Author Topic: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.  (Read 9324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline James

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2012, 03:00:00 AM »
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2012, 03:02:33 AM »
Sample 10K clearly does not relate to just semen since Jodi was female.  Nicely spotted mate.  8((()*/



Quote
Sample 10k (semen) – “Jodi Jones and unknown (male)” as above, an unknown male contributor.
This sample has not been changed in anyway by John and the name of Jodi appears 1st because she is the only identified person belonging to this sample. The fact the semen exists and as this may be a shock to John that females can't produce semen means that the contributor is not identified.


Quote
Sample 10G, blood,  outside front Tshirt – identified male + Jodi Jones. (this is a full DNA profile for identified male )
This sample means that a full DNA profile from male contributor exists and that it is blood. The reason for this sample being blood is that in the files the method used to establish this fact as well as the DNA extracted differs from the method used when dealing with semen.

I'm not sure what John is getting at and I'm further confused at Johns credentials are for making such statement.

Its quite simple, there is no reason for assuming that the second sample 10G relates solely to blood given that this was the case with sample 10K.  DNA can be extracted from blood but it may not have originated in blood.

Are we clutching at straws yet again Gordon?

Exactly James so by inference there is no evidence that any blood belonging to Stephen Kelly was found on anything at the scene of the murder. Just more wishful thinking on behalf of the Mitchell camp.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2012, 10:57:34 AM »
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2012, 11:10:59 AM »
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2012, 01:49:49 PM »
Ive read and reread this and I don't see what your getting at here. The t-shirt would have been broken down into areas so that any forensics found could be labelled and cross referenced with that area. In the area that  10k appears we have a full profile relating to Jodi. I understand that might not mean that profile came from blood but it is highly likely. There was a sample of semen also found in this area that didn't provide a full profile but this sample was labelled semen.

In 10G we have a similar event in that Jodi's sample appears and another to an identified male that has been labelled blood. Theres no way that you can get two profiles from a mixture if that's what your saying as in 10G being Jodi's blood but SK's profile exists in this also. Jodi and SK's would become contaminated and yield no result.

Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.  Saying that it was highly likely that a DNA profile came from blood just doesn't cut it.  Either it did or it didn't and it is most obvious that your information provider Sandra Lean doesn't know the answer to this.

The only evidence which has been universally accepted is that there was a DNA profile found on Jodis t-shirt which was owned by her sister Janine who was then in a relationship with Stephen Kelly.  As this t-shirt was borrowed by Jodi just before the murder it has also been accepted that the semen stain was deposited on it quite innocently and had nothing at all to do with the assault on Jodi.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 01:56:27 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #50 on: August 19, 2012, 01:59:39 PM »
The 10k sample labelled semen relates to this sample directly. It was found to be semen but with no profile established.The was another sample relating to Jodi in this area.

Quote
Sample 258A (blood) “Unknown” (mixed male and female profile)

This sample demonstrates what I'm saying in that, the forensics found a sample that was blood however the samples that were there had become mixed so the sample remains unknown.They found there to have been a mixed sample of blood only, otherwise they would have stated blood and semen.

The end game Gordon is that only two DNA profiles recovered from the murder scene were identified.  They belonged to Jodi and Stephen.  Several other profiles both full and partial remain to be identified and these included a partial profile relating to Luke Mitchell himself which is not really surprising given that they had been together in some capacity earlier that day.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2012, 04:01:59 PM »
It never ceases to amaze me at the erroneous facts being manufactured on the blue forum and posted as if they were true.  Now we have Gordon telling everyone that there was a frenzied struggle between Jodi and her assailant when we know that to be totally untrue.  If this is the quality of the evidence being provided to the SCCRC in Mitchell's defence then he will indeed serve his full sentence.

The truth my friends is that Jodi was hit over the head with a lump of branch evidenced by her blood on it.  This branch was found some metres away from where she was found.  Having been hit over the head Jodi would have been unable to offer any resistance and cutting her throat from behind would have been extremely simple. 

Further evidence showed that Jodi never made contact with her assailant since examination of the material under her finger nails provided no foreign DNA. Jodi's only attempt at self-preservation was to try to protect herself from the blows raining down on her. She probably saw this as futile and tried to escape only to be hit over the head.

Jodi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 04:20:21 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2012, 08:36:42 AM »
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?


gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2012, 08:39:31 AM »
Quote
Luke Mitchell could well have killed her and got away with little or no blood on him.  He had every opportunity to wash and to dispose of clothing and the murder weapon between the time of the murder at 5.15pm and being seen near the murder scene by Mrs Fleming and Mrs Walsh at 4.42pm.

Even although this is in direct contrast to your initial believe that the sightings by F&W proved that Luke didn't have the time to do just that!

gordo

  • Guest
Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2012, 08:41:35 AM »
Quote
odi's attacker most probably stood back as she bled out and expired. Her blood was found on the wall which evidences the fact that she was near it when she died.  Further savage cuts to her throat were made post mortem as were intricate cuts to her eyelids.  These cuts would not have created any blood spatter.

Haven't you just tried to chastise me ragarding making assumptions, what was it you said again oh yeah! Gordon can I remind you that it is facts we are are interested in here and not assumptions.

Online John

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2012, 02:31:19 PM »
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 02:33:30 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline devils advocate

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2012, 04:10:42 PM »
Here is another example of how Sandra Lean can construe the facts to fit with her own version of events.  She posted this yesterday on the Wrongly Accused Person site.

Prosecution evidence: Shane said he could not remember if Luke was in or out of the house that evening. Although he was later reminded about events which made the evening slightly different to any other, that was portrayed as Shane “lying” to cover up for Luke.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/msg9922858/#msg9922858


Wrong Sandra.  Shane made statements and told the court that he was not aware of Luke's presence in the family home that afternoon.  He also told the court that he would not have been looking at porn on the computer in his bedroom while masturbating if he thought that someone else was in the house.  He stated that he kept his bedroom door ajar so that he could hear someone enter the house.

Bottom line is that Luke was unaccounted for at the time of the murder, namely, 5.15pm on Monday 30th June 2003.

Lets keep to the facts Miss Lean!


Sandra Lean is an expert at manipulating facts to suit her own agenda.   

Offline devils advocate

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2012, 08:56:26 PM »
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?

Would that be the same expert opinion that got him convicted in the first place?   8)--))

Offline devils advocate

Re: Luke Mitchell - Misinformation corrected.
« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2012, 03:40:49 PM »
The trouble with what im telling everyone is that its backed up by expert opinion where as John yours is back up by what?



The trouble with you Gordo is that you talk the greatest shite.  sorry admin   8(8-))