What, on that particular day?
Luke did not even know that Jodi would be coming out that evening. Her mother, apparently, had grounded her, and then decided to allow her out. Luke would not have known that, until Jodi texted him.
No "apparently" about it, was there? To the point without the unnecessary waffle. Fully grounded, exchanged punishment, chores over full grounding. Only allowed out once daily chores were completed. Not that Jodi was not allowed out that evening, but not allowed out until a certain time. This young couple saw each other every day bar times at this fathers. So he definitely knew she was allowed out, one would imagine around this 6pm. Time to do those chores. However:
The significance of this being used at trial was of this girl getting out earlier than could have been anticipated. That her mother, only after arriving home from school that day, lifted the punishment entirely. Happy girl? Contacted her boyfriend to let him know, the only person she contacted and the person she left to meet with, at this (previously), earlier than expected time.
Only becomes difficult with these "apparently" comments when one has become caught up in the waffle of the book. The nonsense about this girl being out previous to that Monday, that she could not have been grounded. The evidence led was exactly to there being two sets of grounding, petering out, re-grounded, then exchanged for doing chores. Grounded at base until chores were completed daily. Evidence also heard, that the boyfriend had been allowed to visit Jodi at home at the points when she was fully grounded, thus still saw each other daily where possible.
“She had been kind of grounded but that had changed to her doing chores in exchange for being allowed out” – Judith Jones, statement
[/b]
It is these points in the book, as stated in another post of ones analytical skills?? At points it's hard to tell if is because one is severely lacking or deliberately misleading? Awash with a clear mixture of both. IM humble O of course?
So you are correct, partly, he did not know she was getting out earlier than expected until she texted him, but he knew she was getting out that evening. So again, contrary to the book, of stating there was no reason for LM to leave his house until after the exchange of the last text - that is nonsense, he could leave at any point, knowing his girlfriend was coming out. Away into those woods to roll a few perhaps, or to go to her house, anything - he knew she was coming out that evening.
Premeditated? - Work from "the best way to kill someone, by slitting their throat", to thwart being covered in blood and so forth. Add in "they wanted me over that wall to get my DNA there" - he was forensically aware, first and foremost. Add in having that parka style coat on with bulging pockets, hood the lot. Now add in going deep down into that woodland strip, an area going nowhere but a dead end. No ready/easy exit point, and isolated. Add in that they frequented those woods, and add in that this girl would only have been in that area of isolated woodland with someone she trusted. This girl whom was sensible, articulate, told not to walk that path alone, would not have been in those woods alone, far less down the bottom in an area going nowhere! So premediated over opportunist? A bit of both? Whatever rage ensued that day, he had played that 'type' of moment over prior to this. Add in the fall out at school that day, add this KT and nature of both. One who did not like confrontation over a strong headed girl, whom we are told would speak her mind.
