A 12 point challenge for those who think Mitchell is guilty

[William Wallace]

It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.

The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.


1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed *****  never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was only LM treated as a suspect??
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?

[Venturi Swirl]

It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.

The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.


1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed *****  never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was a key witness and in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?

I'll start with Point No 1.  Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?

[mrswah]

I'll start with Point No 1.  Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?

I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.

IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.

[Parky41]

I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.

IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.

Explain please ? - I am really interested to know what you believe was there and who these certain other people are?  That's quite a statement, an assumption you have came too from reading the book?

[Nicholas]

I'll start with Point No 1.  Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?

Does anyone have a diagram of where exactly on Jodi’s body testing was carried out

And on what areas exactly testing wasn’t carried out

[faithlilly]

I believe that is correct, VS. There was some DNA from Luke on Jodi, and vice versa, but this was disregarded in court, since Luke and Jodi were a couple, and so one would expect to find each other's DNA on both of them.

IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-----------.

There was partial profiles which Luke could have contributed to but so could have a percentage of the population of Dalkeith and surrounding areas. There was, however, two full DNA profiles of two now named individuals near and on  Jodi’s body.

[Parky41]

It is natural that in a forum everyone will have their own opinions. I have noticed in here that a number of people frequently post comments which have never at any time been proven as FACT. The most common of which are that Mitchell was a fan of Marilyn Manson, a Satanist and had an interest in the Black Dahlia murder. I'm not asking people to say guilty or not guilty as that is just re-creating the wheel.

The challenge is to those who say Mitchell is guilty to give credible explanations for the 12 points below.


1. How did LM manage to defeat the laws of forensic science by leaving no trace at the scene or in his house?
2. Why did the search party walk right past a house Jodi had been found in previously when late home and not even knock the door before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
3. Why were no calls to other people she could have been with made apart from to her Gran's before going up a pitch black path at 11pm?
4. Why was it claimed *****  never left the house after mid afternoon when he was identified outside by a witness later as a member of J's family, aka "Stocky Man"?
5. Why did the search party's statements all change later to say the same thing..........that Mitchell went straight to the V?
6. Why was AO never cited to Court when he was a key witness and in the house when Jodi left?
7. Why did JF and GD say they couldn't remember where they were when the moped was parked at the V?
8. Why did JF shave all his hair off himself after the murder?
9. Why did the moped disappear without trace so soon that the Police never even saw it?
10.Why did JF and GD initially say they were on the path at 415pm until Police proved it was after 5pm?
10.Why would someone pay money to have a moped disposed of very quickly? Nobody crushes vehicles for nothing, there's a charge.
11. Why was there DNA of SK's semen on Jodi's t-shirt?
12. Why did ***** say initially there were 2 T-shirts the same, but she didn't know where the other one was, then later claim there were several the same and not just 2?

1) He did not defeat any laws - this is fallacy. Based on the pure assumption that LM walked into his house dripping with blood from head to foot - nonsense. Mitchells house was detached. You are making the pure assumption that he even went into his house before removing any outer clothing, footwear and so forth - And you are forgetting there was woodland and the River Esk. Also his house was not accessed until 4 days after this murder.
2) No they did not, this was a blatant lie put out firstly by SL herself. "the search party walked passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path" The search party did no walk passed YW's, the search party would have had to walk backwards to do so, completely in the opposite direction of this path.
3) Ask Ms Lean to refer to statements again, she has done before, where she states they did. Also everyone knew that Jodi had failed to meet with LM in Newbattle. They were originally heading out to organise a search only, and as with LM, to phone friends. Why did LM not phone any friends?  They were told after the call between LM and JuJ at 10.59pm that he was on this path, they headed to meet with him.
4) Absolute nonsense -  is this the same stocky man who confessed? who followed Jodi into the path? Be very careful WW, that is some allegation you are making there, as per? Stemming again from that clear cut information Ms Lean touts out?? - we have a witness who identified the stocky man 9 weeks after at an event??  DF must be shaking his head and rolling in laughter at Ms Leans book - she is forgetting he had access to all of this too? It is after all his work she has. Every single piece of information on this stocky man. But as per and on par with the witness who is claimed to have seen this bike at the V. Absolutely no verification - her power of suggestion works wonders with you, that is blatantly obvious.   
5) The search trio always said the same thing - That of arriving at the V, which was in complete contrast to LM who claimed they had walked around 40-60ft passed. Interestingly, when he drew the diagram for his FLO he marked the search party as being 40ft down, completely parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side. (His words) And she was 40ft approx down from the V.  Exactly at the same spot either side. Apart from this being a complete fabrication - pretty remarkable is it not? - That he also somehow claimed it was at the exact spot. Not for instance near to, exactly. And you wonder why the police were suspicious? Not only did none of search party state ever, they had walked some distance passed this V with LM, he knew all of them and his dog was at the exact same spot?
6) Was he not? Very strange if he were not as you say. Does Ms Lean say he was not cited? - perhaps best to ask her for clarification - she will have a list of the witness's whom testified in court.
7) It was not at the V and there is not a smidgen of evidence to say that it was - the employee gave and estimation of being close to. They were driving. One can not see this V - more blatant misrepresentation of the actual facts.
8) Ask him.
9) Proof?
10+10) We know JF told his gran on the Monday he had been on the path around 4.30pm. It was known at this stage that Jodi had left later than this - whether he knew this or not matters not to his grans advice. They did not continue to lie though, did they. And why is all the information missing upon their arrival home, Why are these witness's not mentioned? And when the  appeal did go out - they came forward. JF gave the story of this 4.30pm stuff of his arrival home and the clock. The bike, perhaps one could ask SM, he is a mechanic, dealing no doubt with scrap merchants. Does one pay or do they pay for scrap metal?? Perhaps there was a slump in the market at the time - you like google, find out if scrap merchants were asking for money at the time - far too much ambiguity. What does it say in their statements about this bike, we are not interested in multiple theories based on a 'who done it' book?
11) Gosh, that is very personal - What did he say in his statements of this very personal act? However it was not Jodi's top,  was it, it was her sisters. And yet again every area of science screams at us here - of those multiple millions of sperm heads and that abundance of semen they are in. But let us stick to those minute areas of staining, that is correct staining and old stains at that. And sticking being the operative word. What do you make of the female elements of DNA found in semen?
12) Really? - Let's think of eventually here? The police are aware that Jodi wore borrowed clothing from her sister. LM was first testimony to this. You are making an assumption here that she was asked about black t-shirts? When in reality she would of course be asked about clothing being borrowed, and if anything was missing. The trousers may have been an easy item to realise were missing, t-shirts not so much, more so, if one has more than one black one? What does it say in her statements? We, again are not interested in the snip bits - where are the Q&A?

[mrswah]

Explain please ? - I am really interested to know what you believe was there and who these certain other people are?  That's quite a statement, an assumption you have came too from reading the book?

Yes, I''ve read the book. Have you? 

Are you really saying that you don't know about the DNA match on Jodi's t shirt??  And about the "excuse" that was made for it, ie Jodi borrowed a t shirt from her sister, who didn't even live at the same address?

Are you saying this is all lies?

[Parky41]

Yes, I''ve read the book. Have you? 

Are you really saying that you don't know about the DNA match on Jodi's t shirt??  And about the "excuse" that was made for it, ie Jodi borrowed a t shirt from her sister, who didn't even live at the same address?

Are you saying this is all lies?

That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated

IMO, DNA from certain other people, found on Jodi, is far more interesting-

JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?

Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe  in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not?  When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA  attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?

The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.

The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct.  Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.

[faithlilly]

That's not what I asked - I asked whom the certain people were as in plural - and did you get the information from the book?
You stated

JaF's DNA was nowhere near to where Jodi was -- his DNA was not present at the locus. It was a whole condoms worth of the stuff. Do you believe that someone involved in a murder, is going to leave a whole condoms worth around, and it was around, some 60 - 150 ft away. In a woodland. Forgive the ambiguity of the difference between 20yrds and 50yrds from someone who claims this same guy must have stepped right over the body? And who leaves us with the possibility that Jodi may have been killed elsewhere - was the DNA testing of the spray on the wall also wrong? Did the police ask for the wrong type of testing here too?

Was Jodi wearing her sisters trousers? LM certainly said she was. - How on earth did she manage to obtain these? For as you say - they stayed in a different house. JaJ stayed at her grans. Are you inferring that Jodi did not go near to her grans house? We know this is not the case however, don't we, as LM often went to her grans with her. And what was? actually present from an ejaculation of milllions upon millions of sperm? - Some sperm heads that had survived a washing cycle. And no, I do not believe  in the slightest that SK had anything to do with this girls murder. Some sperm heads do not make a murderer, and some remnants of semen stains are just that stains. I have put links up before to all of this - you are obviously not interested in the science around this. As Ms Lean clearly states - 'She is not inferring in the slightest that SK was complicit in this girls murder' - then states "I don not buy this rainwater transferral story in the slightest" - Kind of defeats what she first states - does it not?  When faced with the science of it all - Which explains it perfectly, as to why what was left and so forth - she further states 'It does not count, that science was not available in 2003? Really?, so if any advance in science were to show DNA  attributable to this murder definitely being by An another - do we use the same line of reasoning - that it does not count, science as such was not available to this extent in 2003?

The evidence was led before the Jury - they most certainly believed this innocent transfer. Perhaps the men had a lot to say around this and perhaps the woman had experienced stubborn stains on bedsheets, remaining after a wash.

The sperm head on a shoe - a woodland. One sperm head on a shoe that was not SK's. And of perhaps any other - of no reportable results - dead and defunct.  Bloody hell, there was even an empty condom wrapper at the spot where she died in a recent blog. Not that I'm saying the people who left it knew the spot - but that the woodland has obviously been used for many an intimate get together, over the course of it's whole time of being there.

At what point in the development of their statements did SK and JaJ accept that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing when killed ‘may’ have been borrowed from JaJ? Who suggested that this may be the case, was it the police or JaJ/SK? Judith Jones suggested that she bought the same t-shirt for both her daughters. Was this the t-shirt Jodi was wearing and how do we know that it wasn’t her own? Was the matter ever confirmed? 

[Parky41]

At what point in the development of their statements did SK and JaJ accept that the t-shirt Jodi was wearing when killed ‘may’ have been borrowed from JaJ? Who suggested that this may be the case, was it the police or JaJ/SK? Judith Jones suggested that she bought the same t-shirt for both her daughters. Was this the t-shirt Jodi was wearing and how do we know that it wasn’t her own? Was the matter ever confirmed?

Asking the wrong person are we not? - If you have been left with all these questions after reading Ms Leans book, does this not highlight just how empty of context 5% of 1000's of words are?. However, one would doubt the police are asking directly, is this your t-shirt then this confirmation that it was. Pretty much here, that they appear to have been asking about missing clothing in the first place. Then perhaps upon realising that clothing was missing, did they ask for confirmation of colour, description and make? As Jodi may have been wearing one of her sisters tops.  These "suggestions" from Judith Jones that she bought the same t-shirts? Rather ambiguous is it not? What same t-shirts? Were they pink, yellow, black, multi coloured? Hardly surprising however that a mother should buy her daughters clothes, some which may or not have been the same. But absolutely nothing in what you say, that proves or even shows that this mother bought the two t-shirts the same, in question, one for each, that do however appear to have ultimately belonged to JaJ. Trial? usually people are asked to confirm things when given evidence? We have WW going on about two, then three, now yourself with this girls mother?  In short? What does all the statements say around this? -That's correct, you do not know, do you? What is the actual context? In fact it really is rather irrelevant is it not? For it has been shown clearly, time after time, that we can probably go pretty much for the opposite, of what is actually being "suggested" from the evidence at hand from Ms Lean. And what is blatantly obvious, is that upon reading Ms Leans rather odd deciphering of these statements - both you and WW  are scratching your heads over what she means? As are most of her readers - which is of course is exactly what she is aiming at, with a chosen audience, is it not? Forget LM, answers are needed for Ms Leans questions.? Do you also believe Jodi Jones was murdered elsewhere? You continuously say that you don't need to talk of others? to disprove the case against LM - still waiting?

Here is a better question - How do you assume these minute leftovers from semen/sperm heads were on multiple areas of clothing? You obviously do not believe a smidgeon of the borrowed t-shirt, or of innocent transfer, or of Mr Kelly's alibi - and you question everything of these others but not LM?  We know, and it has been shown that Ms Lean does not have everything and for some that she may have, she dismisses as not having? Or that she can not divulge? But can divulge pretty much anything she chooses to. But not the actual relevant parts, that would actually cut out, most of the long winded suggestions she gives on it? And people are most definitely prone to adding some very disturbing arms and legs, are they not? This search trio having to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path? Of the V being hard to see? but easy to see from a motorist from Basically Tool Hire? Of one cutting of their hair to impersonate themselves? Of Ms Lean stating JF gave a wrong description of himself? Of LM's denial of frequenting this woodland, these claims that it's the size of a football field, easy not to have been in all of it? - Just ignore all those witness's. That's correct, it's exactly what one has to do.

[faithlilly]

Asking the wrong person are we not? - If you have been left with all these questions after reading Ms Leans book, does this not highlight just how empty of context 5% of 1000's of words are?. However, one would doubt the police are asking directly, is this your t-shirt then this confirmation that it was. Pretty much here, that they appear to have been asking about missing clothing in the first place. Then perhaps upon realising that clothing was missing, did they ask for confirmation of colour, description and make? As Jodi may have been wearing one of her sisters tops.  These "suggestions" from Judith Jones that she bought the same t-shirts? Rather ambiguous is it not? What same t-shirts? Were they pink, yellow, black, multi coloured? Hardly surprising however that a mother should buy her daughters clothes, some which may or not have been the same. But absolutely nothing in what you say, that proves or even shows that this mother bought the two t-shirts the same, in question, one for each, that do however appear to have ultimately belonged to JaJ. Trial? usually people are asked to confirm things when given evidence? We have WW going on about two, then three, now yourself with this girls mother?  In short? What does all the statements say around this? -That's correct, you do not know, do you? What is the actual context? In fact it really is rather irrelevant is it not? For it has been shown clearly, time after time, that we can probably go pretty much for the opposite, of what is actually being "suggested" from the evidence at hand from Ms Lean. And what is blatantly obvious, is that upon reading Ms Leans rather odd deciphering of these statements - both you and WW  are scratching your heads over what she means? As are most of her readers - which is of course is exactly what she is aiming at, with a chosen audience, is it not? Forget LM, answers are needed for Ms Leans questions.? Do you also believe Jodi Jones was murdered elsewhere? You continuously say that you don't need to talk of others? to disprove the case against LM - still waiting?

Here is a better question - How do you assume these minute leftovers from semen/sperm heads were on multiple areas of clothing? You obviously do not believe a smidgeon of the borrowed t-shirt, or of innocent transfer, or of Mr Kelly's alibi - and you question everything of these others but not LM?  We know, and it has been shown that Ms Lean does not have everything and for some that she may have, she dismisses as not having? Or that she can not divulge? But can divulge pretty much anything she chooses to. But not the actual relevant parts, that would actually cut out, most of the long winded suggestions she gives on it? And people are most definitely prone to adding some very disturbing arms and legs, are they not? This search trio having to walk passed YW's whilst heading directly to the path? Of the V being hard to see? but easy to see from a motorist from Basically Tool Hire? Of one cutting of their hair to impersonate themselves? Of Ms Lean stating JF gave a wrong description of himself? Of LM's denial of frequenting this woodland, these claims that it's the size of a football field, easy not to have been in all of it? - Just ignore all those witness's. That's correct, it's exactly what one has to do.

I suggest you read Judith Jones’s statement in which she tells police that she bought her two daughters both the same black t-shirts. From the statement it’s obvious she means the one Jodi was wearing on the night that she was murdered.

As to the police...you can’t imagine the police asking a leading question such as ‘ do you think it’s possible that Jodi borrowed your t-shirt? Really? It appears that Janine didn’t mention until the 16th of July that Jodi ‘may’ have borrowed her t-shirt.

And was it not Janine who claimed that she didn’t know where Roan’s dyke path was until that night but her gran suggested taking it because ‘ it was the route Jodi would have taken to Luke’s’ ?

[Parky41]

I suggest you read Judith Jones’s statement in which she tells police that she bought her two daughters both the same black t-shirts. From the statement it’s obvious she means the one Jodi was wearing on the night that she was murdered.

As to the police...you can’t imagine the police asking a leading question such as ‘ do you think it’s possible that Jodi borrowed your t-shirt? Really? It appears that Janine didn’t mention until the 16th of July that Jodi ‘may’ have borrowed her t-shirt.

And was it not Janine who claimed that she didn’t know where Roan’s dyke path was until that night but her gran suggested taking it because ‘ it was the route Jodi would have taken to Luke’s’ ?

Not going to answer my question then around SK? the sperm and so forth?

 Let's look at this, of how it most likely did happen:

As you state, probably around the 16th of July - that will be after the DNA testing, of SK's presence of it? Correct?

But lets think of what the police will have obtained first here, before and along with trying to ascertain if the clothing was borrowed, or if was Jodi's and so forth. Those actual DNA results, what they do show and of the advice asked and given on this from these forensic experts. Results first and expertise on them. 

What was actually there, which of course can not be changed, it matters not the insinuation and guess work around it, is very minute traces of 1) semen staining, 2) 2-3 sperm heads of which they managed to obtain a profile from.
3) some areas that may have been semen (far too weak to determine) and some areas that were in fact Jodi's own DNA (F)semen. (those elements of DNA in semen that are found in both M & F, which are only applied to being that of semen and from a M upon further testing.) The DNA here was Jodi's. However the book was well and truly written prior to Ms Lean, and to date having any expertise. Knowledge whatsoever around forensics and DNA. Using this (F) source of DNA as proof the forensics were botched??

These extremely weak traces where found in multiple areas - defunct sperm heads included, and again almost next to nil form ejaculation of millions upon millions of sperm heads from x amount of seminal fluid.

These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA.  What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.

The t-shirt: Of trying to determine if it could have belonged to her sister, or if the top had been jumbled up with other washing and of how it got on the actual t-shirt itself, which was the prime source for transferal and trace DNA. We already know we are left with those stark facts - that ejaculation did not take place at the time of this murder or after.

Which only left one area - that of determining who this t-shirt belonged to, and it did belong to her sister. There was a t-shirt of hers missing. We are not interested in these wild theories and assumption of what amounts to no more than - one does not like to be proved wrong. One knows that ejaculation did not happen that evening, one must hold onto something though, we can't have SK getting away scot free here, can we? However?

The statements - Of the police asking about missing clothing, everyone it would seem, and/or of who bought the clothes in general - but above all Faithlilly, was this t-shirt produced in court? - to clarify if had belonged to JaJ? Did DF ask about it in his precognitions of the witness's? For these precognitions would have been done, these were important witness's - So rather than faffing around with snip bits from statements - What did these precognitions show?, and was this top produced as evidence to determine if it was JaJ's? - Knives and all else where produced in court, this top would have been too, stands to reason, does it not?

But again, one must go to extraordinary lengths - to prove nothing? 'We do not know if the top was borrowed, as look at these snip bits from statements, we don't know if it was rainwater transferal, as x,y and z, said this, but ultimately one does not believe in science anyway, unless it suits?

And of JaJ, the gran: What does this tell us? - That JaJ knew there was a path, she did not know exactly where this path was? But ultimately, without the twist - The search trio were heading to meet with LM who they knew was on the path. They were not simply just heading to this path. They were heading to meet with LM. Upon arriving at the junction of the paths, JaJ was unsure which one - to which AW, who knew the area, said it will be this one, the one that leads to Newbattle. Ms Lean has discussed this many times, of Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. One which leads into Newtongrange, the other Newbatttle. And obviously armed with one clear piece of information from LM - that Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. The exact reason that AW wanted to search this path, thoroughly - not the woods, the path. Interestingly, these walkways, continue on the other side of Newbattle R'd. Many off shoots into numerous areas of the woodland, directly next to Newbattle Abbey Crescent? - where the Mitchells stayed. Children growing up next to woods, becoming familiar with every inch of them?

[Chris_Halkides]

I'll start with Point No 1.  Firstly you say no trace was found but I thought Luke's DNA was present on Jodi's body and/or clothing - is this incorrect?

"Ms Ure said a stain on a bra Jodi had been wearing showed DNA traces from more than two individuals - some of which matched parts of Luke Mitchell's genetic profile." BBC

I would like to see a table of loci for myself, or still better, the electropherogram. This statement is open to two kinds of interpretations. I will assume no more that two loci for the sake of simplicity, and I will at first treat the DNA as if there were only one contributor, also for the sake of simplicity.

Interpretation 1: They found a locus for which the alleles were the same as Mr. Mitchell's. A single locus is not a full profile; you might narrow down the number of donors to, say, 10% of the population (it depends greatly on the particulars), but that is nowhere near the full discriminatory power of DNA.

Interpretation 2: They found one locus the same as Mr. Mitchell and one locus that was not the same. If that were true then Mr. Mitchell is excluded as a donor.

But the difficulties in the statement above go beyond this first problem.  A three-person mixture is much more difficult to disentangle than a single profile is.  Let me quote from an article at NIST (USA).  "This illustrates an important point about DNA mixtures: Just because a person’s alleles appear in a mixture does not mean that person contributed to it. The alleles may have come from some combination of other people who, between them, have all the allele types in the suspect’s profile." https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/dna-mixtures-forensic-science-explainer. The kind of software mentioned in this article was not, to the best of my knowledge, available at the time of the murder (it was introduced around 2009).  This type of software has itself generated controversy, although it also has some potential advantages.

For these reasons Ms. Ure's statement is close to meaningless.

[faithlilly]

Not going to answer my question then around SK? the sperm and so forth?

 Let's look at this, of how it most likely did happen:

As you state, probably around the 16th of July - that will be after the DNA testing, of SK's presence of it? Correct?

But lets think of what the police will have obtained first here, before and along with trying to ascertain if the clothing was borrowed, or if was Jodi's and so forth. Those actual DNA results, what they do show and of the advice asked and given on this from these forensic experts. Results first and expertise on them. 

What was actually there, which of course can not be changed, it matters not the insinuation and guess work around it, is very minute traces of 1) semen staining, 2) 2-3 sperm heads of which they managed to obtain a profile from.
3) some areas that may have been semen (far too weak to determine) and some areas that were in fact Jodi's own DNA (F)semen. (those elements of DNA in semen that are found in both M & F, which are only applied to being that of semen and from a M upon further testing.) The DNA here was Jodi's. However the book was well and truly written prior to Ms Lean, and to date having any expertise. Knowledge whatsoever around forensics and DNA. Using this (F) source of DNA as proof the forensics were botched??

These extremely weak traces where found in multiple areas - defunct sperm heads included, and again almost next to nil form ejaculation of millions upon millions of sperm heads from x amount of seminal fluid.

These forensic professionals had obviously gave their expertise, on advice that all of which was found, was attributable to being much older than that of the 30th June. Of being through a washing cycle, of transferal and trace DNA.  What was important from then, was to determine why it was on the top Jodi was wearing - which leads us to the this t-shirt being borrowed or not? They already know with certainty that it had not been deposited there that evening. That science was good enough then to prove this and goes above and beyond proof of burden now.

The t-shirt: Of trying to determine if it could have belonged to her sister, or if the top had been jumbled up with other washing and of how it got on the actual t-shirt itself, which was the prime source for transferal and trace DNA. We already know we are left with those stark facts - that ejaculation did not take place at the time of this murder or after.

Which only left one area - that of determining who this t-shirt belonged to, and it did belong to her sister. There was a t-shirt of hers missing. We are not interested in these wild theories and assumption of what amounts to no more than - one does not like to be proved wrong. One knows that ejaculation did not happen that evening, one must hold onto something though, we can't have SK getting away scot free here, can we? However?

The statements - Of the police asking about missing clothing, everyone it would seem, and/or of who bought the clothes in general - but above all Faithlilly, was this t-shirt produced in court? - to clarify if had belonged to JaJ? Did DF ask about it in his precognitions of the witness's? For these precognitions would have been done, these were important witness's - So rather than faffing around with snip bits from statements - What did these precognitions show?, and was this top produced as evidence to determine if it was JaJ's? - Knives and all else where produced in court, this top would have been too, stands to reason, does it not?

But again, one must go to extraordinary lengths - to prove nothing? 'We do not know if the top was borrowed, as look at these snip bits from statements, we don't know if it was rainwater transferal, as x,y and z, said this, but ultimately one does not believe in science anyway, unless it suits?

And of JaJ, the gran: What does this tell us? - That JaJ knew there was a path, she did not know exactly where this path was? But ultimately, without the twist - The search trio were heading to meet with LM who they knew was on the path. They were not simply just heading to this path. They were heading to meet with LM. Upon arriving at the junction of the paths, JaJ was unsure which one - to which AW, who knew the area, said it will be this one, the one that leads to Newbattle. Ms Lean has discussed this many times, of Lady Path and Roansdyke Path. One which leads into Newtongrange, the other Newbatttle. And obviously armed with one clear piece of information from LM - that Jodi had failed to turn up in Newbattle. The exact reason that AW wanted to search this path, thoroughly - not the woods, the path. Interestingly, these walkways, continue on the other side of Newbattle R'd. Many off shoots into numerous areas of the woodland, directly next to Newbattle Abbey Crescent? - where the Mitchells stayed. Children growing up next to woods, becoming familiar with every inch of them?

Do you have the forensic report to clarify just what the forensics showed?  Did it show categorically that SK’s DNA had been transferred during a wash in a washing machine? What washing machine ? The one where SK lived or the one where JaJ lived? Was it ever proved that it was JaJ’s t-shirt? What about the trousers? Surely they would have been a lot easier to identify than one out of many different black tops? What did JaJ say about them? Or was it just the top that was interesting because it had SK’s DNA on it? What about the lack of JaJ’s DNA on the t-shirt that supposedly belonged to her? Was it less hardy than SK’s DNA?

No DNA of Luke’s on Jodi’s body or Jodi’s DNA on Luke and in the end that’s all that really matters in relation to Luke’s innocence. Of course you can speculate this or that but it’s not proof and, in the end, that’s what’s needed.

BTW what about the cell site analysis? Was it ever carried out? If not, why not ? Surely it would have proved conclusively that Luke was in Easthouses that night?

And Luke’s alibi. Did the police ever check with friends if Shane met up with them that night and if so, what time? As he was charged with perverting the course of justice surely the least the police could have done was find out if he had ate his dinner, which his mum couldn’t have cooked as she was at work, and been out and about at 5.30pm.

Is it true that the jury were not told that charges of perverting the course of justice had been dropped against Corrine and Shane ? Why do you think the police did that? Could it be to prejudice their evidence?