Alleged Miscarriages of Justice > Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003.

Luke's DNA

(1/14) > >>

moggrey1:
Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?

mrswah:

--- Quote from: moggrey1 on April 22, 2021, 03:11:31 PM ---Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?

--- End quote ---

I read that Luke's DNA on Jodi was discounted, and vice versa (can't recall where I read it), since it would be expected that a couple in a relationship would have each other's DNA on them, and so would prove nothing.

Welcome to the forum!  Please would you introduce yourself in the "New Members" section.

Rusty:

--- Quote from: moggrey1 on April 22, 2021, 03:11:31 PM ---Hi, i was wondering if someone could help me. I've been reading up on this case after seeing the documentary and (after being totally convinced Luke was innocent!) i am more of the opinion that he is guilty. The thing i'm looking for some clarification is this if ok: the people in the "Luke is innocent" camp seem to continually argue about the lack of his DNA on the body. However, i have read that there WAS in fact DNA on the body it was just that because they had been in a relationship and therefore highly probable that this would be the case, they agreed to discount it. is this correct, as that seems to be the main thing the innocent group seems to go on about but i thought this had already been disproved?

--- End quote ---

The DNA stuff is irrelevant. Let's say there were full profiles, although there were partial matches. How could the crown use that to convict? When the pair were in an intimate relationship. So his DNA or that of Jodi's in this case wouldn’t prove innocence or guilt. It could have been simply argued, that because they were in a relationship and spent time at school that day.

This ship has sailed a long time ago, pretty sure, and please correct me if I'm wrong, one of the appeals was based on the forensic science. It failed.

We need something new. It is rather tiresome, repeating the same stuff over and over, year after year. When there is a new audience to try sell the story too.

moggrey1:
I appreciate it's irrelevant, i just wondered why so many people still say there was NO dna found and use it as the basis of their belief that he's innocent. if it were more widely known that there WAS evidence, it was just decided to be discounted due the nature of their relationship, i would have thought that might shut a lot of them up lol.

Brietta:

--- Quote from: moggrey1 on April 23, 2021, 02:15:33 PM ---I appreciate it's irrelevant, i just wondered why so many people still say there was NO dna found and use it as the basis of their belief that he's innocent. if it were more widely known that there WAS evidence, it was just decided to be discounted due the nature of their relationship, i would have thought that might shut a lot of them up lol.

--- End quote ---

Anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge about the case knows of the agreement made between the prosecution and the defence.

In my opinion it is a forlorn hope that some individuals will look rationally at facts which is why there is so much internet concentration on misleading out of context comment and innuendo.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version