I have not been able to obtain information on the putative agreement between the prosecution and defense on how much DNA evidence was excluded from the trial. Was some or all of it left out?
Obviously all was not excluded - SK's DNA and that of the condom were inclusive? As was the trousers - the agreement was made after the trousers and bra:
I have asked Ms Lean about this agreement on occasion - She has not denied it took place, one can not deny what happened. Very much an evasive response which is often the case. Her response was that of a question "how can there have been an agreement made if SK's DNA was discussed?"
The agreement was around that of DNA being more than probable of belonging to LM. The thing, and pretty much why the agreement was made - an endless debate. Of innocent transfer, that this young couple had been in a relationship.
And that my understanding is that multiple partial profiles were obtained out with that of a full profile? With a significant amount of locus with alleles attributable to LM. Not the amount required, conclusively to say that they were his.
Interpretation 1: They found a locus for which the alleles were the same as Mr. Mitchell's. A single locus is not a full profile; you might narrow down the number of donors to, say, 10% of the population (it depends greatly on the particulars), but that is nowhere near the full discriminatory power of DNA.
As you clearly state of the full discriminatory power of DNA, and of as little as 10% of the population. There were in fact multiple partials with several locus with alleles the same as LM with none different. Thus LM could definitely not be excluded as a contributor. And there were several locus in which the alleles were the same. Different partials, different locus with same alleles the same as LM.
I tried to simplify this in another post - with using using numbers and letters in boxes.
The point being, of that of the law of averages - when one has multiple partial profiles - each an every one having the same alleles at locus of LM. That he could not be excluded from. That this 10% of the population is reduced significantly. That is more than probable that they did in fact come from the same male.
If I am talking absolute rubbish then I am sure you will tell me?
The agreement - And of what did matter, is anything that could connect LM to the actual murder. A significant form of DNA that could place him at the murder - finger nails from the victim, skin/hair and the such like.
Anything upon LM himself - of which there was not.
Therefore - whilst it may draw attention, to state categorically that there was absolutely no DNA of LM at the crime scene, it is in fact a false statement to make - The correct statement to make is - There was no conclusive DNA of LM's at the crime scene that could signify without a doubt that he was the murderer, that it had been left at the time of this girls death.
There is a massive difference between those two statements. CD was in fact correct - there was no stranger DNA that could point this murder to being that of An another. Albeit the endless debate around SK's DNA. When Jigsawman alias was around the DNA being touted out was nothing short of horrendous - that there were up to 20 different male profiles.
And to date there is still none - there was further testing done by the SCCRC in 2014. They obtained one further partial profile from the trousers I believe.