In your own time, faith. Maybe, from now on, we should measure your posts in Radiocarbon Dating?
You are absolutely right Mr Apples. Your post slipped had my mind…apologies.
Agreed DNA will not prove Luke’s guilt but it could prove that someone else was at the locus who testified that they were elsewhere. I’ve already covered transference in my first answer to your post. A family member could indeed be guilty but their DNA at the locus would take us no further forward, as with Luke.
As to this part of your post:
“ It's impossible for the DNA in this case to prove LM's guilt, since he was in an intimate relationship with her. Only Jodi's blood on his person (i.e., incriminating DNA) could prove he was the killer -- that's why he disposed of his olive green parka jacket with the German flags on the sleeves and purchased a brand new a week after the murder. He'd also briefly washed between 1830 -1930 and hence why the boys he met with in the abbey at 1930 that evening testified in court that LM was looking noticeably cleaner and more kempt than he normally did. Or, if he had scratches on his person and Jodi had his skin under her nails (not as incriminating as having her blood on him), but we know that didn't happen as she was overpowered by him after he initially struck her violently to incapacitate her.”
Luke called David High at 6.30, around the time he was seen for a second time by Andrew Holborn, and asked him to come round to his house.
“ School pal David High, 16, says that Mitchell called him at about 6.30pm on June 30 last year and invited him round. ”
You therefore must be suggesting that Luke, desperate to go home and ‘wash briefly’ then invites his friends around to the very place he’d be going to ‘wash’. Luke then calls David back and changes their meeting place to the Abbey. Ah you are going to say he realised he didn’t have enough time to clean himself up so changed the location to the Abbey. Hold on though what if High had only been a few minutes away and had got there before Luke had ‘washed briefly’? Too many unknowns for a master criminal like Luke. So why invite his friends round in the first place? He knew that he had been seen by boys he knew, that carefully crafted alibi of his presence on the Newbattle Road was in place so why take the risk?
Further Luke and his friends were at the Abbey from 7pm not 7.30pm. David Tulloch testified to the time in court.
‘ He said: 'That night I got a phone call from David High, who was pals with Luke.
'We went up to meet him at the college at about 7pm and we just mucked about. ’
So even less time for Luke to have a ‘brief wash’….but hold on a minute, if Luke had needed a ‘brief wash’ at 6.30 why was no incriminating DNA found on the clothes he was wearing that night? Not a speck.
As to Luke looking cleaner that night I have never seen one scintilla of evidence that any of Luke’s friends ever said that but perhaps you have a cite that you’d be willing to share?
And now we come to the parka. None of the witnesses who claimed to see Luke that night ever suggested that there were German flags on the sleeves of the jacket he was wearing. In fact Bryson made it clear that the youth was not wearing a parka and she had told the police that at the time. There was also talk of an army shirt with badges on but the police had that. You appear to have, mistakenly, conflated the two clothing items.
Further Luke’s house was thoroughly searched on the 4th of July and no parka was found. Can you explain please why Corrine would then go out and buy Luke a parka on the 7th thus drawing attention to a parka in the first place? It makes no sense if a carefully constructed alibi was being manufactured.
