According to the latest update it was more than just personal belongings of Luke, the fingernail scrapping surely should have been kept?
Wonder what is left from all they took to be destroyed?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9856406/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-police-evidence-destroyed-dna/
Bullseye - Mainly highlighting the legal aspect of things. Not around what may have been disposed of. It is 12yrs for series solved crime in Scotland around everything. The only inclusion of the SCCRC into anything, is if they specifically placed a 'clause' around the retainment of anything from that point. And IF this clause is there, then it would only be around certain things and not the everything.
But let us be blatantly frank here, this is Forbes and Lean here we are talking about. Now whilst some place faith in these people there are certainly more who see right through them. Ms Lean is however being just a little more honest (I think), around the why? 'What is the problem in keeping everything if they are so sure of guilt. The timings and then the usual manipulation around, is it just a coincidence they are being disposed of when a review is being sought. ---------------'
The only rat I smell here is the usual bog-standard manipulation, and where Forbes is concerned then anything bloody goes. does it not? He opens up his mouth and most of what is produced is sheer fantasy. He was stating in the past MK was involved, he is now stating others are the killer/s. He is telling you of his x-ray vision to see through rucksacks and contents of whopping big bowie knives - Does this make it true? No of course not, he just makes things up.
It is attempting to at least place some sense here. - Whatever these people are able to see on a list, then it is without any doubt something his original defence, and any subsequent appeals were also able to see. IF they chose not to use anything then those actual professionals had very good reason for NOT doing so. Not the fantasy and sheer nonsense drooling forth from him. Nor his fellow enabler.
And still the penny does NOT drop, does it? You, yourself were told that one could NOT discuss anything around re-testing due to the legal team at the time, there was no legal team. What there does however appear to be, tying in with that claim, is knowledge of sorts at that point, that things were being signed off.
I mentioned 2018/19 when Ms Lean had already placed her deadline around testing, of two years, when she had her begging bowl out for funding. Now what was that date actually from? That took us to 2021 at a push, then items being signed off for disposal or return. All seems to be tying together here, does it not?
The only problem and failure I see, is of Mitchell not being able to secure someone worth their salt, in pushing things forward to have any re-testing carried out. But and again, we do NOT forget the testing already carried out by the SCCRC, and I do wonder if it is this 'new' testing that must be retained for X amount of time. Just a thought.
