What a rather odd response Baz. I used an extract that SL had given from official documents. What SL's opinion is on those official documents is irrelevant for purpose. Not a single part of what I posted was 'misinformation'. You asked where I had sourced certain information from, this was one such source. Also, whilst it may be fine to question what people MAY have meant from reports, it does not make THEIR take on them correct. I, myself personally would have taken this to mean - LM's hair was dirty ( from his evenings escapade in the woods ) NOT that it HADN'T been washed at some point in the evening.
Misinformation in the form of being 'economical' with the truth - is something else.?
I'm confused by your post. Maybe I've caused that confusion by misunderstanding so let me try and clarify.
Firstly,I asked if it was intentional because you have on at least one occasion intentionally put some misinformation on these forums? Am I wrong about that? Sorry if I am, it was a little while ago so maybe I was confused then.
Secondly, I asked for your source on Luke's hair smelling of shampoo. You provided a link to the blue forum in which Sandra is saying that if Luke's hair was visibly dirty but smelled of shampoo the police doctor would have mentioned it... which he didn't... and so she concludes that he hadn't washed and re-dirtied his hair. So hardly a source supporting that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo which is what you were providing?
Thirdly, you then claim that it's an extract from an official document. But I can't see where you have gotten this idea from. It's a forum post in which she is discussing the idea of Luke cleaning himself of any forensic evidence before going out to make himself dirty again... and the unlikeliness of this being the case. I can't see any official sources being cited or shared for you to think it is an extract from an official document.
So, basically... you have said that Luke's hair smelled of shampoo. I have seen no evidence to support this.