A very interesting case. I have no idea whether Luke committed the murder or, if not, who did, but it certainly looks as if there is no actual evidence demonstrating his guilt. He was only 14 years old at the time and was treated appallingly by the police; he must have been terrified. In that original interview he asked for his mother and was refused. He asked for a solicitor and was refused. He and his family were then trashed in the British newspapers, day after day for months, until those papers had created a web of exaggerations and lies that made Luke look guilty beyond a doubt. Even now, urban myths circulate all the time about what happened that night and what Luke did, which have their source in those original articles. Other potential evidence and suspects were ignored by the police. They seemed to be determined it was Luke and listened to every rumour, gossip and innuendo going. In fact, there was no DNA at the scene or on Jodi's body linking Luke to the murder and though the murderer must have been covered in blood, no sign of any clean up at Luke's home. Basically the list of holes in the case go and on. In the meantime, if Luke is innocent, then Jodi's killer has never been brought to justice. It deserves a review at least - not least into the police force involved who should be investigated as to the way in which they approached this case. And in case a boy, who has now become a man while held in prison for nineteen years, has been locked up for life for no better reason than good old fashioned prejudice against his teenage taste in music, daft quotes on his school book, and his inability to express himself in the way adults expected him to, when the tragic and extreme situation he found himself in caused him to become so shocked and upset he had to be heavily sedated.
