.
So Dobbie lied then?
Nugnug
there was no dna to link mark Kane to the scene but findley kept him as a suspect so that is strange l
Sandra Lean
Wullie said, "One reason I think would be because there is not a shread of evidence to link this DNA tested Condom to Jodi Jones"
Firstly, Wullie, there is not a shred of evidence to link Luke to the murder, not even DNA from a semen filled condom, but that did not stop the police from building a case against him.
This semen in the condom was "fresh" when found in the early hours of July 1st, which meant the donor must have been in the vicinity in recent hours. That leaves us with only two possibilities - he deposited the condom after Jodi's body was found (highly unlikely), or he did so before she was found but, critically, on the evening she was murdered, which should automatically have brought him onto the enquiry.
The claimed time of death is 5.15pm, which means, according to this man's story, Jodi had been dead some four hours before he deposited the semen filled condom, and he would have had to have passed the body twice in order to deposit it where it was found.
Therefore it is his own statement which raises serious doubts, either about the claimed time of death, or about the truth of his account.
He did not come forward at all, and was only identified three years later.
Items at the murder scene were "moved and gathered up" (this is in the transcripts, Mr Scrimger the forensics officer gave this evidence), so there really is nothing to say that the condom had always been where it was eventually found.
I take your point that used condoms will no doubt litter woodland up and down the country, but this is not just any old condom dumped in any old woodland at any old time.
The point about this man is that he was not considered a suspect, and then, when he did finally come to police attention, he was not properly investigated. It may well be that he had nothing to do with it, but he is placed at the crime scene by his own DNA, and that should have made him a suspect, and, at the very least, he should have been proerly investigated and ruled out, neither of which he has ever been.
It is the nature of the "investigation" I am criticising here, rather than making assumptions about who may or may not have killed Jodi.
Apologies, but I will most probably not be able to post again until the weekend.
sorry for the repetition - hadn't seen the other posts.
Yes, John, it appears Mr Dobbie was untruthful, as was Mr Beckett QC who told the court that the DNA in the condom was "no match whatsoever" to Mr F.
I have the DNA results - it's a full 10 marker match.
Sorry, really have to go now
Curious
Thank you for your replies everyone, about the condom.
So for some mysterious reason a used condom that had been discarded in the woods on the night of the murder, after the murder had occurred, just 50 yards from the murder scene was deemed irrelevant / not important?
If I may, onto the semen found on the bra strap. Are there any reports, newspaper articles or the like that corroborates this?.
Ami
Hi Wullie I thought this person was only identified because he was involved in a crime three years later . So he has been charged with a crime..
Now Mitchell's new defence team is preparing to apply for a fresh appeal based partly on the original forensics investigation, the details of which have never before been made public. The new defence team say the original police forensic service laboratory report and biology report contradict the prosecution case that the murder did not have a sexual motive, as semen was found 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.
The latter individual was identified three years later when he committed a crime and provided a match on the DNA database.
Mitchell's current solicitor, John Carroll, said: "It [the DNA evidence] could put two people, two associated people, at the locus in circumstances that require an explanation. If the jury had heard of this, a number of things could have arisen."
Con
How can you quote something that has not been made public? Are you privy to a copy of of all the details?
John
OK Wullie, so there isn't a direct link as yet between condom man Falconer and Jodi Jones other than they shared the same piece of ground to a radius of 50 metres after her death.
1. Why did he not come forward?
2. Why did he lie through his teeth when detected?
3. Why did he hide condoms and gloves behind a radiator at his girlfriends house?
4. What was he doing on the path that evening anyway?
5. Has he an alibi for that evening between 5pm and 6pm?
There is no direct link either between Luke and Jodi but he was convicted!
John
According to Jodi's mother, she left to meet Luke saying "save me some dinner".
Now Jodi would hardly have said this if Luke was out and about. Corinne was at work. He was obviously making dinner at home having been told that Jodi was grounded. When her mother told her that she could go out to meet Luke she took off like a hare, thus the comment overheard by her mother as "save me some dinner".
John
So according to Luke, he never walked the path to Easthouses that evening prior to the alarm being raised after 10.51pm. He stayed at the Newbattle end and played with his mate(s) when Jodi didn't show. He couldn't phone her because she didn't have a mobile phone with her.
Why didn't Luke go to meet her on the path knowing that it was out of bounds for her on her own? When she didn't turn up would he not have been concerned for her as it was getting late and when Alan Ovens said that she had already left to meet him.
5.40 to 5.50 Three schoolboys see Luke sitting on the wall at the end of Abbey Crescent which sets the scene for him waiting for Jodi. This siting is positive and cannot be challenged.
5.50 to 6.05 Several witnesses gave evidence that a youth was seen between Abbey Crescent and the entrance of Roans Dyke path. This again confirms Luke's assertion that he wandered about near Barondale Cottages waiting for Jodi.
Was this common practice for Luke to wait for Jodi at his end of the path??
6.50 to 6.55 Luke gets bored waiting for Jodi so phones some mates to see if they will meet up. Again, why did he not go to find her or was it the norm for him to wait on Newbattle Road.
7.00 He eventually gets fed up waiting and phones Corinne to tell her that if Jodi shows up to go to the Abbey.
Just where exactly does Luke have time to murder Jodi, wash up, dispose of the evidence, make several phone calls, be seen by several witnesses and play with his pals ??? I would really like to know ???
Nugnug
im not sure 450pm to 540pm would give him 50m to do the murder mutilate the body clean himself changed his clothes and then go out again to wait for someone he knew wasnt going to turn up becouse he had killed them
thats pushing it for time a bit
Nugnug
i wonder weather it happened later than they claim i would have have thought at 530pm or so there would of been a fair few people about coming home from work and such at that time you couldn't rely on not being spotted
John_C
I forget where at the moment, but I seem to remember someone either here or on another forum suggesting that the crime could have been committed somewhere else and Jodi's body moved later.
If that were indeed the case, is it possible that the body was moved at a time when the area was less busy? It wouldn't necessarily take too long, though that obviously depends on access and I can only go by google earth which is not the best method
Nugnug
there was blood spray on the wall so i think she must have been killed there.
