UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: moggrey1 on April 22, 2021, 03:11:31 PM
-
Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?
-
Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?
I read that Luke's DNA on Jodi was discounted, and vice versa (can't recall where I read it), since it would be expected that a couple in a relationship would have each other's DNA on them, and so would prove nothing.
Welcome to the forum! Please would you introduce yourself in the "New Members" section.
-
Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?
The DNA stuff is irrelevant. Let's say there were full profiles, although there were partial matches. How could the crown use that to convict? When the pair were in an intimate relationship. So his DNA or that of Jodi's in this case wouldn’t prove innocence or guilt. It could have been simply argued, that because they were in a relationship and spent time at school that day.
This ship has sailed a long time ago, pretty sure, and please correct me if I'm wrong, one of the appeals was based on the forensic science. It failed.
We need something new. It is rather tiresome, repeating the same stuff over and over, year after year. When there is a new audience to try sell the story too.
-
I appreciate it's irrelevant, i just wondered why so many people still say there was NO dna found and use it as the basis of their belief that he's innocent. if it were more widely known that there WAS evidence, it was just decided to be discounted due the nature of their relationship, i would have thought that might shut a lot of them up lol.
-
I appreciate it's irrelevant, i just wondered why so many people still say there was NO dna found and use it as the basis of their belief that he's innocent. if it were more widely known that there WAS evidence, it was just decided to be discounted due the nature of their relationship, i would have thought that might shut a lot of them up lol.
Anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge about the case knows of the agreement made between the prosecution and the defence.
In my opinion it is a forlorn hope that some individuals will look rationally at facts which is why there is so much internet concentration on misleading out of context comment and innuendo.
-
Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?
My understanding is there was no full profile of Luke on Jodi or anywhere at the crime scene, there was a full profile found of sk found on Jodi’s T-shirt and/or bra but as he was Jodi’s sisters boyfriend and Jodi was wearing her sister’s t-shirt this was not found to be suspicious. Transfer of dna soaked from the T-shirt to the bra due to rain water I think.
There was partial dna found that matched part of Luke’s profile, but as it’s partial it also matches parts of thousands of other people. So no use, unless they can get to retest it, after 20 years they might be able to get a better profile.
There was dna of Jodi found on a pair of Luke’s trousers found in a bag he used when he stayed at his dads I think, this is the dna they said was not connected to the murder, they were not trousers worn that day and as they were bf and gf, so again nothing suspicious it was agreed.
-
With the indulgence of the moderators, I will repost something I just put on another thread.
"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile." BBC
I would like to see a table of loci for myself, or still better, the electropherogram. This statement is open to two kinds of interpretations. I will assume no more that two loci for the sake of simplicity, and I will at first treat the DNA as if there were only one contributor, also for the sake of simplicity.
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.
Interpretation 2: They found one locus the same as Mr. Mitchell and one locus that was not the same. If that were true then Mr. Mitchell is excluded as a donor.
But the difficulties in the statement above go beyond this first problem. A three-person mixture is much more difficult to disentangle than a single profile is. Let me quote from an article at NIST (USA). "This illustrates an important point about DNA mixtures: Just because a person’s alleles appear in a mixture does not mean that person contributed to it. The alleles may have come from some combination of other people who, between them, have all the allele types in the suspect’s profile." https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer. The kind of software mentioned in this article was not, to the best of my knowledge, available at the time of the murder (it was introduced around 2009). This type of software has itself generated controversy, although it also has some potential advantages.
For these reasons Ms. Ure's statement is close to meaningless.
The above is something I wrote earlier today. Let me expand a little. I went back an old blog entry that concerned the lack of DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case of 2006, and I found two quotes that might be helpful.
"For instance, William Thompson of the University of California wrote “It depends on the way the analyst chooses to interpret the mixed profile. In the cases I look at, the analyst are usually quite lenient about what they will call a ‘match.’ A mixture of DNA from three or more men can often be interpreted in a manner that allows a very substantial fraction of the male population to be ‘included’ as a potential contributor.”"
"But William Shields of the State University of New York wrote, “If three, four, or more people donate DNA then there will be so many alleles in a mixture that very few if any people can be excluded as potential contributors. In such an event the evidence does become useless.”"
https://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/04/15/experts-answer-what-does-dna-evidence-prove/ (https://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/04/15/experts-answer-what-does-dna-evidence-prove/)
-
Relevant to the Madeleine McCann DNA findings also.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
SNIP
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.
What evidence exists which supports what you wrote in these two paragraphs?
I have been reading more on the interpretation of DNA mixtures. In Jane Moira Taupin's book Introduction to forensic DNA evidence for criminal justice professionals, she lists the criteria for a straightforward interpretation of a DNA mixture on page 96:
"The DNA comes from only two sources.
The two sources are unrelated.
The ratio of the amount of DNA contributed by each of the two sources is adequate for interpretation of both sources.
The appropriate amount of DNA was amplified and the alleles for both sources exceed the analytical threshold of the laboratory.
No degradation, inhibition, or primer variants are present to affect peak heights and the apparent DNA ratio.
All stutter peak sand other artifacts are below the analytical threshold or clearly distinguishable as artifacts."
Given what Ms. Ure said, there must have been at least three contributors. Without more information one cannot say much about the other five criteria.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
-
Thank you for providing the link. This is the same story from which I quoted upthread. Here is an additional sentence of relevance to the DNA found on the bra. "She [Ms. Ure] said: 'We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males.'"
I surmise that the deconvolution of the mixture into contributors was not complete, but I am not sure.
-
Thank you for providing the link. This is the same story from which I quoted upthread. Here is an additional sentence of relevance to the DNA found on the bra. "She [Ms. Ure] said: 'We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males.'"
I surmise that the deconvolution of the mixture into contributors was not complete, but I am not sure.
Hi Chris, I think we met on the IA forum/Bamber?
As far as I can see there's not much by way of reliable info in the public domain. I would suggest contacting Sandra Lean and see if she will share the info (I think she has) that pertains to the DNA evidence from the forensic scientist.
I've been referring to a couple of court of appeal docs:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=26ab8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
-
I appreciate it's irrelevant, i just wondered why so many people still say there was NO dna found and use it as the basis of their belief that he's innocent. if it were more widely known that there WAS evidence, it was just decided to be discounted due the nature of their relationship, i would have thought that might shut a lot of them up lol.
There is an explanation for this. Read this from the Trial regarding DNA found on Jodi:
"The court heard forensic teams had spent 18 months examining hundreds of items, including clothing from Luke Mitchell, in a bid to find DNA clues as to the murderer's identity.
Tayside Police forensic scientist Susan Ure spoke about the work carried out comparing bloodstains found at the murder scene and other reference samples, taken from members of her family and Luke Mitchell. "Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile".
She said: "We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males."
In otherwards when a profile matches parts of someone's DNA and only parts, those parts are often identical to 50% of the population, so a partial DNA match means they could share those parts with 30 million other people in the UK. Partial DNA matches thus are worse than useless. Hence they couldn't even say for sure the profiles were male or female.
So the answer to your question is simple. There was no DNA on Jodi at all that could be confirmed as belonging to Mitchell.
As for the story that SK's DNA including sperm got on Jodi's t-shirt because she'd borrowed it? What a load of utter hogwash. Now..............at first there was this T-shirt, then it was one of an identical pair but the 2nd one was "missing". Then weeks later, the 2 t-shirts became "several" which conveniently erases the question about one being "missing", because "several" does not mean 2. Several would generally be viewed as 4 or 5 or more. HEY PRESTO !! The missing number 2 t-shirt is no longer "missing" !!
I have to leave it to your imagination to solve the "t-shirt mystery" because I can't expand on possibilities on here.
I can tell you one thing though, the story about Jodi borrowing a t-shirt which had SK's sperm and DNA on it not only sounds like a load of utter hogwash, it is.
-
Thompson, William C., Law, Probability and Risk (2009) 8, 257−276. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgp013
"Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation"
A portion of the abstract: "Using examples from casework, informal and naturalistic experiments, and analysts’ own testimony, this article demonstrates how post hoc target shifting occurs and how it can distort the frequency and likelihood ratio statistics used to characterize DNA matches, making matches appear more probative than they actually are."
This article has an excellent discussion of how subjectivity and bias can creep into DNA forensics, particularly where DNA mixtures are concerned. Although some knowledge of DNA profiling is helpful, even without it, a reader can pick up on some of the problems, starting on p. 261.
In the context of the present case, I would like to make two points. One, Susan Ure did not say that Luke Mitchell was "included" as a possible donor. IMO the language is important. Two, even if she had, Professor Thompson's article demonstrates that target shifting can broaden the scope of who is included.
-
[Is the lack of Luke Mitchell's DNA] correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?
Your premise is mistaken: the people who question the safety of this conviction do so for a variety of reasons, such as the problematic eyewitness accounts or the existence of other forensic evidence pointing to other suspects. We probably should move to a separate thread or start a new one if we wish to explore this further.
There is another issue in your post that is worth addressing, which concerns the fact that Luke and Jodie were in a relationship. A DNA profile that can be tied to a particular body fluid stain (source DNA) is more valuable as evidence that DNA that cannot be (sub-source DNA). This is speculation, but the DNA on the bra might not have had an identified body fluid source. The profile on Luke's trousers was probably sub-source, although there were other reasons to discard this as an evidentiary lead.
-
What I would like clarification on is quite simple: to this day, as far as I’m aware, there are profiles from 5 males that remain ‘unidentified’ (among them is a full profile from a condom found in a cave used by vagrants, near the locus, and NOT the condom belonging to JAMF). So, how could CD proclaim that ‘there were no dna results that could be unaccounted for’? Am I missing something glaringly obvious? Unidentified is self-explanatory? I get that the likelihood of this being carried out by a random stranger is extremely slim, but it’s perhaps still worthy of consideration. Page 205 from IB speculates on these 5 unidentified male profiles, btw.
-
What I would like clarification on is quite simple: to this day, as far as I’m aware, there are profiles from 5 males that remain ‘unidentified’ (among them is a full profile from a condom found in a cave used by vagrants, near the locus, and NOT the condom belonging to JAMF). So, how could CD proclaim that ‘there were no dna results that could be unaccounted for’? Am I missing something glaringly obvious? Unidentified is self-explanatory? I get that the likelihood of this being carried out by a random stranger is extremely slim, but it’s perhaps still worthy of consideration. Page 205 from IB speculates on these 5 unidentified male profiles, btw.
‘ I get that the likelihood of this being carried out by a random stranger is extremely slim’
Could you please explain your reasoning?
-
Ok - condoms, who would have thought eh? Woodlands and caves within said woodlands. The reality, that the only thing relevant in placing any question mark upon 'unidentified male profiles' is to do with the victim/clothing and immediate locality of said crime. And what we are left with is one, that is one profile.
This from a sperm head on the shoe of the victim. The victim who had firstly been walking in this strip of woodland with her boyfriend then running from him. A strip of woodland with numerous condoms and left overs from many a courting couple and the likes. She picked up a singular sperm head through trace transferral.
JaF - Fresh and known to have therefore been deposited in recent hours. Wrong time and place nothing more nor sinister. The condom in a cave some distance away, in another stretch of woodland. Around 1/2 a mile if using the Esk Trail or 1/4 as the crow flies. Numerous items tested as there had been reports of vagrants sleeping in the 'actual Abbey woods'. The vagrants needed traced and eliminated. The condom from some male discarded after having intercourse out of prying eyes from passers by. To note her, not just a male profile but that of the female he had intercourse with - that female not being the victim. As with JaF no female DNA as he had his jollies with himself. Are we here to judge that, people have many forms of sexual activities in woodland. All with that risk, buzz even for some of being caught!
This claimed other two unidentified profiles - well going by the above we can bet they are of the exact same worth = nada, zilch, nothing. The very reason therefore why CD could come out with 'nothing unaccounted for'
To do directly with the victim/clothing and so forth there were two clear donors of DNA - one SK and of course the other LM. These were the two males with trace/transferral/rainwater diffusion applicable directly. SK as we know via the top the victim was wearing of her sister and of course Mitchell due to the intimate relationship with the victim and mainly upon her underwear.
The profiles/partial and otherwise obtained were enough for the police to believe a warrant would be issued for Mitchells arrest in the August, the Crown turning it down. They were not going to be able to use Mitchells DNA for that very reason, there was nothing to show that it could not have been there prior to the murder itself. The only DNA that could have been used was something upon Mitchell (blood of the victim) and something of the attacker from the victim (fingernail scrapings), there was nothing. That is nothing of anyone. And is exactly the reason why the agreement was made to stop short of going through all of the DNA applicable to Mitchell. An endless pointless exercise of time consumption with nothing to show. The very reason the Crown built their case around circumstantial evidence.
To note here = Nothing from the defence, that is zilch from this crime, for them to use to point forensic evidence towards A another/stranger murder - nothing. Bar SK to cast doubt in the Jurors mind. Of course they as did the court, got to hear of Kelly's alibi from his father and girlfriend and the experts advice on the transferral of his DNA from said t-shirt. But of course the author did not attend the trial, did she? I mean, she did not even know that one of the key witnesses testified, said witness being AO.
Yet, as many others have pointed out, one really had to be part of that vital area of proceedings, to get a feel of the case and the evidence presented before the court. Then and only then could they give sound and proper judgement of the case against Mitchell and one of his defence. Yet here we have an author who has written on this case, not once but twice, put it to social media and TV productions - Was not privy to the investigation side, was not privy to hearing the case first hand, goes solely upon the defence papers handed down from DF, media reports and the the WORD of a convicted murderer? - and that judgement is to be trusted?
So what one does do, is harp on about sperm/semen/condoms and unidentified profiles, narrowed down to five now over the years. And it gets results, it hits the spot for those with little upstairs and they make comments such as "there was five o them there wi cotter as the lookout"
What the court heard, that Jury was all of the forensic evidence. There was no rape, no sexual physical assault. No sperm/semen/condoms to do with the murder at all. Nothing. So this condom in a cave in another stretch of woodland entirely, with two unidentified profiles both male and female, has what exactly to do with the murder of this young girl?
-
‘ I get that the likelihood of this being carried out by a random stranger is extremely slim’
Could you please explain your reasoning?
The killer invariably knows the victim; randomness in murder is very rare. Dalkeith is a relatively small town, and despite its near proximity to Scotland’s capital city, I very much doubt someone cherry-picked Dalkeith as a place to abduct and kill a stranger. Lastly, the location where the deceased’s body was found would suggest that it was someone who knew the area very well; the body lay undiscovered for some 6 hours before it was found, despite it being a popular area for youths, walkers and dog walkers. Where the body lay — in undergrowth in a woodland strip (nearer to N’battle than E’houses) behind a 7-8ft stone dyke — was indicative of someone who had intimate knowledge of the locus and general area.
-
The killer invariably knows the victim; randomness in murder is very rare. Dalkeith is a relatively small town, and despite its near proximity to Scotland’s capital city, I very much doubt someone cherry-picked Dalkeith as a place to abduct and kill a stranger. Lastly, the location where the deceased’s body was found would suggest that it was someone who knew the area very well; the body lay undiscovered for some 6 hours before it was found, despite it being a popular area for youths, walkers and dog walkers. Where the body lay — in undergrowth in a woodland strip (nearer to N’battle than E’houses) behind a 7-8ft stone dyke — was indicative of someone who had intimate knowledge of the locus and general area.
Aye. His name was Luke Mitchell.
-
Aye. His name was Luke Mitchell.
I’m about 98% sure it was Luke who did it. Btw, Rusty, are you from near the area where this happened? Have you been following the case long?
-
Ok - condoms, who would have thought eh? Woodlands and caves within said woodlands. The reality, that the only thing relevant in placing any question mark upon 'unidentified male profiles' is to do with the victim/clothing and immediate locality of said crime. And what we are left with is one, that is one profile.
This from a sperm head on the shoe of the victim. The victim who had firstly been walking in this strip of woodland with her boyfriend then running from him. A strip of woodland with numerous condoms and left overs from many a courting couple and the likes. She picked up a singular sperm head through trace transferral.
JaF - Fresh and known to have therefore been deposited in recent hours. Wrong time and place nothing more nor sinister. The condom in a cave some distance away, in another stretch of woodland. Around 1/2 a mile if using the Esk Trail or 1/4 as the crow flies. Numerous items tested as there had been reports of vagrants sleeping in the 'actual Abbey woods'. The vagrants needed traced and eliminated. The condom from some male discarded after having intercourse out of prying eyes from passers by. To note her, not just a male profile but that of the female he had intercourse with - that female not being the victim. As with JaF no female DNA as he had his jollies with himself. Are we here to judge that, people have many forms of sexual activities in woodland. All with that risk, buzz even for some of being caught!
This claimed other two unidentified profiles - well going by the above we can bet they are of the exact same worth = nada, zilch, nothing. The very reason therefore why CD could come out with 'nothing unaccounted for'
To do directly with the victim/clothing and so forth there were two clear donors of DNA - one SK and of course the other LM. These were the two males with trace/transferral/rainwater diffusion applicable directly. SK as we know via the top the victim was wearing of her sister and of course Mitchell due to the intimate relationship with the victim and mainly upon her underwear.
The profiles/partial and otherwise obtained were enough for the police to believe a warrant would be issued for Mitchells arrest in the August, the Crown turning it down. They were not going to be able to use Mitchells DNA for that very reason, there was nothing to show that it could not have been there prior to the murder itself. The only DNA that could have been used was something upon Mitchell (blood of the victim) and something of the attacker from the victim (fingernail scrapings), there was nothing. That is nothing of anyone. And is exactly the reason why the agreement was made to stop short of going through all of the DNA applicable to Mitchell. An endless pointless exercise of time consumption with nothing to show. The very reason the Crown built their case around circumstantial evidence.
To note here = Nothing from the defence, that is zilch from this crime, for them to use to point forensic evidence towards A another/stranger murder - nothing. Bar SK to cast doubt in the Jurors mind. Of course they as did the court, got to hear of Kelly's alibi from his father and girlfriend and the experts advice on the transferral of his DNA from said t-shirt. But of course the author did not attend the trial, did she? I mean, she did not even know that one of the key witnesses testified, said witness being AO.
Yet, as many others have pointed out, one really had to be part of that vital area of proceedings, to get a feel of the case and the evidence presented before the court. Then and only then could they give sound and proper judgement of the case against Mitchell and one of his defence. Yet here we have an author who has written on this case, not once but twice, put it to social media and TV productions - Was not privy to the investigation side, was not privy to hearing the case first hand, goes solely upon the defence papers handed down from DF, media reports and the the WORD of a convicted murderer? - and that judgement is to be trusted?
So what one does do, is harp on about sperm/semen/condoms and unidentified profiles, narrowed down to five now over the years. And it gets results, it hits the spot for those with little upstairs and they make comments such as "there was five o them there wi cotter as the lookout"
What the court heard, that Jury was all of the forensic evidence. There was no rape, no sexual physical assault. No sperm/semen/condoms to do with the murder at all. Nothing. So this condom in a cave in another stretch of woodland entirely, with two unidentified profiles both male and female, has what exactly to do with the murder of this young girl?
Sorry, Parky41 — I had forgotten all about this. Thanks for the reply. Yeah, the vagrant (s) was traced and eliminated (SL doesn’t make it clear in IB that the cave is some distance away from the locus). LM’s DNA was found on Jodi’s underwear?? I thought only partial profiles of LM were found on her bra? Do you have a cite for this?
Is the general consensus here that LM, as a direct result of a mismanaged crime scene (i.e., the body being left exposed to the rain and elements all morning, the body being moved and Jodi’s clothing being gathered up and bundled on top of each other), got lucky? That the crime scene mismanagement resulted in degraded and contaminated DNA that worked in LM’s favour? That any dna marker or partial dna profile of LM’s obtained means that he probably did do it? Such is your entrenched belief he is guilty?
-
It is my opinion that the crime scene was indeed badly mismanaged. Given this and other professional lapses, I would like to see an independent review of the DNA data.
-
The following is a paragraph from IB (p.200), verbatim:
”Another surprising aspect of the forensic evidence in this case was the sheer number of samples which came back from the labs labelled “no reportable result”. A person of interest to the enquiry (not Luke) was found to have blood stains on his jacket and trainers and blood was found on the blade, handle and sheath of a knife belonging to him. The knife blade was 153 mm long and 16 mm wide (around 6.5 inches long and 3/4 inch wide). Every sample pertaining to this person was on the 121 item “no reportable result” list.”
Interesting. Anyone know who this person was? JOSJ? JF?
-
It is my opinion that the crime scene was indeed badly mismanaged. Given this and other professional lapses, I would like to see an independent review of the DNA data.
Chris, regardless of an independent review or LM having suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, do you still think it’s highly probable that Luke did it? Or do you think someone else was responsible for Jodi’s murder? I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager. They knew it was him from the first few weeks and were absolutely certain by the 14.04.04. This, imo, is why they tried to use underhand means to get him to confess rather than try and convict him on circumstantial evidence . . . the latter is much more difficult to prove in a court of law. And I’m not suggesting the police’s aim was to elicit a false confession from Luke, as that would be unethical and a level that I’m sure L&B Police would not stoop to. So, no, no fit up, no desperation from the police to get a quick conviction on the back of public outcry, or morally wrong tactics utilised to convict an innocent teenager — just a police force that was forced to fight fire with fire in a horrific and unique case, so as to get justice. Some people keep saying LM was only a child, but, he was not. He was a deeply troubled and disturbed teenager, and a highly intelligent, sophisticated, devious and manipulative one at that.
-
I’m about 98% sure it was Luke who did it. Btw, Rusty, are you from near the area where this happened? Have you been following the case long?
Close enough.
Aye, since the old WAP days. I got binned from there. The vendetta against the Jones's, by the 2 clowns that ran the place, was stomach churning to say the least.
-
Chris, regardless of an independent review or LM having suffered a miscarriage of justice at the original trial, do you still think it’s highly probable that Luke did it? Or do you think someone else was responsible for Jodi’s murder? I think the police had to use unorthodox tactics during their investigation to go toe-to-toe with an advanced, intelligent, sophisticated and devious teenager. They knew it was him from the first few weeks and were absolutely certain by the 14.04.04. This, imo, is why they tried to use underhand means to get him to confess rather than try and convict him on circumstantial evidence . . . the latter is much more difficult to prove in a court of law. And I’m not suggesting the police’s aim was to elicit a false confession from Luke, as that would be unethical and a level that I’m sure L&B Police would not stoop to. So, no, no fit up, no desperation from the police to get a quick conviction on the back of public outcry, or morally wrong tactics utilised to convict an innocent teenager — just a police force that was forced to fight fire with fire in a horrific and unique case, so as to get justice. Some people keep saying LM was only a child, but, he was not. He was a deeply troubled and disturbed teenager, and a highly intelligent, sophisticated, devious and manipulative one at that.
These are very separate questions. One cannot go back in time and fix a mismanaged crime scene; therefore, it will always be more difficult to convict someone than it should have been. The other problem at work in this instance is drawing a conclusion too early. If the police believed that Luke were guilty early on and that the case were unique, then the likelihood of their doing or failing to do things which bias the investigation toward finding him guilty. Bias can either be conscious or unconscious, and the history of forensics is littered with examples in which the forensic investigation bent itself toward the conclusions favored by the police. That is why I favor an independent review of the DNA forensics (possibly modeled on how Australia conducted reviews of the DNA evidence in Farah Jama case or in the Jaidyn Leskie case), and I would support a broader review of the present case.
I don't hold a strong opinion as to who committed this murder. I do have grave concerns about many aspects of this investigation. One of my reasons for concern is the witness testimony. Those interested may look elsewhere on the internet for posts by Rolfe about the testimony of Andrina Bryson.
-
Decided to put the post into several smaller bullet points:
If there had been none and no further DNA of Mitchells present then there would have been no agreement, that is simple logic.
The agreement did take place, SL knows it took place, she gives reference to it from "source's" It highlights one thing yet again, that of not attending Mitchells trial, or least no admittance/denial of this. There can be no denying that it pays to play dumb around vital evidence/information. When bias is the motive.
Logic and sense please. Really is one of those "No Shit Sherlock" moments. The agreement was NOT around forensics/DNA in general. It was specific to the presence of Mitchells DNA. As above, none and no more then simply no agreement, and that agreement took place.
"There was no forensic evidence found upon my client linking him to the murder" / "There was none of Luke's DNA found directly linked to the murder (DF/SL)
Is the exact same as, there was no incriminating DNA, upon Mitchell, his home or upon the victims clothing/body. Not that there was none present, simply that there was NO incriminating DNA. Nothing that could not be explained by way of innocent transfer, from their relationship, their time spent together that same day at school. From any previous encounter. = Circumstantial case.
These 'source's' that SL mentions - DF and the Crown? Who got to hear this agreement first hand? LM that is who. And there is, no, he simply did not hear, he may have picked it up wrong. Those daily briefs, the days proceedings explained in full, and no doubt endless questions from Mitchell himself.
SL states that she does NOT know the details of this agreement, yet applies that it was simply made around forensics/DNA in general? That information relating to it is missing from the defence papers? It is areas such as this that never fail to amaze me. In that people do not pick up what is blatantly obvious, there should be no ? placed upon the agreement with that pretence of not knowing why it was made? - You are being spun a yarn, are you not? For;
In this chain of events, between three people, there is dishonesty, hiding the truth. There is no way around this. We know from the way in which things are written, that discussion took place between Mitchell, his mother and SL, discussion of this agreement. She tells us this. She states that a 'source' informed them. If she is being honest, that she does not know the details of the agreement, then LM and his mother have not been honest with her, they have been hiding vital information. And if they have been hiding information, it is simply because they have something to hide. What exactly did they say to her? 'We know, a source told us, but we are keeping the reason for the agreement to ourselves?' - are people really that naive? Flip that over, if they were honest and told her the reason for the agreement, the details, then it is SL who is not being forthright, and showing how easily one can simply manipulate around the truth?
It however does bulk up the pages of the book, does it not, this waffle around irrelevant matters. It does not take pages to explain that the case was circumstantial. If one needs to go to extraordinary lengths to show people, rather than a simple definition, then does this tell us what type of mindset one is aiming at to convince - to pull the wool over? with blatant supposition?
And of course, last but by no means least. Why? What possible reason could there be for playing dumb around why the agreement was made? We know the presence of Mitchells DNA is irrelevant, the very reason why the evidence was circumstantial. Two clear donors, only one to explain in full why the presence of his DNA was there, SK of course. And yawn and yes, it is still a long post. There was no stranger DNA, nothing left from some 'other' murderer.
There is no, LM managed to clean the scene completely of his whilst leaving DNA of others there - Going to stop there, the realms entered into with someone hiding the actual truth, really does work. This soaking it up, churning it round and spitting it back out with additives. With this 'we will never know'
SL was unhappy with the report back from the SCCRC, asked of the testing carried out by them? That they did not carry out as much testing as hoped for? Well, one is not going to be re testing for the DNA of LM nor SK, are they? They did carry out further tests and there was still nothing pointing this murder elsewhere. Why would there be, the murderer is in jail.
But as always and by invitation, we are all free to 'make of it what we will' - No stranger DNA, no 'we will never know' - but above all, and it is highly relevant, is that massive conflict of interest. Three people together for at least 8 months prior to Mitchells arrest. If one has not been honest around multiple areas since his trial, does one really believe there was honesty before it, before his arrest? Just short of that time he was out celebrating the 'end of a difficult time'
LM was proven to be intelligent and a compulsive liar - There is no doubt in this. And yes we can apply many reasons. Just a lad, they all lie. Worried about being incriminated in some way. Fair enough, but this does not mean he was simply honest at any other time, does it. And as above. - this is not based upon honesty, it is based upon hiding the truth?
-
Decided to put the post into several smaller bullet points:
If there had been none and no further DNA of Mitchells present then there would have been no agreement, that is simple logic.
The agreement did take place, SL knows it took place, she gives reference to it from "source's" It highlights one thing yet again, that of not attending Mitchells trial, or least no admittance/denial of this. There can be no denying that it pays to play dumb around vital evidence/information. When bias is the motive.
Logic and sense please. Really is one of those "No Shit Sherlock" moments. The agreement was NOT around forensics/DNA in general. It was specific to the presence of Mitchells DNA. As above, none and no more then simply no agreement, and that agreement took place.
Is the exact same as, there was no incriminating DNA, upon Mitchell, his home or upon the victims clothing/body. Not that there was none present, simply that there was NO incriminating DNA. Nothing that could not be explained by way of innocent transfer, from their relationship, their time spent together that same day at school. From any previous encounter. = Circumstantial case.
These 'source's' that SL mentions - DF and the Crown? Who got to hear this agreement first hand? LM that is who. And there is, no, he simply did not hear, he may have picked it up wrong. Those daily briefs, the days proceedings explained in full, and no doubt endless questions from Mitchell himself.
SL states that she does NOT know the details of this agreement, yet applies that it was simply made around forensics/DNA in general? That information relating to it is missing from the defence papers? It is areas such as this that never fail to amaze me. In that people do not pick up what is blatantly obvious, there should be no ? placed upon the agreement with that pretence of not knowing why it was made? - You are being spun a yarn, are you not? For;
In this chain of events, between three people, there is dishonesty, hiding the truth. There is no way around this. We know from the way in which things are written, that discussion took place between Mitchell, his mother and SL, discussion of this agreement. She tells us this. She states that a 'source' informed them. If she is being honest, that she does not know the details of the agreement, then LM and his mother have not been honest with her, they have been hiding vital information. And if they have been hiding information, it is simply because they have something to hide. What exactly did they say to her? 'We know, a source told us, but we are keeping the reason for the agreement to ourselves?' - are people really that naive? Flip that over, if they were honest and told her the reason for the agreement, the details, then it is SL who is not being forthright, and showing how easily one can simply manipulate around the truth?
It however does bulk up the pages of the book, does it not, this waffle around irrelevant matters. It does not take pages to explain that the case was circumstantial. If one needs to go to extraordinary lengths to show people, rather than a simple definition, then does this tell us what type of mindset one is aiming at to convince - to pull the wool over? with blatant supposition?
And of course, last but by no means least. Why? What possible reason could there be for playing dumb around why the agreement was made? We know the presence of Mitchells DNA is irrelevant, the very reason why the evidence was circumstantial. Two clear donors, only one to explain in full why the presence of his DNA was there, SK of course. And yawn and yes, it is still a long post. There was no stranger DNA, nothing left from some 'other' murderer.
There is no, LM managed to clean the scene completely of his whilst leaving DNA of others there - Going to stop there, the realms entered into with someone hiding the actual truth, really does work. This soaking it up, churning it round and spitting it back out with additives. With this 'we will never know'
SL was unhappy with the report back from the SCCRC, asked of the testing carried out by them? That they did not carry out as much testing as hoped for? Well, one is not going to be re testing for the DNA of LM nor SK, are they? They did carry out further tests and there was still nothing pointing this murder elsewhere. Why would there be, the murderer is in jail.
But as always and by invitation, we are all free to 'make of it what we will' - No stranger DNA, no 'we will never know' - but above all, and it is highly relevant, is that massive conflict of interest. Three people together for at least 8 months prior to Mitchells arrest. If one has not been honest around multiple areas since his trial, does one really believe there was honesty before it, before his arrest? Just short of that time he was out celebrating the 'end of a difficult time'
LM was proven to be intelligent and a compulsive liar - There is no doubt in this. And yes we can apply many reasons. Just a lad, they all lie. Worried about being incriminated in some way. Fair enough, but this does not mean he was simply honest at any other time, does it. And as above. - this is not based upon honesty, it is based upon hiding the truth?
I have missed you Parky. Hope you’re feeling better.
Common sense approach…if the prosecution had had DNA that could have helped convict Mitchell they would not for one moment have entered into an agreement with the defence to exclude it.
The end.
-
Common sense approach…if the prosecution had had DNA that could have helped convict Mitchell they would not for one moment have entered into an agreement with the defence to exclude it.
Just a little bit of 'dumb and dumber' going on once more, perfect deflection tactic however, and very much in line with ? The only real relevance, as is highlighted in the post, is it does not take pages of a book to explain the case was circumstantial. My post was not about having evidence that could have convicted LM, you are living in the pages of waffle of thee book.
The point and the real relevance is the deception going on between these three 'craws?' That of why the agreement was made, does not quite have the same ring to it however, does it? Of an agreement was made to not include, non incriminating DNA of Mitchells, pointless time consuming exercise. When it is obvious that the reason for the agreement is being side lined to hide the fact, that there was not a scrap of forensic evidence pointing this murder to A another. Two donors, trace transferal, LM and SK. The discussion around SK's highlighting just how easily DNA can be present, from a bodily fluid substance that was not the murderer. And again, the presence of SK's DNA, which was shown without doubt, not to have been left at the time of the murder, from someone who was not the victims boyfriend. All just a tad contradictory would it not have been? To then attempt to show that the presence of LM's DNA, who was in an intimate relationship with the victim was left there from the murder? - Therefore, the ONLY DNA that needed explaining was from SK. That LM's was of absolutely no value to the Crowns case, thus circumstantial evidence only. No blood, no bumps, no scrapes found upon LM, his home and so forth.
Yet, and not surprisingly of course, those claims without the slightest proof, that LM had been wearing the same clothes from school that day, taken from him in the early hours of July the 1st. His mother stating every detail of those clothes. The DNA of Mitchells present, and naturally so upon the victims clothing. Yet nothing of Jodi, on those clothes? That top she just loved so much, her favourite LM claimed. The impression given that it was manky and unwashed, falling off his back type thing? - Yet nothing, even after their intimate time together at school. Or perhaps we just simply do not get to know of those test results, perhaps there is a lot more to that agreement, of 'innocent DNA' -
So yes, the point is the deception, the point is punting out this 'nothing, nada' as fact, applying it to stranger DNA, just a little ironic to say the least. But above all you are being spun a yarn and you are spinning more of it. But some realism, applying that which is realistic would serve better, would it not? For this complete OTT nonsense, that 'half a Mars bar' situ, that typical liar syndrome of 'black is white' which serves to produce comments of late, such as "If the police had did their Job properly, then DF would not have been able to ask people if they had murdered Jodi!" - This is the main support, the blind. Who churn this nonsense up, spit it back out with all sorts of nonsense. Or "The Jury should be ashamed of themselves finding someone guilty with no evidence" - And you, yourself are prime in this, with this "wafer thin case"
Where they are actually answering their own query, highlighting just how much of a yarn they are being spun. That any defence asking someone if they had been the culprit is NOT because they believe they are, but more so, that it is because of the honesty, and the thoroughness of the investigation side (SL blinded to, to a degree), that one was able to put that question to anyone. Full disclosure, transparency, investigating these individuals to the max - to close those doors from the defence, leaving them with every single thing found, to do with SK, JF, and GD. The police did not leave unanswered questions, and the Crown made sure there were none.
And enough with the contradictions? This 'no forensic tests were carried out unless to do with Mitchell' - What about that whopping big knife, boots and jacket, those gloves, condoms in caves and the list really is endless. This utter nonsense of 'no reportable results' Well we have seen the honesty laid bare with the denial of reason for that agreement. We know without a shadow of a doubt, that the actual truth is being hidden in this ultimate bias. Each point contradicting the other. Cherry picking areas of those results to push out, to manipulate them into something completely false. As with everything of course, only sounds the part for those who typically fall under "none so blind as those who will not see" Who pick up the inference rather than the wording.
So yes, this, whopping great big knife with no results, well it was blood, that is a result. But it really does not matter does it, the size of this knife, the jacket and boots, for what it was not, was the victims blood, and no it was not inconclusive, it was the only thing they were testing for. Which animal?, goodness knows, and who cares, it was not the blood of Jodi Jones. From this 'person of interest'. It's dramatic, one will give you that, really grabs the attention of those, who soak this up, churn it round and spit it back out with additives. The author may bank upon the wider public who know little of this case, also knows of course that people are not mute, are they? This 'person of interest' with that whopping big knife, does have a tongue!
-
Simple question: were JOF & GD tested for having incriminating DNA on them (Jodi’s blood, for example) and incriminating dna of theirs on Jodi?
-
Decided to put the post into several smaller bullet points:
If there had been none and no further DNA of Mitchells present then there would have been no agreement, that is simple logic.
The agreement did take place, SL knows it took place, she gives reference to it from "source's" It highlights one thing yet again, that of not attending Mitchells trial,
Of course she didn’t attend his murder trial
-
Was it the case that forensics were able to ascertain that DNA traces (semen, I think it was) from Luke were found over Jodi’s arms, face and body? Weren’t they able to be more specific about these ‘traces’? Markers from the samples matched the markers in Luke’s profile? Weren’t they able to analyse the loci and alleles from these traces to ascertain who the probable contributor was? Or was it the case that, even if they were able to tell who the probable contributor was, it wasn’t incriminating enough since Luke was in an intimate relationship with the deceased? It would be interesting to see these results in full. Maybe the traces in the samples matched other persons of interest, too, or were unidentified or inconclusive? Sometimes the problem with forensics is that it throws up more questions than answers. Good job, then, that the Prosecution built a robust and compelling case against the accused.
Also, as I recall, SL mentions in IB that the lack of pooled blood under Jodi’s body and lack of blood smears adjacent her neck and chest area was very surprising. I wonder why this was? Any ideas?
-
I am sorry that I have not been able to give this thread as much attention as it deserves. Let me make a general comment for now and try to come back to it again later. DNA evidence from which a fluid or tissue source has not been determined is has less probative value than DNA from which the source has been determined. If a test for a body fluid was never run, the source should not be inferred. Peter Gill's book is the best place to go for more information on that subject. However, a forensic test for DNA is separate from a forensic test for blood, semen, or saliva. Therefore, there is no automatic link between the source and the DNA, and there have been cases in which the source of the DNA was misidentified, for example the Adam Scott case. As Peter Gill wrote, the connection between the DNA and the body fluid is not implicit. To make this assumption is to fall into the "association fallacy."
-
I am sorry that I have not been able to give this thread as much attention as it deserves. Let me make a general comment for now and try to come back to it again later. DNA evidence from which a fluid or tissue source has not been determined is has less probative value than DNA from which the source has been determined. If a test for a body fluid was never run, the source should not be inferred. Peter Gill's book is the best place to go for more information on that subject. However, a forensic test for DNA is separate from a forensic test for blood, semen, or saliva. Therefore, there is no automatic link between the source and the DNA, and there have been cases in which the source of the DNA was misidentified, for example the Adam Scott case. As Peter Gill wrote, the connection between the DNA and the body fluid is not implicit. To make this assumption is to fall into the "association fallacy."
What was the source of the DNA from Luke Mitchell found on Jodi and at the crime scene? There were, allegedly, multiple partial profiles -- the markers of which matched some of the markers in LM's genetic profile -- found over Jodi's body. I've always presumed it was semen . . . was it?
-
Let us assume that a sample had DNA from three individuals and the sample was not complete (some loci were missing). Given the state of the art circa 2004, it is quite unlikely that a mixture with three partial profiles could be teased apart. I put some comments into the early portion of this thread to make this point. It is tempting to imagine lining up Mr. Mitchell's reference profile to the mixture to see if there were coinciding peaks. Tempting, but this sort of "suspect centered" analysis is strongly discouraged in DNA profiling.* I have seen no evidence that Mr. Mitchell's DNA was identified.
"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile. She said: 'We could tell there was some male DNA present but we couldn't tell whether one or both of the second individuals were males.'" What Susan Ure said about the DNA is essentially meaningless, as I have discussed upthread. More than two means at least three.
There are presumptive and confirmatory tests for semen. Only if these were both positive can one say that semen was present. If multiple profiles were found in a semen sample, it would be easy to fall into the association fallacy regarding these profiles. This is exactly what happened in the Adam Scott case.
https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/ (https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/)
I read a 2010 news article written by Cara Sulieman which said in part "She [Corrine Mitchell] wrote [on a discussion board]: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police." I cannot vouch for the accuracy of her statement, but to answer questions like these is why I have suggested that an independent review of the DNA evidence is sorely needed.
*an anonymous blogger analyzed the DNA in the Knox/Sollecito case in essentially this way. "Maundy Gregory" found portions of Amanda Knox's profile in one sample, but he also found indications that Casey Anthony's DNA were there. It was ultimately a good exercise in helping one to understand why suspect centered analysis is faulty.
EDT
IIRC a profile from Jodie Jones was found on a pair of Mr. Mitchell's trousers, but it was not the pair that he wore that day. I doubt that there is much probative evidence in that profile.
-
One other thing. One has to be careful regarding the use of terms such as "sperm fraction" with respect to DNA profiling. There is a differential extraction technique, which attempts to separate DNA into two pools, sperm and non-sperm. However, some DNA from sperm can end up in the non-sperm fraction and vice versa, depending on the age of the sample for one thing. Therefore, differential extraction is not itself a test for sperm, nor should it be used to infer the source of the DNA.
-
One other thing. One has to be careful regarding the use of terms such as "sperm fraction" with respect to DNA profiling. There is a differential extraction technique, which attempts to separate DNA into two pools, sperm and non-sperm. However, some DNA from sperm can end up in the non-sperm fraction and vice versa, depending on the age of the sample for one thing. Therefore, differential extraction is not itself a test for sperm, nor should it be used to infer the source of the DNA.
My only reason for mentioning DNA of LM's before was around the lies, nothing to do with reason as to why LM was convicted. So Chris, my question to you, the only actual relevant one in all of this deflection is;
What silver bullet is it you feel could be found by re-testing that will erase the evidence that convicted LM? This question has absolutely nothing to do with belief in what anyone may say. Just those simple facts which were:
The case against LM was circumstantial, at no point did the Crown attempt to place LM at the scene by the presence of his DNA, nor did the defence attempt to not place him at the scene by way of the non presence of his DNA. It was exactly "There was no forensic evidence linking LM directly to the murder" Nothing found upon him nor his home, no murder weapon or clothing worn retrieved.
We ignore here the playing dumb around the agreement, the reason for that agreement. We do not ignore the absolute fact that nothing was hidden from the defence, as in they did not try to bury any forensic reports. SK is testament to this along with so much more. We ignore what has been put forward by SL also. We only include that actual truth of what is known without a doubt.
The original testing carried out and reports around these. Access to these by the defence who deal with such matters day in and out. The application into the SCCRC and further expert reviewing and advising on re-testing which was carried out. Not interested in a series of IF's here, the only relevant If is, IF the person touting out this nonsense is being honest. That long line of blind faith, absolutely nothing showing bar ones bias in their non expert opinions.
So to the evidence, the case, that had absolutely nothing to do with forensic evidence where LM was concerned. What 'silver bullet' could lie within re-testing that will erase every bit of evidence that convicted LM?
I will put across my very non expert opinion first: We have to first and foremost apply the setting. It is a woodland, it is used by people inclusive of whom without any doubt have carried out intimate get togethers in it. (we are talking this long narrow strip of woodland, not the expanse of the whole Abbey woods (irrelevant to where the murder took place). We also have to include anyone known to Jodi that she/clothing would/could have come into contact with. We also have to include anyone she may have brushed past at any point whilst wearing some of that clothing. We also have to apply wild life here which could carry DNA from other areas and on the list goes.
Let us go with that giant knife and bloodied clothing here, for me it is the SCCRC we look to here, did not carry out any re-testing from this, and we use logic and apply the why? For they would of course have the truth before them, that the blood was not the victims, no monies wasted at the time or by the SCCRC to find out the type of animal or otherwise. Then we can go to some knife found in a dry stone dyke years after the murder and we again have to be sensible here on two accounts. That it may have been tested and SL has absolutely no right in the slightest to be told this, she is no one. Or that the actual killer would leave their murder weapon rusting away under some loose stones in a dyke. It would have been long gone.
So it really does leave us with the originals here - and that magic silver bullet that could erase in an instant the evidence that convicted LM?
-
I think that the evidence that was used to convict Mr. Mitchell may well have failed to clear the bar of preponderance of the evidence (50.1%) and was not even within sight of BARD. The reasons for this lie outside the subject of this thread.
Without seeing the agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning the DNA, I cannot say whether the agreement benefitted the prosecution or the defense more. It would not surprise me if the prosecution got the better deal: not everyone has a high opinion of Donald Findlay.
I have read that Jodi fought hard for her life (and I don't have any evidence to the contrary). What actual evidence is there for this, and what evidence might there be? Some things to look for include (but are not limited to) blood from the killer and clumps of hair in the hand of the victim. If one does not test each and every bloodstain for DNA, it would be very difficult to tell whether it came from the victim or the killer.
Consider for example, a case with very different forensic issues and techniques from the present one: the case of Patricia Stallings. The toxicology reports indicated that her infant son had died by ethylene glycol poisoning. It was only when competent analytical biochemists examined the work at the post-conviction stage that it became obvious how massively biased and incorrect it was and that Ryan died because of a rare genetic disorder. There are many other examples of poor forensic work within and outside of DNA profiling that were uncovered only by careful sleuthing. Perhaps nothing would be found in a review of the evidence in this case, but there is only one way to find out.
EDT
The independent review of the DNA evidence in the Knox/Sollecito case caused many people to reconsider what happened.
-
You misunderstand me Chris, not sure I have ever applied this pedestal to DF. My point was around Joe Blogs claiming to have still not matched samples to the correct reports. Absolutely nothing wrong with the order of the reports when every other person, with a much firmer grasp on such matters had them. Up until after the SCCRC? Where even after having their report back still made the same claim. That applying this along with blanking the actual one and only reason for that agreement = Massive room for manipulation, that was my point.
One is correct, they should be able to see the report before passing Judgement but does so anyway? With this 'in favour of the Crown. So It is not myself placing DF upon a pedestal it is yourself placing him as completely incompetent? It is 2022, some 18 yrs since DF took this somewhat troublesome case on and LM has still never had another QC attempting anything with his case, even after the hype of last year. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is because it was a difficult case to prove to be false, perhaps no one else is touching it for the front and deception being pushed out is just that. - Gaining support by way of deceit.
One can erase the case as there being no case, thus no silver bullet needed, but here we are anyway, it is exactly what is being aimed for. So let us apply exactly what this "fought for ones life" actually entailed, using the forensic evidence. But first we really need to wipe away that image of fight = putting up a good physical attack of defence, thus surely one must have something of their attacker upon them, that has been missed by "shoddy" testing in the first instance. Lazy testing to only fit the police narrative.
We can use one simple example here (not saying this is exact in any way). A person curls into a ball to ward off a ferocious attack, they sustain many injuries said to be of defence, of warding off the attack in the only way they could realistically do, they are in effect defence injuries from shielding themselves. Fighting for their lives by any means viable.
The evidence, and this is important on so many levels. There was absolutely no evidence of any attack, being accosted, any form of altercation, anywhere other than within a contained area in the bottom of that woodland strip. Off the beaten track, into no-mans land so to speak. Not a frequented area for people using to access anywhere else. NW and W of that V break. It started where a small amount of blood was found upon a branch, the forensic evidence increasing after the finding of another branch.
That nutter taking their victim by surprise, forcefully dealt a full on facial blow thus the blood on a branch. The fight for the victims life was to try and escape, no doubt crying out for help and that nutter stopped his victim with a fatal blow from behind. (Not instant but certainly fatal). And from this point the forensic evidence intensified. So tell me Chris, how does someone, without any doubt, weak and disorientated put up that massive fight? And as above, weakly and feebly trying, if able to protect themselves NOT physically, have any capability of fighting back.
This is where actual evidence is important but it is ignored on repeat. There was absolutely no evidence of the following:
i) Nothing of evidence of anyone being accosted on that path and forced over any wall, of any altercation directly on the other side of that wall. Everything contained NW to W of that V break. Ending some 43ft down from it.
ii) Nothing of evidence of anyone being accosted in any other area of that woodland strip and being forced down into that area off the beaten track. It started and stopped in the specific area.
iii) No evidence along with absolutely no viable reason as to why that girl would have, not only wandered into there (strip of woodland), but then into that area off the beaten track that led nowhere.
iv) The ludicrous notion therefore, that any opportunist would be lying in wait in an area, that held zero reality of any random young girl just wandering in to it.
v) We know this girl tried to run from that nutter, this would have happened at any point, on path, in that lane, in the top end E of that break, that is after placing one massive IF around why she would be there in the first instance.
vi) Senses and awareness. We know this girl had no phone, no security or back up. We can then apply her senses being on full alert, IF in isolated areas. So we can attempt to apply a blow happening out of that area with no proof, no forensic evidence of then being dragged into that area off the beaten track. Nothing, it begun and ended where the masses of forensic evidence tell us it did.
Bleaching the scene? N, E and S, utter nonsense. That high tech equipment picking up the forensic evidence along with dogs following the evidence/scent of what was picked up. Picked up more in the woodlands on the other side of Newbattle Road. That nutter did not escape, N, S or E. Everything was contained to that area and W.
You are further correct Chris around the difficulties of finding DNA of an attacker with copious amounts of the victims. Very much the reason why LM's was of no value. There was none of his nor anyone else from testing of nails. (Not interested in the claims that wrong testing MAY have been carried out). Neither was there any blood found from an attacker anywhere else in that area, such as catching themselves and scratching themselves upon branches.
So nothing of LM from the victim attacking back and managing to scratch or grasp hair as you state. But we still do not ignore the presence of his DNA along with the further findings by the SCCRC. All blanked and washed over.
-
……., perhaps no one else is touching it for the front and deception being pushed out is just that. - Gaining support by way of deceit.
Sandra ‘diabolical’ Lean and her projections
👇
Sandra Lean https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10224551052176405/
I was thinking about journalism today and, in particular, the role journalists play in wrongful convictions. I’ve met some fine journalists, who adhere faithfully to the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct, who go above and beyond to expose injustice and wrongdoing in organisations and authorities.
But I also know of some not-so-fine, some not-fine-at-all and some downright diabolical journalists. (And yes, I chose the word diabolical quite deliberately.) Here are some of the codes of conduct required to be a journalist – and some examples of how the diabolicals openly flout (or, indeed, outright ignore) them.
In the interests of fairness, I am not naming these diabolicals – I am not even using initials and I would ask, for the moment, that anyone who thinks they recognise any individuals fitting this definition of diabolical, also does not use names or initials.
According to the NuJ Code of conduct, a journalist:
(a) At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
Diabolicals twist this code to defend their own agenda – they uphold and defend freedom of expression when it supports them, but go out of their way to silence critics or even those who simply disagree with them – that includes mainstream journalists trawling social media for opportunities to silence detractors. They make their own decisions about what the public should be informed about ... and what they should not - especially if the latter would undermine the diabolical's narrative.
(b) Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
Diabolicals quite deliberately report inaccurate, misleading, unfair and outright dishonest information and tout it as “truth.”
(c) Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
Diabolicals defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse).
(d) Differentiates between fact and opinion.
Diabolicals appear to be incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact.
(e) Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
Diabolicals don’t care about grief, distress or privacy. They will use the grief and distress of devastated families, very often on both sides of the justice debate, simply to further their own aims.
(f) Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Diabolicals thrive on stirring up hatred and discrimination against their chosen subjects. They will quite deliberately connect pieces of unrelated information to smear chosen individuals.
(g) A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
Diabolicals will exploit and manipulate photographs or interviews of minors, demonising and dehumanising children, simply to meet the diabolical’s own narrative. Concern for the wellbeing/welfare of children is entirely dependent on their own definition of "deserving" and "undeserving" child.
Next time you're reading (or watching) a media article, ask yourself - is this a journalist - or a diabolical?
-
Sandra Lean https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10224551052176405/
Diabolicals thrive on stirring up hatred and discrimination against their chosen subjects. They will quite deliberately connect pieces of unrelated information to smear chosen individuals.
Like her (Sandra Lean’s) ‘pored/poured’ nonsense referred to here ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg652849#msg652849
‘She was wrong. The print copy had the correct spelling. - Ms Lean went on to say "glad to see that Jane Hamilton has corrected the spelling" - implying after she had pointed it out to her.
Whilst it may sound trivial picking Ms Lean up on this - but not as trivial and wrong of Ms Lean in the first instance to use it to mock Jane Hamilton. - And the relevant point of course being - that Ms Lean will not admit to wrong.
-
perhaps no one else is touching it for the front and deception being pushed out is just that. - Gaining support by way of deceit.
Fraud = intentional deceit
I remain of the firm view charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean deliberately attempts to conceal, mislead and misinterpret the details in this, and other cases
-
Sandra Lean https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10224551052176405/
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Sandra Lean is attempting to suggest psychopathic serial killer Levi Bellfield was responsible for psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell plus the murder of Lucy the Russell families dog
-
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Sandra Lean is attempting to suggest psychopathic serial killer Levi Bellfield was responsible for psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell plus the murder of Lucy their dog
Barbara Stone being serial killer Michael Stone’s sister
‘Stone's sister Barbara, who has always protested her brother's innocence of the Russell murders, said in 1998 that she believed he had indeed killed Jegou, stating: "I don't think he killed Lin and Megan Russell. But I do think he did that murder when he was younger." Explaining, she commented: "When I was about 14 Mick came up to me with a knife in a sheath. He said I was to hide it for him and I buried it. At the time I was just a kid and did what my big brother told me. Years later he said he knew something about the murder. I knew he was up to no good. The killing was his style - it was done by two or more people and Mick never acted alone. It would have been done to get money and, again, that's something he'd have done."
Francis Jegou was a special police constable
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/HORROR+IN+COURT%3A+POLICEMAN+RELIVES+ATTACK+THAT+SUMS+UP+STONE%27S...-a060925549
-
Diabolicals quite deliberately report inaccurate, misleading, unfair and outright dishonest information and tout it as “truth.”
Diabolicals defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse).
Diabolicals appear to be incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact.
Diabolicals don’t care about grief, distress or privacy. They will use the grief and distress of devastated families, very often on both sides of the justice debate, simply to further their own aims.
It's my day off Nicholas, no shirt has been ruined in the reading of that very diabolical statement.
One of my points around this not matching samples to the correct report:
P:202 of IB. "-----It was (and still is) virtually impossible to tell which results correspond to items originally labelled "visible", or "not visible", or neither"
To:
"Semen staining on the inside left sleeve of the t-shirt appears to have been visible to the naked eye. It is unlikely that a 14-year-old girl would go out to meet her boyfriend with visible semen staining on it. Since the t-shirt reportedly smelled of washing powder, indicating it was freshly laundered, the conclusion would have to be that the visible stains on Jodi's clothing were deposited either during or after attack - in no way can it be claimed, for example, that a visible semen stain on a t-shirt got there by transfer in a washing machine or rainwater"
(P:202 IB)
"Incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact" Furthered with this male, by claiming for many years he had no alibi, that he had only been in the company of his girlfriend JaJ's. Pulled up on this and reminded of the facts, one (SL) said it reality, it did not count that he had been alibied by his father, as she claimed not to have seen that statement from RK. Pulled up again, with the information in their own statements along with precognitions carried out, one still would not accept wrong. Stating that this alibi did not come about until statement X. So we have "defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with the factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse)"
The boys on the bike another brief example, pulled up repeatedly with the absolute facts of this impossibility, that no V break can be seen from anywhere other than on the path itself. Knowing for a fact the inaccuracy of this claim, but the "diabolical" journalists printed something, so it is OK to use inaccuracies, knowing they are, and again the defence of never being in the wrong. The original of this claim/statement was of being "close to" from an employee of BTH. To then posing a question as an answer, with 'A tractor in the field could have seen the bike?' The same thing of late has been going on around that claimed witness and the identify of the mystery man?
I do wonder what it actually says in statements and testimony of how SK's semen came (no pun intended) to be on JaJ's t-shirt. Directly or a 'cloot' perhaps? The trouble once more with no contents/context. Does it matter? well it does where deception/bias is the name of the game? Certainly that it was proved and accepted to have gotten there innocently and washing machine/rain water transferal certainly happens, it did take place.
So, a couple of very basic yet damaging examples to innocents. With of course that pre-disposed "I make no apologies -----------" For the blame for any upset, any harm is laid at the feet of the system, the police and not the fault of the author if any "grief, distress or privacy" Issues arise from one's "truth" being put, born from "opinion?"
And as always and by invite of the author to "make of it what you will" And I invite the author publicly here to explain in full where and whom exactly did her chapter on "Agreed Facts" come from. Who on earth "agreed" all these so called "facts?" Does she agree that perhaps one may be describing themselves in parts with that statement? I am not accusing, just expressing opinion here and offer a response directly from her?
-
We leave out basic sense and logic of course here. That a stain that "APPEARS" to have been visible in whatever minute format, on the underside of a sleeve, even IF seen by a 14-year old girl, is HARDLY going to be connecting it to a semen stain. What exactly is the author trying to imply her around Jodi Jones? Perhaps her own girls were very clued up on such matters at this age, perhaps not? That they would be recognizing a semen stain from any other type of staining, sweat perhaps from the arm pit of a t-shirt?
-
Below statements (in blue ) by charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean
👇
Diabolicals quite deliberately report inaccurate, misleading, unfair and outright dishonest information and tout it as “truth.”
Diabolicals defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse).
Diabolicals appear to be incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact.
Diabolicals don’t care about grief, distress or privacy. They will use the grief and distress of devastated families, very often on both sides of the justice debate, simply to further their own aims.
It's my day off Nicholas, no shirt has been ruined in the reading of that very diabolical statement.
There’s more 🤦♀️
👇
Sandra Lean
Ronnie Mothersole The problem, Ronnie, is that if we take a route that involves restricting journalists, it would, inevitably, end up being used in the opposite direction - to silence those trying to expose wrongdoing.
The best we can hope for is to apply pressure to bring individuals to account for provable misrepresentation and outright lies. It can only be done one journalist at a time, so it's a tedious and time consuming process (I suspect some of the worst diabolicals know that and rely on people just throwing in the towel because it's such a difficult process).
I'm looking at different ways to do this, but I'm not going to make any public comment just yet - no point in alerting anyone and giving them the opportunity to pre-empt, or cover their tracks, is there????
See ➡️ https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383104.html#msg383104 (20 diversion tactics)
-
We leave out basic sense and logic of course here. That a stain that "APPEARS" to have been visible in whatever minute format, on the underside of a sleeve, even IF seen by a 14-year old girl, is HARDLY going to be connecting it to a semen stain. What exactly is the author trying to imply her around Jodi Jones? Perhaps her own girls were very clued up on such matters at this age, perhaps not? That they would be recognizing a semen stain from any other type of staining, sweat perhaps from the arm pit of a t-shirt?
A 14 year old girl who was having a sexual relationship with her boyfriend and with the knowledge that brings. TBH unless that 14 year old had stained the t-shirt herself, no matter what that stain was, I can’t see her wearing a soiled garment through choice.
-
We leave out basic sense and logic of course here. That a stain that "APPEARS" to have been visible in whatever minute format, on the underside of a sleeve, even IF seen by a 14-year old girl, is HARDLY going to be connecting it to a semen stain. What exactly is the author trying to imply her around Jodi Jones? Perhaps her own girls were very clued up on such matters at this age, perhaps not? That they would be recognizing a semen stain from any other type of staining, sweat perhaps from the arm pit of a t-shirt?
Wilma Millar has posted a copy of the page from charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean’s 2nd book which includes her ‘APPEARS to have been..’ statement, it reads;
‘Semen staining on the inside left sleeve of the t-shirt appears to have been visible to the naked eye’
*&^^&
-
A 14 year old girl who was having a sexual relationship with her boyfriend and with the knowledge that brings. TBH unless that 14 year old had stained the t-shirt herself, no matter what that stain was, I can’t see her wearing a soiled garment through choice.
And contrary to charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean’s ‘..in no way can it be claimed, for example, that a visible semen stain on a t-shirt got there by transfer in a washing machine or rainwater‘
There’s no evidence any semen stain was ‘visible to the naked eye’
*&^^&
-
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Sandra Lean is attempting to suggest psychopathic serial killer Levi Bellfield was responsible for psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie Russell plus the murder of Lucy the Russell families dog
Michael Stone was a couple of years older than teenage killer Luke Mitchell when he committed his first murder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Michael Stone apparently fantasised about murder and was reported to have pleaded for help
’Five days before the Russell murders, she told police he had told her he was going to kill. Entry after entry in his medical notes included murderous threats, fantasies of torture, and names of those who had done him wrong.
There was no hospital place for him: the only bed that could be found was not deemed secure enough for such a mentally unstable man. And so, not for the first time, he slipped through the net. He was violent, suffered from a psychopathic personality disorder and had a long criminal record.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-russell-murders-stone-fantasised-about-killing-and-pleaded-for-help-1180131.html
Part 14 of Quite A Hall Tale (http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/the-innocence-fraud-con-of-a-killer-his-enablers/) dropping soon and include references to some of killer Simon Hall’s fantasises
-
Barbara Stone being serial killer Michael Stone’s sister
‘Stone's sister Barbara, who has always protested her brother's innocence of the Russell murders, said in 1998 that she believed he had indeed killed Jegou, stating: "I don't think he killed Lin and Megan Russell. But I do think he did that murder when he was younger." Explaining, she commented: "When I was about 14 Mick came up to me with a knife in a sheath. He said I was to hide it for him and I buried it. At the time I was just a kid and did what my big brother told me. Years later he said he knew something about the murder. I knew he was up to no good. The killing was his style - it was done by two or more people and Mick never acted alone. It would have been done to get money and, again, that's something he'd have done."
Francis Jegou was a special police constable
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/HORROR+IN+COURT%3A+POLICEMAN+RELIVES+ATTACK+THAT+SUMS+UP+STONE%27S...-a060925549
Further reference to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone who Sandra Lean claimed to Stone’s sister Barbara on Facebook
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
’On 4 July 1996, he went for an appointment at the Trevor Gibbons unit, where he threatened to kill his probation officer. Shortly before he was arrested for the Russell murders, he threatened to kill his sister Barbara and one of her children and smashed up her car.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-russell-murders-stone-fantasised-about-killing-and-pleaded-for-help-1180131.html
-
And as always and by invite of the author to "make of it what you will" And I invite the author publicly here to explain in full where and whom exactly did her chapter on "Agreed Facts" come from. Who on earth "agreed" all these so called "facts?"
I don’t know if Sandra Lean has ever had a brain scan or been tested for psychopathy but she is too much of a coward to post on this forum
-
Michael Stone was a couple of years older than teenage killer Luke Mitchell when he committed his first murder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Michael Stone apparently fantasised about murder and was reported to have pleaded for help
’Five days before the Russell murders, she told police he had told her he was going to kill. Entry after entry in his medical notes included murderous threats, fantasies of torture, and names of those who had done him wrong.
There was no hospital place for him: the only bed that could be found was not deemed secure enough for such a mentally unstable man. And so, not for the first time, he slipped through the net. He was violent, suffered from a psychopathic personality disorder and had a long criminal record.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-russell-murders-stone-fantasised-about-killing-and-pleaded-for-help-1180131.html
Part 14 of Quite A Hall Tale (http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/the-innocence-fraud-con-of-a-killer-his-enablers/) dropping soon and include references to some of killer Simon Hall’s fantasises
Anne Raffarty, who prosecuted psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone, presided over Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial and seemingly wasn’t aware of Simon Hall’s relationship with Stephanie Bon when he committed his murder of Joan Albert - see Part 14 of Quite A Hall Tale (https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/the-innocence-fraud-con-of-a-killer-his-enablers/)
‘THE man accused of the brutal hammer murders of Lin and Megan Russell boasted of the killings to fellow prisoners, a court was told yesterday.
Jobless Michael Stone allegedly told how he tied up Lin and daughters Megan and Josie, smashed their skulls and beat their dog Lucy to death. And he bragged of getting a huge sexual thrill as he held the little girls' swimming costumes, the jury heard.
‘Stone, 38, was arrested a year later in July 1997 and confessed to two prisoners while remanded in custody, said prosecutor Ann Rafferty QC.
"He spoke of smashing an egg, of tying them up with wet towels although he hadn't needed to as they were out of the game." Stone - said to have demanded money from the family - dismissed them as "paupers", the jury was told.
Miss Rafferty added: "He constantly called them slags and whores."
He told one prisoner, identified only as Daly, that "one of them had tried to get away but didn't get far.
"He wanted one of them to watch but she closed her eyes so he hit her again and she squirmed.
"One of the girls was disobedient and they hadn't got what he wanted."
Daly had intervened when other lags hurled abuse at Stone in Canterbury prison, said Miss Rafferty. She added: "Daly was upset and said he would tell the screws what Stone told him.
"But Stone was confident that he would not be believed and he would soon be freed because they had nothing on him."
Stone made another confession to a prisoner called Barry Thompson, Miss Rafferty told Maidstone Crown Court in Kent.
"There was a discussion between the two of them about these murders and about the identification parade that was coming up shortly afterwards."
Miss Rafferty said there was "bitterness and acrimony" between the two and Stone allegedly said: "I made a mistake with her. I won't make the same mistake with you."
She told the jury: "You will want to consider whether that is a reference to Josie."
Miss Rafferty said: "There is no scientific evidence to link Stone to the scene."
But motorist Nicola Burchell helped police compile an E-fit picture of the driver of a car she had followed near the scene.
She did not pick out Stone at an identity parade but told officers he looked familiar.
Miss Rafferty said that Stone also claimed in his prison confession: "But for that slag I would have been OK. She picked me."
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+KILLED+LIN+AND+MEGAN%3B+Court+hears+of+jobless+man%27s+jail...-a060628827
Sandra Lean I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
*&^^&
-
Further reference to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone who Sandra Lean claimed to Stone’s sister Barbara on Facebook
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
’On 4 July 1996, he went for an appointment at the Trevor Gibbons unit, where he threatened to kill his probation officer. Shortly before he was arrested for the Russell murders, he threatened to kill his sister Barbara and one of her children and smashed up her car.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-russell-murders-stone-fantasised-about-killing-and-pleaded-for-help-1180131.html
’In other evidence yesterday Ms Rafferty said there was a slight semen stain on the outside of Josie's pants but it was too small for DNA testing and was unlikely to have been there as a result of ejaculation.’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/josie-recalls-bid-to-escape-from-killer-1176972.html
http://www.michaelstone.co.uk/stone/autopsy.pdf
-
I do wonder what it actually says in statements and testimony of how SK's semen came (no pun intended) to be on JaJ's t-shirt.
Charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean is not a trusted source for sure
-
Directly or a 'cloot' perhaps?
By ‘ cloot’ do you mean the t-shirt could have been used in a similar way to a washcloth ?
-
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
Like killer Simon Hall, Michael Stone confessed numerous times to his murders of Lin, Megan & Lucy Russell and to the attempted murder of Josie Russell but enablers like Mark McDonald - who also represents serial killer Ben Geen - and who bare faced lied during channel 4’s TV show called ‘Nurses who kill’, appear to get a kick out of attempting to dupe unsuspecting members of the public
Mark McDonald sat wearing the red coloured shirt of the left (As you view the video), with Sandra Lean on the right ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDXHhXamUuo
Allan Jamieson, who was also involved in the last ever Rough Justice TV show on killer and ‘innocence’ fraudster Simon Hall, seated next to Sandra Lean
Kevin McMahon, who also appears in the video, was convicted of perverting the course of justice for pressurising a witness in a sex abuse case to retract their statement before an appeal hearing
👇
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/ex-policeman-claimed-private-detective-2928149
-
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.
‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)
Sandra Lean was responding to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s sister Barbara who had stated;
Barbara Stone
Sandra Lean I notice the diabolicals are not saying much now we have caught the real murderer and Mick is still inside I d like a front page that read 'let Mick out hes innocent' of course the hearts messing with my common sense
Barbara Stone then added a post which read ‘heat’
-
Sandra Lean was responding to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s sister Barbara who had stated;
Barbara Stone
Sandra Lean I notice the diabolicals are not saying much now we have caught the real murderer and Mick is still inside I d like a front page that read 'let Mick out hes innocent' of course the hearts messing with my common sense
Barbara Stone then added a post which read ‘heat’
The same Barbara Stone who, when referring to speaking with the media, used the term ‘to go and play’
Barbara Stone
Just going to do an interview. Checklist: Have I emptied the jars on bathroom window?
Do my shoes match trousers? Have I cussed Mick for putting me through? Yes everything in order I ll be off soon ×
Kevin McMahon
Have you had a hair makeover?😂😂
Barbara Stone
Just trying g to organise and I defo thought of you and Ron. Do everytime I have to go and play x
(Sic) (https://www.facebook.com/groups/487090761485587/permalink/1777870049074312/)
Sounds about right 🙄
Kevin McMahon is an ex police officer who ‘claimed to be a private investigator’ and was done for perverting the course of justice
-
Parky41,
Dan Krane and coauthors wrote in a 2008 letter, "The interpretation of an evidentiary DNA profile should not be influenced by information about a suspect’s DNA profile (3-6). Each item of evidence must be interpreted independently of other items of evidence or reference samples."
You referred to "his DNA," by which I assume that you mean Luke's DNA. There is zero evidence of Luke's DNA at the scene of the crime. Because my reasons for saying so are spread out over several comments, I will summarize. One cannot take a multi-person mixture and compare it with reference profiles. This is called "suspect-centered" analysis, and it is generally considered an invalid method of analysis. See for example the quote above. Finding someone's alleles in a mixture is not equivalent to including them as a contributor. I can find no evidence that the software that helps in interpretation of mixtures of moderate complexity existed circa 2005. As the number of contributors increases, the problem gets worse.
-
Chris, I understand fully what you are saying;
That acceptance and agreement from those better placed with the full intact picture of "everything" answers most of it.
Tomato/tomahto Chris? - I have been saying this all along when applied to something being used as evidence. The very essence of that agreement, was to not waste time on something that was not being used as evidence. The pointless, futile task of doing what would have had to be done, such as going through it one by one, each interpreted independently in it's own right.
The infamous pair of trousers and bra strap (not the everything), and any work around what tests may or not have been carried out with the latter around mixed profiles. Again, not being put forward as connected to the murder. Introduced around LM as it had to be for the agreement to then take place, to leave aside that which was not going to be used as evidence to do with the actual murder.
We can keep applying the same in different formats, it means the same. Evidence of the presence of LM's DNA upon his girlfriend but no DNA evidence connecting him to the murder, directly to him being present at the scene of the murder whilst it was taken place, nor anyone else's.
Such is the desire and actual interest in the truth, people fail continuously to actually read wording over inference nor to check. There should be questions placed here around that agreement, not this nonsense acceptance of it being made, to 'not discuss DNA/forensics in general' Such is the reason given by LM according to the author? What should be getting asked?
Who is this source that made LM aware of that agreement? - The source is direct, present when it was made at his trial. The source being the Crown and defence.
Therefore, why is it applied as "another source" and not who the actual source was? Because, when we apply it was directly made in his presence, then we apply the actual reason, the truth of why it was made. - Such is that wonderful language of deception, is it not?
Never ceases to amaze me that acceptance of having half the male population of Midlothian with DNA upon this girl/clothing, but not her own boyfriend? But there you have it, exactly what is being claimed in that attempt to have everything applied to stranger DNA.
But as you say, you do not know the details of said agreement, nor it would seem question the rather vague knowledge around LM of it and source? Instead opting for multiple reasons and choosing option ? That it may have been made in favour of the Crown to silence the defence? From introducing all this wonderful stranger DNA? And again, without placing DF upon some pedestal, one certainly has to apply the notion of him having his hands tied so firmly behind his back, they appear to have caught fast that zip one has placed up it? (Not you) If we go continuously along with Joe Blogs, do we not?
-
Did the forensic team that was deployed to this case also scour the woodland areas behind the gate where LM was spotted by LF & RW? Did they find any blood trails there? Also, at the locus, were there any traces of blood to the east of the V? Or were all the traces obtained found strictly to the west of the V, contained within that 16.3 metres west of the V where Jodi's body was found? Were there any traces of blood further down west of the woodland strip on the Roan's Dyke Path?
-
Just a little bit of 'dumb and dumber' going on once more, perfect deflection tactic however, and very much in line with ? The only real relevance, as is highlighted in the post, is it does not take pages of a book to explain the case was circumstantial. My post was not about having evidence that could have convicted LM, you are living in the pages of waffle of thee book.
The point and the real relevance is the deception going on between these three 'craws?' That of why the agreement was made, does not quite have the same ring to it however, does it? Of an agreement was made to not include, non incriminating DNA of Mitchells, pointless time consuming exercise. When it is obvious that the reason for the agreement is being side lined to hide the fact, that there was not a scrap of forensic evidence pointing this murder to A another. Two donors, trace transferal, LM and SK. The discussion around SK's highlighting just how easily DNA can be present, from a bodily fluid substance that was not the murderer. And again, the presence of SK's DNA, which was shown without doubt, not to have been left at the time of the murder, from someone who was not the victims boyfriend. All just a tad contradictory would it not have been? To then attempt to show that the presence of LM's DNA, who was in an intimate relationship with the victim was left there from the murder? - Therefore, the ONLY DNA that needed explaining was from SK. That LM's was of absolutely no value to the Crowns case, thus circumstantial evidence only. No blood, no bumps, no scrapes found upon LM, his home and so forth.
Yet, and not surprisingly of course, those claims without the slightest proof, that LM had been wearing the same clothes from school that day, taken from him in the early hours of July the 1st. His mother stating every detail of those clothes. The DNA of Mitchells present, and naturally so upon the victims clothing. Yet nothing of Jodi, on those clothes? That top she just loved so much, her favourite LM claimed. The impression given that it was manky and unwashed, falling off his back type thing? - Yet nothing, even after their intimate time together at school. Or perhaps we just simply do not get to know of those test results, perhaps there is a lot more to that agreement, of 'innocent DNA' -
So yes, the point is the deception, the point is punting out this 'nothing, nada' as fact, applying it to stranger DNA, just a little ironic to say the least. But above all you are being spun a yarn and you are spinning more of it. But some realism, applying that which is realistic would serve better, would it not? For this complete OTT nonsense, that 'half a Mars bar' situ, that typical liar syndrome of 'black is white' which serves to produce comments of late, such as "If the police had did their Job properly, then DF would not have been able to ask people if they had murdered Jodi!" - This is the main support, the blind. Who churn this nonsense up, spit it back out with all sorts of nonsense. Or "The Jury should be ashamed of themselves finding someone guilty with no evidence" - And you, yourself are prime in this, with this "wafer thin case"
Where they are actually answering their own query, highlighting just how much of a yarn they are being spun. That any defence asking someone if they had been the culprit is NOT because they believe they are, but more so, that it is because of the honesty, and the thoroughness of the investigation side (SL blinded to, to a degree), that one was able to put that question to anyone. Full disclosure, transparency, investigating these individuals to the max - to close those doors from the defence, leaving them with every single thing found, to do with SK, JF, and GD. The police did not leave unanswered questions, and the Crown made sure there were none.
And enough with the contradictions? This 'no forensic tests were carried out unless to do with Mitchell' - What about that whopping big knife, boots and jacket, those gloves, condoms in caves and the list really is endless. This utter nonsense of 'no reportable results' Well we have seen the honesty laid bare with the denial of reason for that agreement. We know without a shadow of a doubt, that the actual truth is being hidden in this ultimate bias. Each point contradicting the other. Cherry picking areas of those results to push out, to manipulate them into something completely false. As with everything of course, only sounds the part for those who typically fall under "none so blind as those who will not see" Who pick up the inference rather than the wording.
So yes, this, whopping great big knife with no results, well it was blood, that is a result. But it really does not matter does it, the size of this knife, the jacket and boots, for what it was not, was the victims blood, and no it was not inconclusive, it was the only thing they were testing for. Which animal?, goodness knows, and who cares, it was not the blood of Jodi Jones. From this 'person of interest'. It's dramatic, one will give you that, really grabs the attention of those, who soak this up, churn it round and spit it back out with additives. The author may bank upon the wider public who know little of this case, also knows of course that people are not mute, are they? This 'person of interest' with that whopping big knife, does have a tongue!
Suzy says;
“I have, from the beginning, never believed that Luke Mitchell committed this henious crime.
I have, for years, studied everything that is in the public domain regarding this case and I have to say that it’s just confirming my fears that this is Scotland’s biggest miscarriage of justice.
The author of this blog, to me, sounds angry, very angry. This blog has not changed my thoughts of almost 20 years now. I still firmly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent!“
(See comment at foot 👇)
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-19/
-
Just a little bit of 'dumb and dumber' going on once more, perfect deflection tactic however, and very much in line with ? The only real relevance, as is highlighted in the post, is it does not take pages of a book to explain the case was circumstantial. My post was not about having evidence that could have convicted LM, you are living in the pages of waffle of thee book.
The point and the real relevance is the deception going on between these three 'craws?' That of why the agreement was made, does not quite have the same ring to it however, does it? Of an agreement was made to not include, non incriminating DNA of Mitchells, pointless time consuming exercise. When it is obvious that the reason for the agreement is being side lined to hide the fact, that there was not a scrap of forensic evidence pointing this murder to A another. Two donors, trace transferal, LM and SK. The discussion around SK's highlighting just how easily DNA can be present, from a bodily fluid substance that was not the murderer. And again, the presence of SK's DNA, which was shown without doubt, not to have been left at the time of the murder, from someone who was not the victims boyfriend. All just a tad contradictory would it not have been? To then attempt to show that the presence of LM's DNA, who was in an intimate relationship with the victim was left there from the murder? - Therefore, the ONLY DNA that needed explaining was from SK. That LM's was of absolutely no value to the Crowns case, thus circumstantial evidence only. No blood, no bumps, no scrapes found upon LM, his home and so forth.
Yet, and not surprisingly of course, those claims without the slightest proof, that LM had been wearing the same clothes from school that day, taken from him in the early hours of July the 1st. His mother stating every detail of those clothes. The DNA of Mitchells present, and naturally so upon the victims clothing. Yet nothing of Jodi, on those clothes? That top she just loved so much, her favourite LM claimed. The impression given that it was manky and unwashed, falling off his back type thing? - Yet nothing, even after their intimate time together at school. Or perhaps we just simply do not get to know of those test results, perhaps there is a lot more to that agreement, of 'innocent DNA' -
So yes, the point is the deception, the point is punting out this 'nothing, nada' as fact, applying it to stranger DNA, just a little ironic to say the least. But above all you are being spun a yarn and you are spinning more of it. But some realism, applying that which is realistic would serve better, would it not? For this complete OTT nonsense, that 'half a Mars bar' situ, that typical liar syndrome of 'black is white' which serves to produce comments of late, such as "If the police had did their Job properly, then DF would not have been able to ask people if they had murdered Jodi!" - This is the main support, the blind. Who churn this nonsense up, spit it back out with all sorts of nonsense. Or "The Jury should be ashamed of themselves finding someone guilty with no evidence" - And you, yourself are prime in this, with this "wafer thin case"
Where they are actually answering their own query, highlighting just how much of a yarn they are being spun. That any defence asking someone if they had been the culprit is NOT because they believe they are, but more so, that it is because of the honesty, and the thoroughness of the investigation side (SL blinded to, to a degree), that one was able to put that question to anyone. Full disclosure, transparency, investigating these individuals to the max - to close those doors from the defence, leaving them with every single thing found, to do with SK, JF, and GD. The police did not leave unanswered questions, and the Crown made sure there were none.
And enough with the contradictions? This 'no forensic tests were carried out unless to do with Mitchell' - What about that whopping big knife, boots and jacket, those gloves, condoms in caves and the list really is endless. This utter nonsense of 'no reportable results' Well we have seen the honesty laid bare with the denial of reason for that agreement. We know without a shadow of a doubt, that the actual truth is being hidden in this ultimate bias. Each point contradicting the other. Cherry picking areas of those results to push out, to manipulate them into something completely false. As with everything of course, only sounds the part for those who typically fall under "none so blind as those who will not see" Who pick up the inference rather than the wording.
So yes, this, whopping great big knife with no results, well it was blood, that is a result. But it really does not matter does it, the size of this knife, the jacket and boots, for what it was not, was the victims blood, and no it was not inconclusive, it was the only thing they were testing for. Which animal?, goodness knows, and who cares, it was not the blood of Jodi Jones. From this 'person of interest'. It's dramatic, one will give you that, really grabs the attention of those, who soak this up, churn it round and spit it back out with additives. The author may bank upon the wider public who know little of this case, also knows of course that people are not mute, are they? This 'person of interest' with that whopping big knife, does have a tongue!
Suzy says;
“I have, from the beginning, never believed that Luke Mitchell committed this henious crime.
I have, for years, studied everything that is in the public domain regarding this case and I have to say that it’s just confirming my fears that this is Scotland’s biggest miscarriage of justice.
The author of this blog, to me, sounds angry, very angry. This blog has not changed my thoughts of almost 20 years now. I still firmly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent!”
(See foot here 👇)
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-19/
-
Suzy says;
“I have, from the beginning, never believed that Luke Mitchell committed this henious crime.
I have, for years, studied everything that is in the public domain regarding this case and I have to say that it’s just confirming my fears that this is Scotland’s biggest miscarriage of justice.
The author of this blog, to me, sounds angry, very angry. This blog has not changed my thoughts of almost 20 years now. I still firmly believe that Luke Mitchell is innocent!“
(See comment at foot )
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/25/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-19/
Really, she has studied everything that is in the public domain?
If that were the case then she would have no doubt as to Mitchell's guilt but hey ho, it takes all sorts @)(++(*
Nicholas, I bet there was a time you said the same thing about Simon Hall and you were privy to both public and private info?
Hall duped you as he did Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, the Innocence Project and many others. He even had my support initially before the evidence began to crumble. And when I began to support his conviction you turned on me. Remember?
-
Hall duped you as he did Sandra Lean, Billy Middleton, the Innocence Project and many others.
I doubt he duped innocence fraud pusher Sandra Lean, un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton and that fraudster Michael Naughton who set up the innocence project.
I do think he duped Gabe Tan
-
Really, she has studied everything that is in the public domain?
Wonder how Suzy became involved in the innocence fraud group?
20 years? Wow
Is she a ‘friend’ of Sandra Lean’s?
-
And when I began to support his conviction you turned on me. Remember?
I had already become wary of you John after you decided to publish my private address details
I do however apologise for turning on you back then
Didn’t you question his reported ‘murder confession’ John?
He had of course already ‘confessed’ to his murder years earlier - which I was not aware of
-
I had already become wary of you John after you decided to publish my private address details
I do however apologise for turning on you back then
Didn’t you question his reported ‘murder confession’ John?
He had of course already ‘confessed’ to his murder years earlier - which I was not aware of
John published your private address details?
-
Nicholas, I bet there was a time you said the same thing about Simon Hall and you were privy to both public and private info?
Con-artist Sandra Lean appears to also be telling anyone who will listen to her killer Simon Hall was innocent
*&^^&
The Truth Behind Killer Simon Hall & His Enablers #InnocenceFraud Phenomenon Scam
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-truth-behind-killer-simon-hall-and-his-enablers-innocence-fraud-phenomenon-scam-%ef%b8%8f/
-
Did LM get lucky that he never left at least 1 lock of his straight shoulder-lengthhair at the locus? Or did he have the balaclava on/hood up on the parka jacket as he attacked Jodi, which prevented any of his head hair to shed? Or is it odd that none of his hair was there, meaning it could've potentially been a stranger? Obviously, if a lot of LM's head hair was present at the locus, that would be deemed as incriminating, but would only a few strands of his hair, if found at the locus, be incriminating? Or to be expected, since they were in an intimate relationship (and this is a hypothetical scenario inclusive of his hair being found anywhere at the locus, including on Jodi's body)? Finally, if there was nothing obvious pointing towards LM's DNA being at the locus, and only many partial profiles, would it have been argued that some of the markers must have been LM's, since he was in an intimate relationship with the deceased? Or, would they have focused more on a stranger? Btw, those 2 tiny previously undiscovered dna samples found on the top of Jodi's trousers by the sscrc -- who did they belong to?
Also, was it ever revealed what DNA was found on LM's shiny green bomber jacket with the orange lining? It would be odd if Jodi's DNA wasn't present on that.
-
Did LM get lucky that he never left at least 1 lock of his straight shoulder-lengthhair at the locus? Or did he have the balaclava on/hood up on the parka jacket as he attacked Jodi, which prevented any of his head hair to shed? Or is it odd that none of his hair was there, meaning it could've potentially been a stranger? Obviously, if a lot of LM's head hair was present at the locus, that would be deemed as incriminating, but would only a few strands of his hair, if found at the locus, be incriminating? Or to be expected, since they were in an intimate relationship (and this is a hypothetical scenario inclusive of his hair being found anywhere at the locus, including on Jodi's body)? Finally, if there was nothing obvious pointing towards LM's DNA being at the locus, and only many partial profiles, would it have been argued that some of the markers must have been LM's, since he was in an intimate relationship with the deceased? Or, would they have focused more on a stranger? Btw, those 2 tiny previously undiscovered dna samples found on the top of Jodi's trousers by the sscrc -- who did they belong to?
Also, was it ever revealed what DNA was found on LM's shiny green bomber jacket with the orange lining? It would be odd if Jodi's DNA wasn't present on that.
I think that was why he was so keen to get over the wall to discover the body so he could claim he was already there if anything was found he could have said he ruffled his hair.
-
Did LM get lucky that he never left at least 1 lock of his straight shoulder-lengthhair at the locus? Or did he have the balaclava on/hood up on the parka jacket as he attacked Jodi, which prevented any of his head hair to shed?
Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell was forensically aware
And his attack on Kara Van Null occurred a month before his murder
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/
What happened to his balaclava?
Did he burn it in the back garden in the wood burner ?
And is that why Corinne Mitchell pretended during the trial she had been burning pampas’s grass that night - in June ?
-
I think that was why he was so keen to get over the wall to discover the body so he could claim he was already there if anything was found he could have said he ruffled his hair.
The same could be said of SK….and DNA from him was certainly on Jodi.
-
The same could be said of SK….and DNA from him was certainly on Jodi.
Not really. LM directed the searchers to the body and was first over the wall after introducing the Gino break. Of course any male would go over the V to confirm. SK was alibied by numerous sources several miles away at 5/6pm. His DNA was on a t-shirt she wore that was borrowed from JaJ, nothing more. I dont think even Lean & Forbes suggest he had anything to do with it.
-
I think that was why he was so keen to get over the wall to discover the body so he could claim he was already there if anything was found he could have said he ruffled his hair.
He stayed over that wall the longest of all
Had he climbed back over to the path side when he phoned the police or did he stay over the other side when he phoned them?
Anyone know?
-
Not really. LM directed the searchers to the body and was first over the wall after introducing the Gino break. Of course any male would go over the V to confirm. SK was alibied by numerous sources several miles away at 5/6pm. His DNA was on a t-shirt she wore that was borrowed from JaJ, nothing more. I dont think even Lean & Forbes suggest he had anything to do with it.
And I’m not suggesting he did either. I’m simply applying your supposition to others. I believe SK was alibied by JaJ and his father while Luke was alibied by his mother and brother. There was none of Luke’s DNA on Jodi and the way SK’s sperm was said to have come into contact with the clothing Jodi was wearing, while theoretically possible, was never tested by Lothian and Borders police.
-
The same could be said of SK….and DNA from him was certainly on Jodi.
He didn’t have a history of intimate partner violence, threats and coercion
He didn’t have an obsession with knives and cutting/mutilation
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/02/26/innocence-fraud-killer-luke-mitchell-confidence-trickster-sandra-leans-psychological-manipulation-boiling-you-like-a-frog-part-168/
-
Also, was it ever revealed what DNA was found on LM's shiny green bomber jacket with the orange lining? It would be odd if Jodi's DNA wasn't present on that.
Don’t you think it was odd Jodi Jones DNA wasn’t found in his bedroom?
She was only in it a couple of days before
-
Btw, those 2 tiny previously undiscovered dna samples found on the top of Jodi's trousers by the sscrc -- who did they belong to?
Weren’t they ‘hidden’ as well?
Did these two tiny dna samples include more markers from psycho killer Luke Mitchell?
Is that the reason the SCCRC said no ‘miscarriage of justice’ had occurred?
-
Don’t you think it was odd Jodi Jones DNA wasn’t found in his bedroom?
She was only in it a couple of days before
I would assume that they were looking for DNA from blood.
-
And I’m not suggesting he did either. I’m simply applying your supposition to others. I believe SK was alibied by JaJ and his father while Luke was alibied by his mother and brother. There was none of Luke’s DNA on Jodi and the way SK’s sperm was said to have come into contact with the clothing Jodi was wearing, while theoretically possible, was never tested by Lothian and Borders police.
LM wasn't alibied in court by his brother. "He could have been there" which is a cop out. It's been well documented here over many years despite SL's claims he was bullied into not speaking up in court. As I mentioned before, get along to the bing bike track and he will tell you and save you years of unnecessary turmoil of continuing to believe SL's fairy tales.
-
I would assume that they were looking for DNA from blood.
Why wouldn’t they have been looking for strands of her hair ?
-
Don’t you think it was odd Jodi Jones DNA wasn’t found in his bedroom?
She was only in it a couple of days before
Very. Who said it wasn't? Blood wasn't there, obviously.
-
Weren’t they ‘hidden’ as well?
Did these two tiny dna samples include more markers from psycho killer Luke Mitchell?
Is that the reason the SCCRC said no ‘miscarriage of justice’ had occurred?
No, it was confirmed they weren't from LM (according to an old Daily Mail article from circa 2014). Maybe Parky41 can have some input here.
-
LM wasn't alibied in court by his brother. "He could have been there" which is a cop out. It's been well documented here over many years despite SL's claims he was bullied into not speaking up in court. As I mentioned before, get along to the bing bike track and he will tell you and save you years of unnecessary turmoil of continuing to believe SL's fairy tales.
Well documented here? Who has access to any of the case papers here? What information posted here was not gleaned from an anonymous poster on some other forum and therefore unverifiable?
Yes you did mention before that an almost 40 year old man spends his weekends at some bing track? Sounds convincing.
-
Why wouldn’t they have been looking for strands of her hair ?
Not incriminating enough.
-
Why wouldn’t they have been looking for strands of her hair ?
I’m sure they would have found strands of here hair but they would not be incriminating…blood would.
-
LM wasn't alibied in court by his brother. "He could have been there" which is a cop out. It's been well documented here over many years despite SL's claims he was bullied into not speaking up in court. As I mentioned before, get along to the bing bike track and he will tell you and save you years of unnecessary turmoil of continuing to believe SL's fairy tales.
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?
-
No, it was confirmed they weren't from LM (according to an old Daily Mail article from circa 2014). Maybe Parky41 can have some input here.
If killer Luke Mitchell was wearing gloves I doubt his DNA would have been found on the zip of the jeans plus it’s very possible Jodi Jones took the jeans off herself - they were in an intimate relationship
-
Do you know Shane, Kenmore? Are you actually from Kenmore?
I have been in his company but wouldnt say I know him. Friend of a friend of a friend, its not as though you'd introduce the subject but he's spoken to friends I trust about it.
Ken More was graffiti at Edinburgh Univ opposite Blackwells bookshop as in Do you ken more? Didnt realise it was so relevant to this case.
-
I’m sure they would have found strands of here hair but they would not be incriminating…blood would.
If he burned some items of clothing in the garden ie; socks, gloves, balaclava and put others items of clothing ie; shoes, parka jacket in a neighbouring bin somewhere while he was out that night - why would blood be in the house?
He would have been covered from head to toe in clothing and it wouldn’t have taken long to wash his face and hands
Did the Mitchell’s have an outside tap?
-
If killer Luke Mitchell was wearing gloves I doubt his DNA would have been found on the zip of the jeans plus it’s very possible Jodi Jones took the jeans off herself - they were in an intimate relationship
Who said anything about a zip? What was the source of the DNA the sccrc found on top of Jodi's trousers? The sccrc said the tests indicated that the DNA was likely attributable to semen and likely came from someone who was NOT Mitchell.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20140706/281801397063449
-
Who said anything about a zip?
Sandra Lean
‘The fresh forensic tests could focus on male DNA found in a knot on the right leg of Jodi’s jeans, which were used to tie her hands, or on the fly button or zip.
These were previously tested, but a clear genetic profile of the killer could not be found. It is understood this is because the samples retrieved were too small but, a decade on, a profile can be created from just a few skin cells.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20130909/281595238208599
-
What was the source of the DNA the sccrc found on top of Jodi's trousers? The sccrc said the tests indicated that the DNA was likely attributable to semen and likely came from someone who was NOT Mitchell.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday/20140706/281801397063449
Doubt James F was the only person who had public/al fresco sex in that area of the woodland strip
-
I know it was likely innocent transfer, but was it ever explained why SK's blood was found on Jodi's person (her bra, I'm led to believe)? Was his blood actually found on her, or is that misinformation?
-
I know it was likely innocent transfer, but was it ever explained why SK's blood was found on Jodi's person (her bra, I'm led to believe)? Was his blood actually found on her, or is that misinformation?
Are you referring to 10G?
It’s disinformation!
The blood was Jodi Jones which Sandra Lean, Corinne Mitchell and un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton attempted to attribute to Steven Kelly
See the reproduced WAP Website under “suspects & DNA” below;
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/14/killer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-from-wap-april-2011-on-actually-factually-guilty-murderer-luke-mitchell-part-258/
*&^^&
-
I know it was likely innocent transfer, but was it ever explained why SK's blood was found on Jodi's person (her bra, I'm led to believe)? Was his blood actually found on her, or is that misinformation?
Do you recall Cara Sulieman’s 2010 article for Deadline news https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/
Charlatan Sandra Lean Has Zero Credibility, Her Continuous Lies & Gaslighting, Including About Innocent Steven Kelly, Cara Sulieman’s 2010 Article For Deadline News & The Defunct WAP Website & Un-Convicted Baby Killer Billy Middleton (Part 7)
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/22/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-7/
-
I know it was likely innocent transfer, but was it ever explained why SK's blood was found on Jodi's person (her bra, I'm led to believe)? Was his blood actually found on her, or is that misinformation?
Fraudster Scott Forbes (p.24)
The DNA found on her bra was a mixed profile of three people, Jodi Jones being one. You could not “rule out” Luke Mitchell
-
I know it was likely innocent transfer, but was it ever explained why SK's blood was found on Jodi's person (her bra, I'm led to believe)? Was his blood actually found on her, or is that misinformation?
https://imgur.io/Tcnqq?r
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg332084.html?PHPSESSID=uif285m980pnbl6b1u3802u654#msg332084