Is Luke Mitchell guilty - your views

[justsaying]

A partial match of Luke Mitchell's DNA was found at the crime scene.

And your source for this?

[Nicholas]

The prosecution presented no evidence of Luke's DNA being found at the scene.

What's your point?

[justsaying]

What's your point?

I think the point is that if his DNA was found it would have been presented during the trial...

[jixy]

of course it would - should any have been found!

[justsaying]

of course it would - should any have been found!

It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

[Baz]

A partial match of Luke Mitchell's DNA was found at the crime scene.

As I say, it was years ago that I was reading about this so some details may have escaped me. Where was the DNA found? Was any more detail about this revealed? Seems strange that this was not presented at trial.

[Nicholas]

I think the point is that if his DNA was found it would have been presented during the trial...

of course it would - should any have been found!

It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Dobbie believes he has the "why". Softly spoken and bespectacled, Dobbie was appointed head of the murder hunt after Jodi’s body was discovered in the woods near Roan’s Dyke, Dalkeith, hours after she met her death ]He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence, finding himself up against a teenage suspect who showed immense cunning under the fiercest pressure.

In that time he had to think himself into the mind of Luke Mitchell. Today, in an exclusive interview, the senior investigating officer in the Jodi Jones case reveals his own thoughts on what happened at Roan’s Dyke on 30th June, 2003.

"He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence" which isn't the same as NO DNA.

[justsaying]

"He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence" which isn't the same as NO DNA.

It also does not say that a partial DNA match was found, lacking DNA is the same as no DNA. So this still does not prove your suggestion by any means. I have constantly repeated, had there been DNA it would have been presented at trial.

[Nicholas]

Seems strange that this was not presented at trial.

What's makes you say this?

[Nicholas]

It also does not say that a partial DNA match was found, lacking DNA is the same as no DNA. So this still does not prove your suggestion by any means. I have constantly repeated, had there been DNA it would have been presented at trial.

You have misquoted for starters

Credible = able to be believed; convincing

[justsaying]

"He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence" which isn't the same as NO DNA.

Are you aware that the definition of "lacking" is being without
?

[Baz]

"He fought to solve a crime which lacked critical DNA evidence" which isn't the same as NO DNA.

Lack can mean not enough or none at all. And is that one sentence the basis of your belief that there was a partial DNA sample of Luke found?

What's makes you say this?

If the prosecution had even the possibility of introducing some proof that Luke was at the crime scene I would have expected them to present it to strength their chances of a conviction.

[justsaying]

What's makes you say this?

Oh come on Stephanie! You of all people should know how crucial DNA evidence is at trial.

[Nicholas]

Not as much as you it seems! The questions you are asking Baz are ridiculous. Let's turn this on its head... Why would the prosecution exclude DNA evidence, partial or otherwise, from the trial of the person they were trying to convict?

How about you start using your head!

Do I really need to remind you where [Name removed]'s body lay that night and under what circumstances?

[justsaying]

Right, so I think we can all safely say that there was NO DNA evidence linking Luke to the crime scene.