New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[Parky41]

Who do we trust? Two people who from the moment the murder took place had their sights on others. Ms Lean who placed Mitchell in a box and closed the lid. Shouting from the rooftops, that a boy/family she claims were complete strangers, that she did not know from Adam, was NOT involved in that young girls death. Shouting so loud that Ms Mitchell popped a note to her asking for help - With bloody what exactly? There was no case, it was at a time (the claimed note) when the Mitchell's were celebrating the "end of a difficult time" Believing there would be no arrest. Ms Lean, and that is everything we gather from her own claims, was a vocal, local mouthpiece?

Mr Forbes and having MK ear marked as being involved, so the same. Two people who had Mitchell placed as NOT responsible from the moment the murder took place - Lawyer, criminologist. Absolutely not. Two members of the public locked fast in tunnel vision from day one.

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr. Apples,

I read through some of the links recently provided upthread, and it read like a cut-and-paste of some comments here in at least one other thread.  When those comments were made, I asked for a citation.  I would be quite skeptical of the existence of overlapping partial profiles, until and unless some support of this claim were offered.

Regarding the source of a DNA profile, my only comment right now is that when there are mixed profiles, knowledge of the association fallacy (which I may have discussed in another thread) precludes us from assigning the source of either profile definitively.  For example, suppose that one finds two DNA profiles in a blood stain.  Although it is possible that both DNA profiles arose from blood, it is far from certain that they did.

Finally, I am more than 90% certain that Luke Mitchell is not the murderer.  I am quite uncertain about the location of the murder, which might well have been different from where Jodi's body was found.

[Mr Apples]

Nicholas -- I don't consider anyone an 'expert' on this case. Even those best placed to comment -- ie, l&bp and the legal experts at the original trial -- don't have all the answers; no one is omniscient. As I've said before on here, until we get a confession from the killer (s), speculation on this case will go on until the end of time. As for SL and SF, I think it's safe to say that the former is far more reliable that the latter, although the former is clearly biased and without all the facts. Like I said, there is not one living being on the planet who could be deemed as an 'expert' on this case, and nor will there ever be. It was, after all, a purely circumstantial case where forensic evidence wasn't used due to its inconclusiveness and futility.

Chris -- that's interesting. Like I said, discussing the forensic evidence from this case, while interesting, is completely futile; it will never ever, imo, prove anything. Even with the refinements and advancements in laboratory techniques and technology, mathematical models and biostatistical software, I still don't think anything fruitful or useful will ever be yielded from this case. There was no incriminating DNA found (neither from LM or a stranger; the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously). And besides, any trace from another was likely lost in all that blood from that poor girl, and her dead mutilated body being exposed to the rain and elements for 8 full hours could've lost other DNA traces from LM or a stranger (though I doubt very much a stranger's would've been found). The circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming -- and I've not even heard it all!  And, again, why do you think LM's parka jacket went missing? The one thing that probably did have incriminating dna on it (ie, jodi's blood)? You are not convinced by the circumstantial evidence outhwith the DNA evidence, Chris? Btw, how many unidentifed profiles were found?

Parky41 -- I appreciate that you put a lot of effort into your posts. Most of them are very informative and convincing. However, I don't think a novella is needed to let it be known that an 'agreement' was made to not use forensic evidence in this case. We get it -- it was futile (for reasons explained many times before). I would like to know how you know fully why that agreement was made. What is your source? You infer that there was a lot more dna evidence relating to LM found -- so much so that this agreement was more favourable to LM than the prosecution? How so? What is your source? You've seen all the results first hand?  He was in an intimate relationship with her -- so it was futile to try and connect him to the murder scene? Innocent transfer of any dna sources (semen, saliva, sweat, hair and skin cells, and so on)? How many unidentified profiles were found?  Was this ever revealed to the defence (they never got the funding to do their own DNA tests independently)? I agree 
 agree that SL craftily omits stuff when it suits and does often ramble on about insignificant aspects of the case (such as the phone calls between the Joneses and Walkers on the night of 30.06.03; all it amounts to is waffle), but I don't think her omitting why the agreement was made is such a big deal, for even your average layman can figure it out? I'm sure the jury were made aware of said agreement and why? Clearly explained? Unless, of curse, there was much much more of Mitchell's dna present that most of us don't know about? But, how do you know about it? What is your source? Tell me, Parky, had nothing of LM's dna been found at the locus, not even a single solitary profile, what would the prosecution have done then? Odd as that may have been, surely they would have done the same thing: built a purely circumstantial case against LM without forensic evidence?

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr. Apples,

I will break my response into separate comments over several days, starting with "...the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously..."

With all due respect the use of the word "unequivocally" makes what you wrote nonsense.  What the authorities offered is a possibility; it is speculation without evidence.  In addition it is a hypothesis which depends upon the actions of two people who did not even live in the same household.

[Parky41]

Mr Apples, I too disagree - The blanking of the reason for the agreement is so much more that simply Mitchell's DNA - It is the attempt by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, manipulating this case into something it was NOT. Which in turn via that manipulating is without a doubt treating the victim in this case with the utmost disrespect.

I do not give a monkey for (not you) people who then profess to know lots around forensic evidence, who in turn do NOT know this case, putting forth support to those who have manipulated those results massively. So, in one hand they go on about forensic evidence being the be all of Mitchell and innocence. In the other hand they put out such utter bollocks, with absolutely NO forensic evidence, that the victim was not only raped Mr Apples but by multiple people. With absolutely NOTHING to back this up. Jodi Jones was not raped, she had NOT been physically, sexually assaulted. Leaving aside whatever her killer may have gotten personal pleasure from!

Gordo30 and his more than one way to ejaculate with absolutely no forensic evidence to back anything of this up. Ms Lean, and if the victim is all but dead or dead, there would be no physical evidence of rape taking place. So, they have it that Mitchell just has to be innocent as there was NO forensic evidence. yet can apply multiple males, who left not a snifter of any forensic evidence!

[Parky41]

Chris - Seriously! So, tell us in your infinite wisdom how and why? That the team of forensics went into that woodland strip on the morning of July 1st. They built the picture of that crime scene, of the murder taken place within a contained area of that woodland strip. From where they believed the attacked commenced and ended.

What the actual hell do you imagine happened here? You have obviously given it ample thought. Do you imagine the killer/s drained her body somewhere else, your actual crime scene? Then filled spray bottles and re-invented the actual crime scene? That they executed this with such perfection Chris, they managed to fool that team of forensic experts from the morning of July 1st?

And again, evidence, actual forensic evidence, where one can apply any killer/s they choose. Apply whatever manipulation they choose. It was as - That young girl was taken by surprise, a blow to the front of her face. That she without any doubt turned to try and escape, she was then dealt a massive blow to the back of her head. This blow in itself almost killing her instantly. Dragged, savagely attacked with a knife. strangled then that final wound placed with the blood spray upon that wall. All forensic evidence from NW to W of that V break in that wall.

So, you tell us Chris, with your infinite knowledge of forensics, how? - Starting with why? What reason on this earth could that forensics team have had to be so inadequate, they failed to pick up that it was all staged? Location and why there Chris, what reason did the killer/s have for murdering the girl somewhere else, then taken her body to that area to then mimic a crime scene?

How Chris did they get her body there, the killers, for we are talking a dead weight here. We are talking a location that was in no way easy to cart a dead body to. Where on earth do you imagine they carted this dead body from, to access that isolated area of that woodland strip? Without leaving any trace whatsoever of gaining that access. It is summertime, so we are talking traffic here on both sides of the entry points. The lane, having to take a body from a car, along that lane, past the cottage, down through that woodland strip - Really! Or the Newbattle end, and up that path. In broad bloody daylight!

Why there, my goodness, all those places that could have been chosen, why choose somewhere that was NOT easy to access, that carried massive risk, that is some intellect of those killers there, is it not? No trace, not seen carting a dead body around, mimicking a crime scene, leaving absolutely no trace of themselves. Oh, wait a minute, Kelly. That will be him and the sister them, carting the dead body of her sister into that isolated area of that woodland strip - Let me guess, to fit Mitchell up because they knew he was to be meeting her?

Or could it just be Chris that the forensics are actually correct. That the poor girl was attacked there, NW to W of that V break in the wall. Where all of the forensic evidence was found. That there was nothing, that is zero found Chris, N, S, E of that break in the wall. Nothing found of any attack taken place from that lane, the top of that woodland strip or upon the path itself. - Dam, couldn't be, could it now? After all, for Mitchell to be innocent, the the absolute ludicrous notion is applied that "everything" else just has to be wrong. - Have a word!

[Chris_Halkides]

"In broad bloody daylight!"  Why do you say this?  If Jodi's body were moved, it might have been moved at any time between her death and the time it was found.  Sunset was roughly around 10 PM.  One problem I have with the hypothesis that she was murdered where she was found is that she lost about 6 liters of blood, and I have not read any description of the crime scene that accounts for this.  A lesser problem is that there were people in the area (JF, for instance) who did not see Jodi's body.  One way to resolve this paradox is that her body was not yet there.

[Parky41]

That explains nothing of mimicking a crime scene that the dumb forensic team failed to pick up on? Applying darkness simply makes it far worse! The evidence, forensic evidence, of a girl barely alive, a weak beating heart Chris, that final wound placed and the spray/pattern upon that wall. Seriously! If this girl met her death by 5:30pm and taken away by the pathologist some 14hrs and more later. There were bouts of heavy rain fall, there were bogs that filled with rainwater into the 'Ochre Burn' There is multiple types of wildlife, porous soil and on it goes. Going by the attack from A - B and the blood trails found between these points, considerable blood loss had also occurred. These experts who had absolutely no reason other than gather evidence of that murder. They were NOT interested in identity of any killer as such, as in playing to a police narrative. So their hypothesis of the crime scene was backed to the hilt with their expertise and forensic evidence. - But you are correct Chris, of what you have read, are you not?

So, it still does not answer in the slightest the whys? Does it now. How the actual hell and how many bodies exactly, did it take to cart a dead weight from one of your hypothesis, to then take to an area that was not easy to access, to then mimic an actual crime scene - Behave. Unless of course you have become engulfed in this ritualistic nonsense, bit short of the witching hour, were they not?

JaF and a condom that was found some distance from the actual area of where the crime scene was, from the forensic evidence of blood and so forth. With absolutely no viewpoint of where that poor girls body had been hidden. Off the beaten track, behind the wall and tree, with masses of foliage in the way. Summer growth at its fullest. I am not interested in, 'IF' Ms Lean has deciphered his directions correctly some three years later, that she has him walking through trees - Behave. Or the 50yards down to 20yards. Found even by those measurements from whatever she deciphered! Over 60ft (much more) NE of where that poor girl was hidden, which as we know, was 43ft W of that break in the wall.

Hunting dogs, let us deal with them also. Reconstruction carried out to check if DD's account rung true. The police who did not investigate anything, have a word. Raw bloodied meat placed for dogs that hunted animals! And they did exactly as DD stated, up and over that V break and followed with their master on their usual walk. Up E of the V, the usual walked, trodden route, excited to be going on their walk into woodland. They picked nothing up of the scent from what had been placed 43ft W of that break in the wall. Simply following their masters instruction to heed. And Ms Lean states, it is NOT the same, yet contradicts herself when she says they should have had the pigs carcass for the the other test! - One which I think the defence saw as pointless for they knew by the very accounts given that NO dog had picked up any scent from Mitchell's claims, for he was NOT were he was attempting to claim to have been, was he now? The evidence was going to show this, to prove once more that Mitchell just opened his mouth and kept on lying.

[Chris_Halkides]

"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash.  Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per one million parts of water.  Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water to dilute it to the point of undetectability.  One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously.  The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf

[faithlilly]

"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash.  Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per million parts of water.  Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water.  One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously.  The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf

Interesting, thank you.

If she was killed elsewhere how would that tally with the blood spatter on the wall close to Jodi’s body?

[Parky41]

"There were bouts of heavy rain fall..." If you are arguing that the lack of blood was because of rainfall, that explanation won't wash.  Some reports of the sensitivity of luminol indicate that it is able to detect 1 part of blood per million parts of water.  Even if the sensitivity is only 1 part in 100,000, it would still take 600,000 liters of water.  One study showed that luminol was able to detect blood that had been poured into soil eight years previously.  The authors of this study noted, "Annual precipitation between October 2010 and October 2012 was approximately 35 in (90 cm)."
https://acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Stene-etal.pdf

No Chris don't be absurd, whilst it is admiral that you pick one thing out and give us yet again some knowledge around science, it has nothing to do with what I was saying nor answering questions placed.

Three points is what I will place now. A - B - C. A is where evidence was found believed to be the onset of that attack, from A -B is a considerable distance with lots of evidence found of that savage attack, which without a doubt led to substantial blood loss along its path. B is where that final fatal wound was made, and C is where that poor girl was moved/hidden to. The killer hiding her body behind that tree/foliage. If you have studied anything at all you will see the width of that woodland strip, not a great distance but certainly ample area for blood loss in total.

The forensic team entering that area were only working around gathering evidence from the morning of July 1st. That they in their expertise and findings concluded that Jodi Jones had entered that area alive and met with her death there. That they found absolutely no evidence of any altercation taken place outwith that certain area, nor nothing of the killer making his way N, S or E. Their role from that onset was around evidence only and not in bias of any certain killer/s. Unlike of course, those who look at photographs, conclude from these that they cannot 'see' enough blood, who are working in the ultimate bias, of a narrative to fit around Mitchell not being the killer.

So, that is my point. Which is forensic experts and their findings. time, area of loss, surface which was different in type, soil, foliage, moss (possibly), rainfall, wildlife, wall (also porous). These all played a part without any doubt on what the actual experts concluded upon. They, the experts, placed that area as the crime scene.

All these findings, evidence gathering, expertise with absolutely no bias, from the morning of July 1st and the ensuing days of gathering evidence in that area. Which all took place before any form of cleaning, before opening the area back up to the public.

So that is what I am highlighting here and applying multiple factors that experts would have taken into consideration upon their findings. They did not place any ? around there 'not' being enough blood, did they now?

So tell us Chris - How the actual hell did these killers you have in mind, mimic that crime scene to fool the experts? How the hell did they cart that weight into that area before mimicking a crime scene without leaving any trace of getting there nor of leaving any trace of themselves in that area? Why Chris, once you have worked that out, would they even have thought about taking such risk, having such intellect themselves, go to that area at all? Masses of woodland area surrounding there with ease of access. So, it is not just about your query of the experts not extracting 6ltrs of blood from multiple surface type over a given area, or of JaF walking through trees, it is all the forensic evidence here, flying carpet? teleport?   For there was nothing found, not  snifter of anything outside that area bar of course that condom and another one found in cave, in another area of woodland altogether. Both of which yielded absolutely nothing of the victim, nor of anything of the donors upon the victim!

[Chris_Halkides]

Faithlilly,

Recently I found this quote: ‘The body wasn’t covered so it was open to the elements overnight,' Sallens said.  'The amount of evidence you can get from a crime scene if handled properly is incredible. It would have been a bloodbath, the injuries were horrendous.
'We think she was murdered elsewhere and dragged there. The person who murdered her would have been covered in blood.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9287769/Luke-Mitchell-jailed-killing-girlfriend-aged-14-claims-innocence-bars.html

I'll try to write a short reply later about the wall.

[Chris_Halkides]

Parky41,

You wrote, "Unless, of curse, there was much much more of Mitchell's dna present that most of us don't know about?"  We have been through this before.  There is no credible evidence that any of Mitchell's DNA was found; Ms. Ure's comments do not say that it was.  Her comments are one piece of evidence among many suggesting a biased and incompetent investigation.  You keep assuming that the investigation was performed in an expert manner, but the facts don't support this inference.

[Chris_Halkides]

faithlilly,

Let me quote two paragraphs from Scott Forbes' book on pages 134-135.  "Professor Busuttil, however, was sure of one thing, Jodi Jones would have lost at least six litres of blood, but there was NO 'blood spill' under her body or at the immediate locus, no photographs of the blood-soaked ground, the blood spray that was the locus was not "arterial spray" and did not reflect that of the blood lost.  There were no soil reports or samples taken. 

"There is no trace of the six litres of blood.  There are a few drops of blood on branches lying on the floor and the 'spray' on the wall is approximately four meters away from where Jodi was found lying, approximately 500 mm off the ground is a 'spray' approximately 800 mm wide with the largest area of "spray" being 40 mm x 300 mm, along with some smaller spots of blood.  Considering the injuries to Jodi Jones, pre and post death, the scene should have been covered in blood.  Many professional people believe that Jodi was not murdered where she was found, as a result of the lack of blood."

[Guiltyascharged]

Faith is very familiar with Scots book, one would think she was a big influence with it