Luke's DNA

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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’

[Nicholas]

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

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

[Parky41]

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?

[Mr Apples]

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?

[Nicholas]

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/

[Nicholas]

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/

[John]

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?

[Nicholas]

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

[Nicholas]

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?

[Nicholas]

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

[faithlilly]

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]

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/

[Mr Apples]

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.