Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[rulesapply]

Killer Luke Mitchell appears to have sat on the results of the SCCRC’s tests ⬇️


‘The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.
They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.
Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.
Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.
The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.
Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.
“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”
The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291

Do you know if Jodi's shoes yielded results when they were first tested please? Even if they were inconclusive?

[rulesapply]

Killer Luke Mitchell appears to have sat on the results of the SCCRC’s tests ⬇️


‘The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.
They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.
Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.
Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.
The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.
Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.
“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”
The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291

I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.

[Nicholas]

I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.

Yet nothing from the media on this though?

[Nicholas]

I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.

And still nothing from the media on this ?

[rulesapply]

And still nothing from the media on this ?

I've looked back and she's deleted. Her username couldn't have been her real name so I guess I'll just have to forget about that.

[Dexter]

I don't like rude so I apologise.

 

[rulesapply]

Let's start again?!

[Dexter]

Let's start again?!

Go on then...

[rulesapply]

Yet nothing from the media on this though?

Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.

[mrswah]

Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.

I saw it this evening---a bit too long, but I didn't think it was awful!!

[Rusty]

Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.

Two snakes together. I'd not give that Attwood the traffic.

[faithlilly]

Two snakes together. I'd not give that Attwood the traffic.

You have such a wonderful way with words.

[TruthSeeker2003]

I saw it this evening---a bit too long, but I didn't think it was awful!!

Definitely a bit too long.

[Bullseye]

Bit long but got lots more info on this one. Good job I think. 

[mrswah]

Bit long but got lots more info on this one. Good job I think.

I thought so too, but no doubt the "anti Sandra" brigade will hate it!