New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC

[Parky41]

faithlilly,

Let me quote two paragraphs from Scott Forbes' book on pages 134-135.  "Professor Busuttil, however, was sure of one thing, Jodi Jones would have lost at least six litres of blood, but there was NO 'blood spill' under her body or at the immediate locus, no photographs of the blood-soaked ground, the blood spray that was the locus was not "arterial spray" and did not reflect that of the blood lost.  There were no soil reports or samples taken. 

"There is no trace of the six litres of blood.  There are a few drops of blood on branches lying on the floor and the 'spray' on the wall is approximately four meters away from where Jodi was found lying, approximately 500 mm off the ground is a 'spray' approximately 800 mm wide with the largest area of "spray" being 40 mm x 300 mm, along with some smaller spots of blood.  Considering the injuries to Jodi Jones, pre and post death, the scene should have been covered in blood.  Many professional people believe that Jodi was not murdered where she was found, as a result of the lack of blood."

Did you just quote Forbes there as an answer, you did, didn't you? And you place a ? against me - Have a word!

So already, the average body holds approx: 4.5-6 litres of blood, and he has it that Jodi Jones lost "at least" 6 litres of the stuff. Let me tell you something about the prof here Chris, that same prof who explained the spray upon that wall, position of that poor girl for the spray of the angle her killer had to have held her. I don't care who, how many, male of female killers here, that girl lost her life in that woodland strip, and yes, dam right I place every faith in the actual experts who entered that woodland on the morning of July 1st, over you, Forbes, Lean and of course Mitchell, any day of the week!

Forbes who has transported the moped boys by teleport from BTH into the that woodland strip behind the V break at 5pm, who has a very dumb Jodi Jones being followed by her brother, who is carrying a see through ruck sack containing a whopping big bowie knife, the time of him following her is 4:50pm to bring them to the boys behind the V break in the wall. They are using telepathy to communicate. He then has one running up Newbattle Road waving that big bowie knife to plant in a skip. The boys are up and over the V break just after 5:15pm to go home in time for DD to go into the woods around 5:30pm to put stuff down to mask the trails.

Surprised they have not all got several eyes, extra heads the lot here. Quite the thing, DD is used to such horror, sets to with his kit masking those trails for he is a hunter. Mr Forbes carried out a survey he claims, asking mothers if they would protect their sons for a murder. Most he says, said yes, BUT only the first born son for they are special! So, can you help me out here Chris? where did all the blood go in one of Mr Forbes fantasy, where at other times he does indeed use the word "blood bath" for the killing behind that wall, I mean the person running up the road certainly has a whopping big bowie knife dripping with blood! Did DD take a vax with him? Were cordless ones invented then to soak up "at least" 6 litres of blood? Or of Mitchell's dog scenting blood, not possible is it now? There was NO blood to scent, just a drop or two of the stuff, but Forbes has it that it travelled all the way through the plant life, up the plants on that wall, and the clever dog picked up the scent of blood from this when there was no blood into that plant life - Or perhaps it was animal blood that DD put there - And YOU are QUOTING Forbes!

Shall we go on? He has a 9 yr old Jodi Jones on the vodka, after teleporting her from 1000's of miles away to be home the night her father died. He has a 10-11yr old boy fathering his niece, but then he has this boy as an adult and 19yrs old at the time of the murder, he was only 16. - Facts and truth are not present in fantasist Forbes sci fi world, are they now Chris?

[Parky41]

And isn't that the problem with multiple different claims/scenarios? They just keep tumbling over each other with utter BS and constant contradictions. That giant melting pot of "what If?"

Not at all sure then what Mitchell did with "at least" 6 litres of blood, but his dog sure as hell did not pick up any scent of it. According to fantasist Forbes, the woodland strip was used for dog baiting, an animal graveyard - Oh, is that why the dog was excited at the V break then Mr Forbes?

So just a  drop or two or three, minute spraying upon that wall, a dog still 43ft away on a path some 4 ft out from a high, thick, dry stone dyke, picks up what exactly? - Hook, line and sinker.

So we blank out Mitchell's lies of where he placed his dog, precisely and "parallel" to where the body lay some 4 meters away from the  high, thick, dry stone wall on the other side. We bring him all the way back to that break (where they actually were), to tie in with the truth told by the search trio, every description given of them all, Mitchell and his dog.

And as we always knew, what was proved beyond any doubt, that the dog picked up nothing of Jodi Jones, Mitchell knew exactly why he led that search to that path and nothing of that five minute walk in between. To once being on that path with the others, he instantly makes a bee line for that wall, around 7ft from ground level, up and rapidly shines his torch beyond (looking for nothing), to then do the same with the V break, directly to and up and over, directly left, around 10ft and he has found his something. Hidden behind that large oak tree with masses of foliage in the way.  He describes the clothing, the bobble buried deep in the victims hair that the pathologist did not find right away.

40mins Chris from start to finish. From instantly initiating a search to that path, to be on it, in and around 8mins. For by 10:59pm he is on at that path. Meets with the others, and in and around 8mins the same, instantly the woodland, and accesses it at the first available place - Have  a word. I do not care if you believe Mitchell is "90%" innocent, shouldn't innocence be 100%? He sure as hell was not home at t-time and he sure as hell knew exactly where the body of that young girl was.

[Chris_Halkides]

Parky41,

If you had said that it would be better to quote from Dr. Busuttil's testimony directly than from Mr. Forbes' book or a newspaper article, I would have agreed with you.  I quoted from it because this is the first time I have read a description of the blood on the wall.  If you have another source which gives a different description, I would like to read that.

Let us suppose that Jodi lost four liters of blood instead of six.  The amount of blood used in the test in Colorado was 0.5 L; therefore, I don't see what difference it makes.  The hypothesis that Jodi was killed where her body was found still has to explain where her blood went.  The hypothesis that Jodi was killed elsewhere has to explain the blood that was found at the crime scene.  Neither explanation is entirely satisfactory IMO.

[Nicholas]

Angeline aka Sandra Lean

‘Although the evidence seems to suggest that Jodi was killed behind the wall (blood spray on the wall), this does not rule out the possibility that she was held somewhere before she was killed, or even that she went somewhere voluntarily.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s140.html

[Chris_Halkides]

The circumstantial case against LM was overwhelming -- and I've not even heard it all!  And, again, why do you think LM's parka jacket went missing? The one thing that probably did have incriminating dna on it (ie, jodi's blood)? You are not convinced by the circumstantial evidence outhwith the DNA evidence, Chris? Btw, how many unidentifed profiles were found?

Mr Apples,

This is where we differ.  The circumstantial case against Mr. Mitchell was built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony.  There are additional problems with the motive and the timeline, the details of which belong in other threads.  I have seen no evidence that Mr. Mitchell had a parka until after the murder; in other words there is no missing parka.  The circumstantial case is risible on its own lack of merits, apart from other considerations.

[Parky41]

Class - "built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony"

CM, 'I drove my usual route home down The Beeches, arriving home by 5:05pm and Luke was in the kitchen brandishing "limp, yellow broccoli" There was NO shopping in the house, it was the day before the weekly shop, so we opted for beans instead. By the time we got it organised and plated up, we sat to eat some ten minutes later. I went out back to enjoy the fine weather, Luke ate in front of the TV. So there she is telling the police of having NO shopping in the house.

Luke the same, of mother arriving home the same time as always. 48-72hrs later they are telling the exact same tale.

SM, I arrived home at my usual time, the house was empty, I had "popped" my head into the lounge. No cooking, nothing, this is July 1st when speaking with the FLO. He is then interviewed for the first time in the station, and he relates the same tale. He is asked more questions around dinner and it is "I cannot remember" anything.

He went home and related this to his mother, and she fills in the blanks for him, same tale of arriving home at her usual time so he called the station to amend his statement, he now had the exact same memory as his mother, right down to that ten minutes of waiting on dinner being plated up. He had went downstairs to greet her, saw his brother "mashing tatties" . He went back upstairs and was shouted around "10 mins later" He took his dinner up to his room to eat it.

So I couldn't agree more Chris, all these changes that had to occur as outside factors came to light, and the Mitchell's tale just had to keep on changing, right down to their testimony in court, all those changes highlighted, the coaching and all else = Guilty verdict for Mitchell.

Jogging a memory, you know, there was NO shopping in the house, but had went shopping before she had drove home. She had not went down The Beeches at all but diverted in the other direction. She had actually not physically stepped into her kitchen until no earlier than 5:17pm.

It was also of course that Luke had left home around 5:40pm, walking out in time to meet with Jodi heading to his (claimed) You know the rest, the phone logs and calls, and of him actually having to leave home no later than 5:30pm.

So all these changes Chris that were NOT volunteered by the way, they came about because they were found out to not be true at all.

SM to the AD "Was there music playing?" to which he replied, "You tell me, was there?" Oops, had Luke and his mother forgot to fill SM in on the before claimed time of his mothers arrival home, of him blasting those tunes out whilst cooking.   

[faithlilly]

Class - "built on a foundation of witnesses who changed their testimony"

CM, 'I drove my usual route home down The Beeches, arriving home by 5:05pm and Luke was in the kitchen brandishing "limp, yellow broccoli" There was NO shopping in the house, it was the day before the weekly shop, so we opted for beans instead. By the time we got it organised and plated up, we sat to eat some ten minutes later. I went out back to enjoy the fine weather, Luke ate in front of the TV. So there she is telling the police of having NO shopping in the house.

Luke the same, of mother arriving home the same time as always. 48-72hrs later they are telling the exact same tale.

SM, I arrived home at my usual time, the house was empty, I had "popped" my head into the lounge. No cooking, nothing, this is July 1st when speaking with the FLO. He is then interviewed for the first time in the station, and he relates the same tale. He is asked more questions around dinner and it is "I cannot remember" anything.

He went home and related this to his mother, and she fills in the blanks for him, same tale of arriving home at her usual time so he called the station to amend his statement, he now had the exact same memory as his mother, right down to that ten minutes of waiting on dinner being plated up. He had went downstairs to greet her, saw his brother "mashing tatties" . He went back upstairs and was shouted around "10 mins later" He took his dinner up to his room to eat it.

So I couldn't agree more Chris, all these changes that had to occur as outside factors came to light, and the Mitchell's tale just had to keep on changing, right down to their testimony in court, all those changes highlighted, the coaching and all else = Guilty verdict for Mitchell.

Jogging a memory, you know, there was NO shopping in the house, but had went shopping before she had drove home. She had not went down The Beeches at all but diverted in the other direction. She had actually not physically stepped into her kitchen until no earlier than 5:17pm.

It was also of course that Luke had left home around 5:40pm, walking out in time to meet with Jodi heading to his (claimed) You know the rest, the phone logs and calls, and of him actually having to leave home no later than 5:30pm.

So all these changes Chris that were NOT volunteered by the way, they came about because they were found out to not be true at all.

SM to the AD "Was there music playing?" to which he replied, "You tell me, was there?" Oops, had Luke and his mother forgot to fill SM in on the before claimed time of his mothers arrival home, of him blasting those tunes out whilst cooking.

We know that SM didn’t get home at his usual time that day. We know that from one of his friends whose car he helped fix.

[Chris_Halkides]

Parky41,

Not for the first time what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote.  Did AB change the time of her putative sighting?  Did the rest of the search party change what they said about Mia signaling?  Did Jodi's mother change the time at which she said Jodi left?  I see no reason that these questions cannot be answered simply yes or no, but that is up to you.

Do you think that Mr. Forbes' book described the crime scene accurately with respect to where the blood was found and where it was not found?  Whether or not you do, would you care to post another description so that we can all compare them?  Thanks in advance. 

[Parky41]

Parky41,

Not for the first time what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote.  Did AB change the time of her putative sighting?  Did the rest of the search party change what they said about Mia signaling?  Did Jodi's mother change the time at which she said Jodi left?  I see no reason that these questions cannot be answered simply yes or no, but that is up to you.

Do you think that Mr. Forbes' book described the crime scene accurately with respect to where the blood was found and where it was not found?  Whether or not you do, would you care to post another description so that we can all compare them?  Thanks in advance.

No, actually I was addressing your post directly. It does not make any difference who you were meaning without placing them in the post, the circumstantial case by the Crown very much involved the changing accounts from the Mitchell's.

So what was the difference here? We had three people who gave set times around certain information which proved to be false. We had others who gave information around NO set times, that is the difference. So the answer is NO Chris, there were no set times placed that changed, was there now, by giving over false information. Such as the Jones family, it was always from the off that Jodi Jones had left home shortly after AO's arrived home.

I think I already answered around Forbes, did I not? - Pinch of proverbial salt. The problem for me Chris is liars, plain and simple, which as is blatantly obvious by many of my posts, I make no bones with at all. Starting from Mitchell. You mention the police lying, and again without actual proof of this. Where one can sure as hell repeatedly show the lies coming forth from Mitchell and his enablers, that is the difference. And again, how the actual hell do people even begin to work fact from fiction here?

Will we have the bog standard of 'nothing unaccounted for?' - Nothing found pointing this murder to that of a stranger, he was telling the truth. That revolving door back to the reason behind the agreement made by the Crown.

The search and again the answer is NO, they did not change dog and wall Chris, did they now? They changed who was leading who. It was always directly to the V break in the wall. It was Mitchell who made claims of his dog finding any body, and he placed that dog on a completely different area of that path - He was lying.

16mins in and around Chris split into two lots. This is the time it took Mitchell to initiate an actual physical search directly to that path. Nothing of that five minute walk from where he claimed to idle for around 90mins earlier. Just that path. A 7min walk the normal route from house to path alone. In and around 8mins he initiated an actual physical search, claimed to debate with his mother, to have to go upstairs to borrow a torch from an imaginary brother, for the imaginary brother to locate a torch somewhere downstairs, to be out and on that path. From just after 10:50pm to 10:59pm. Marvellous stuff.

The next lot, of in and around 8mins. He is physically in the company of others, they are to be searching the path and verges and he instantly initiates the notion of that woodland as viable for his something to be found. Straight to that 'Gino' break, through the undergrowth and up, shining his torch rapidly beyond in the darkness, and says "nothing there" Super powers with a super torch! To do the exact same at the V break and this time he goes over and left, a few steps, and with his super powers and super torch, he produces magic. Those few feet walked and he see's what was impossible to see - Behave.

So he goes to this break, he goes over, he does not need any dog to show him the way, he knows exactly where he is going. - So, you tell me Chris, what role you feel the dog played in this, in and around 16mins in total. That had Mitchell once more fuel the police with lies? To initiate an actual physical search directly to that path, to be on it, to meet with the others, to instantly initiate the woodland beyond that high, thick, dry stone dyke. To again go directly with his dog doing summersaults (it makes no difference), to the V break and bang!

Those times cannot be changed or altered. In and around 16mins in total, for the everything directly to do with Mitchell. Now if he is as he says, at that path and on it by 11pm. it is an 11min walk, what was he doing Chris? Other than waiting on the others of course, who he knew was heading to that place to meet with him, to search.

For the further lies were of him racing up the path, no buttons turned on for the dog, he had been racing nowhere, had he now?

[Parky41]

An educated guess around photographs used as production of evidence Chris, around areas of the attack, the reports which would deal with the why this area was deemed to be the actual crime scene, a life living then no more.

You mention the tests again that can be used to determine blood loss at any given point, the simple truth is Chris, neither you nor I know exactly what was carried out by that forensic team. Only that stark reality that certainly something had them conclude this to be the crime scene.

This quote from Forbes is all a little off is it not? Something missing here? It is one thing attempting to place a partial account that is not the everything?  This X amount from ground level to width, a large spray with a large spray in it. But nothing of height? As in actual area  then applying measurements of one smaller area within it. Cherry picking something would be my guess with some form of fallacy applied. - Bog standard for Mr Forbes. Especially with the expert insertion.

Which was my point around the "at least 6 litres" It very does much matter overall if one simply embellishes at will, does it not? Such as those clear contradictions. No blood but enough to travel up plant life, to the over hang of that wall, for the dog to pick the scent up with --- All utter fallacy and bollocks of course, applied once more to an area that no dog was at.

Which even with the incomplete of everything, still does not answer the spray, the overall area of that attack and any loss. That there was nothing found outside that area. So many other factors around context to apply here. Every single thing inside this melting pot of what IF's has absolutely nothing logical to answer any of it. - Where every answer to there being no evidence is it was all such a mess! Bar anything to do directly with Mitchell, that is some fit up, is it not?

[Mr Apples]

Mr. Apples,

I will break my response into separate comments over several days, starting with "...the sk sperm stain was unequivocally transferred innocently and has been fully explained numerous times previously..."

With all due respect the use of the word "unequivocally" makes what you wrote nonsense.  What the authorities offered is a possibility; it is speculation without evidence.  In addition it is a hypothesis which depends upon the actions of two people who did not even live in the same household.

Chris -- without seeing for ourselves all the DNA results, data, charts, inventory, and so on, it is a waste of time discussing the DNA evidence relating to this case. What I will say is, had that full profile obtained from SK's semen on the laundered t-shirt been from a recent fresh deposit (notwithstanding it being exposed to the rain & elements for a full 8 hours), it would have been detected and subsequently made public as incriminating forensic evidence; as it wasn't, we can strongly infer that it wasn't a fresh deposit of semen and very much a degraded semen stain (or a 'laundered semen stain') that had survived a wash cycle. It was definitively SK's semen and he and Janine were in an intimate relationship, so it mattered not a jot that they didn't live in the same household (though, I suspect Janine lived with her gran so she could have privacy, her being 19 or 20 years old at the time of the murder).

Besides, SK's father (Robert Kelly) gave both SK and JANJ an alibi for that afternoon/early evening (from 1600 - 2000 HRS), as they all had dinner and watched tv between these times at RK's house. More importantly, this young couple split up a few years after the conviction and she still alibies him in the present day (and, from what I understand, she is currently employed as a police officer). She and Jodi were always quite close (and hence why Janine allowed Jodi to borrow her clothes back in 2003), so why would she provide her boyfriend with a false alibi if he'd brutally murdered her younger sister who she was close to?

[Mr Apples]

Mr Apples, I too disagree - The blanking of the reason for the agreement is so much more that simply Mitchell's DNA - It is the attempt by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, manipulating this case into something it was NOT. Which in turn via that manipulating is without a doubt treating the victim in this case with the utmost disrespect.

I do not give a monkey for (not you) people who then profess to know lots around forensic evidence, who in turn do NOT know this case, putting forth support to those who have manipulated those results massively. So, in one hand they go on about forensic evidence being the be all of Mitchell and innocence. In the other hand they put out such utter bollocks, with absolutely NO forensic evidence, that the victim was not only raped Mr Apples but by multiple people. With absolutely NOTHING to back this up. Jodi Jones was not raped, she had NOT been physically, sexually assaulted. Leaving aside whatever her killer may have gotten personal pleasure from!

Gordo30 and his more than one way to ejaculate with absolutely no forensic evidence to back anything of this up. Ms Lean, and if the victim is all but dead or dead, there would be no physical evidence of rape taking place. So, they have it that Mitchell just has to be innocent as there was NO forensic evidence. yet can apply multiple males, who left not a snifter of any forensic evidence!

Parky, you're preaching to the converted regarding Luke's guilt, though I don't think I am as convinced as you or Nicholas are. There likely isn't any DNA evidence pointing to another, though, I think, if my memory serves me correctly, you dismissed the unidentified DNA profiles as 'probably yielding nothing ever'. You're probably right, especially given the strength of the circumstantial evidence outwith forensic evidence in this case. But, you just never know if those 4 or 5 unidentified profiles were present as a result of something  sinister as opposed to being innocently transferred by strangers (I know it's obtuse and a cop-out to suggest the former, but, you just never know, especially if they were full profiles from a particular source).

Also, Parky41, you've mentioned alleles in respect of Luke's DNA found on Jodi, but specific information about alleles has never ever been revealed or discussed in the public domain. The only thing mentioned in the press was very vague (eg "some dna was found"). DNA markers (loci) have been mentioned in the SL's IB, but nothing specific in terms of the exact quantity and the data of the results. So, Parky41, where are you getting your information on the DNA from this case from? Are you making educated guesses?

[Parky41]

Parky, you're preaching to the converted regarding Luke's guilt, though I don't think I am as convinced as you or Nicholas are. There likely isn't any DNA evidence pointing to another, though, I think, if my memory serves me correctly, you dismissed the unidentified DNA profiles as 'probably yielding nothing ever'. You're probably right, especially given the strength of the circumstantial evidence outwith forensic evidence in this case. But, you just never know if those 4 or 5 unidentified profiles were present as a result of something  sinister as opposed to being innocently transferred by strangers (I know it's obtuse and a cop-out to suggest the former, but, you just never know, especially if they were full profiles from a particular source).

Also, Parky41, you've mentioned alleles in respect of Luke's DNA found on Jodi, but specific information about alleles has never ever been revealed or discussed in the public domain. The only thing mentioned in the press was very vague (eg "some dna was found"). DNA markers (loci) have been mentioned in the SL's IB, but nothing specific in terms of the exact quantity and the data of the results. So, Parky41, where are you getting your information on the DNA from this case from? Are you making educated guesses?

A good start to this Mr Apples would be you listing those five you refer to? Can you do that, have you actually managed to work out what the five are from Lean? This used to be in excess of 10 unidentified profiles now narrowed down to five, can you list them? She has one as a condom from a cave, the other as JaF's, unidentified for three years, what are the other three?

[Nicholas]

what are the other three?

From the people she lived with - who shared the same home/living space/bathroom etc.. ?

[Mr Apples]

I have seen no evidence that Mr. Mitchell had a parka until after the murder; in other words there is no missing parka

I wasn't even going to mention the infamous missing parka again -- it does get extremely tedious and tiresome going over and over the same things -- but I found out something new recently that is very relevant to it; refreshingly, it was something I hadn't heard before, from a nice young lady from the Whitburn area in Scotland, UK, whose cousin was called as a Crown witness in this trial to give evidence around this parka jacket specifically. It gets a lot better: her cousin had a photo of Luke Mitchell wearing this parka jacket in May 2003, along with Jodi Jones and another couple of friends. Her cousin was one of Jodi's best friends, allegedly. The police took this photo as evidence and still have it in the present day. Interestingly, this same girl was able to tell me that the police also took a photo from Kimberley Thompson that featured Luke wearing the green parka in March 2003 and used it as evidence at court. (Oh, also, this same lass told me that the police took the CCTV tapes from St David's High School in Dalkeith, no doubt to corroborate the school teacher's testimony of also seeing Luke wearing that parka in the school playground, looking like, in the teacher's own words, "a hooded monk". So, Chris, there you have it:  two separate pieces of direct evidence of Luke Mitchell wearing that parka before the murder. So, where did it go to? And why did Corinne buy Luke another parka on 08.07.03 that was identical to the old one? There are, in the public domain, newspaper articles from 2003-2005 stating that 8 separate witnesses testified in court that LM had worn a green parka prior to the murder. Very incriminating for LM, especially when linked to the other circumstantial evidence. Guilty as!

So, Chris, even from looking at the above, you get a sense of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against LM, outwith forensics. And it is so strong that we can infer that those couple of (as yet) unidentified profiles found at or near the crime scene were there by innocent transfer.