Perhaps it was, what it was - an investigation. Why would the police simply pounce on this sighting prior to clarifying statements from the main witness's. Emphasis there on the word "clarifying" - It's called being thorough.
As more information was coming in further appeals were put out - looking for anyone who may have seen this girl.
You can try as hard as you like to try and thwart AB's sighting -
The girls top in the first description was that of being very dark, possibly navy with lighter coloured trousers possibly Jeans/cords, bootcut perhaps. Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with dark blue cords that were baggy around the bottom of her legs. They were lighter in colour than that of the top. Not bad at all, eh? She further described the girls hair being very dark possibly black and it appeared to be contained. Jodi had long dark hair with a hair fastener. The male was described as having sticky out hair, shoulder length, wearing a green fishing style jacket with what appeared to be a bulging pocket. He had his palms facing forward as if beckoning the girl. AB was driving, the actions of the male are what caught her attention, it was his face she remembered with that sticky out hair. LM was ID'd from a photo fit of 12 pictures of males. No doubt AB had saw LM in the papers many times leading up to the trial, what we had of LM by the time it got to trial was a youth whom had aged by almost 18months, he had very long hair, severely tied back in a ponytail. These are the only pictures that show LM to have the appearance of "poker straight hair" AB could have simply said, yes and picked him out in court, but this male was not the same looking as the one she had seen 18months prior. How different would the debate be now if she had -'how could she possibly pick him out as the same person, he looked nothing like the boy in the photo fit' - that is fact.
It certainly was an investigation, although a shoddy one, and that investigation appealed for witnesses in the first few days which may have been peripheral to that investigation, the boys with the moped, the girl with the buggy, stocky man. Not one appeal though for the couple seen by AB and I think this is why.
AB’s first and second statements put her sighting around 5.40 to 5.45pm. This was the breakdown of those times.
4.05pm Picked up children from school.
4.15pm Arrived at supermarket
4.45pm Left supermarket ( time on receipt)
5.50pm Arrived home after viewing a house for sale ( sighting took place after viewing the house)
6.17pm Received a phone call ‘about half an hour after she returned home’
The route AB took to get home from and the unloading of the shopping etc would have taken about 10 minutes which would put the sighting at around 5.40pm, 25 minutes after the police estimated that Jodi was murdered.
IMO this is why there was no appeal for the couple to come forward, the time the sighting took place was simply too late for it to be Jodi and Luke.
As to what the female was wearing you said:
‘The girls top in the first description was that of being very dark, possibly navy with lighter coloured trousers possibly Jeans/cords, bootcut perhaps. Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with dark blue cords that were baggy around the bottom of her legs. They were lighter in colour than that of the top. Not bad at all, eh?’
This is however was not what AB claimed in her first statements. She described the girl as having very dark, shoulder length hair...Jodi’s hair was auburn and AB didn’t mention a bobble. She was wearing a plain, navy hooded top.... Jodi was wearing a black hooded top with a large yellow Deftones logo on the back ( as can be seen from the reconstruction). She was wearing lighter blue, bootcut jeans ( no mention of cords)....Jodi was wearing black, baggy trousers ( as, again, can be seen from the reconstruction).
As to what the male was wearing you said:
‘The male was described as having sticky out hair, shoulder length, wearing a green fishing style jacket with what appeared to be a bulging pocket. He had his palms facing forward as if beckoning the girl.’
AB stated that the male was white, early 20s, average height and build with very thick sandy brown hair that appeared to be sticking up in a clump at the back. He wore a green, waist length fishing style jacket with a high collar and a bulging pocket on the arm ( AB was adamant that it was not a parka) with lots of pockets and matching trousers. She said that she could not estimate the length of the youth’s hair because of the high collar. She could not describe his face.
So AB described completely different clothes to those known to have been worn by Jodi on the day and stated that she saw the couple at a time incompatible with Jodi’s murder at 5.15pm.
No wonder the sighting appears to have been dismissed in the first weeks of the investigation.
