Author Topic: Luke's DNA  (Read 4782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #60 on: July 22, 2022, 02:13:35 PM »
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.


Like killer Simon Hall, Michael Stone confessed numerous times to his murders of Lin, Megan & Lucy Russell and to the attempted murder of Josie Russell but enablers like liar and grifter Mark McDonald - who also represents serial killer Ben Geen - and who bare faced lied during channel 4’s TV show called ‘Nurses who kill’, appear to get a kick out of attempting to dupe unsuspecting members of the public

Liar and grifter Mark McDonald sat wearing the red coloured shirt of the left (As you view the video), with charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean on the right  ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDXHhXamUuo

Allan Jamieson, who was also involved in the last ever Rough Justice TV show on killer and ‘innocence’ fraudster Simon Hall, seated next to Sandra Lean

Kevin McMahon, who also appears in the video, was convicted of perverting the course of justice for pressurising a witness in a sex abuse case to retract their statement before an appeal hearing

👇

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/ex-policeman-claimed-private-detective-2928149
« Last Edit: July 22, 2022, 02:33:18 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #61 on: July 22, 2022, 05:17:12 PM »
Sandra Lean
Barbara Stone I think you were right the first time - anyone with a heart would feel the same way. How can they possibly justify this, after a confession from the real killer? I wonder how those who've been so diabolical about Mick can look at themselves in the mirror, far less sleep at night.


‘Mick’ being psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone aka Michael John Goodban https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stone_(criminal)

Sandra Lean was responding to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s sister Barbara who had stated;

Barbara Stone
Sandra Lean I notice the diabolicals are not saying much now we have caught the real murderer and Mick is still inside I d like a front page that read 'let Mick out hes innocent' of course the hearts messing with my common sense


Barbara Stone then added a post which read ‘heat


Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #62 on: July 22, 2022, 05:42:03 PM »
Sandra Lean was responding to psychopathic serial killer Michael Stone’s sister Barbara who had stated;

Barbara Stone
Sandra Lean I notice the diabolicals are not saying much now we have caught the real murderer and Mick is still inside I d like a front page that read 'let Mick out hes innocent' of course the hearts messing with my common sense


Barbara Stone then added a post which read ‘heat

The same Barbara Stone who, when referring to speaking with the media, used the term ‘to go and play

Barbara Stone
Just going to do an interview. Checklist: Have I emptied the jars on bathroom window?
Do my shoes match trousers? Have I cussed Mick for putting me through? Yes everything in order I ll be off soon ×

Kevin McMahon
Have you had a hair makeover?😂😂

Barbara Stone
Just trying g to organise and I defo thought of you and Ron. Do everytime I have to go and play x
(Sic) (https://www.facebook.com/groups/487090761485587/permalink/1777870049074312/)

Sounds about right 🙄

Kevin McMahon is an ex police officer who ‘claimed to be a private investigator’ and was done for perverting the course of justice
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Chris_Halkides

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2022, 06:26:47 PM »
Parky41,

Dan Krane and coauthors wrote in a 2008 letter, "The interpretation of an evidentiary DNA profile should not be influenced by information about a suspect’s DNA profile (3-6). Each item of evidence must be interpreted independently of other items of evidence or reference samples."

You referred to "his DNA," by which I assume that you mean Luke's DNA.  There is zero evidence of Luke's DNA at the scene of the crime.  Because my reasons for saying so are spread out over several comments, I will summarize.  One cannot take a multi-person mixture and compare it with reference profiles.  This is called "suspect-centered" analysis, and it is generally considered an invalid method of analysis.  See for example the quote above.  Finding someone's alleles in a mixture is not equivalent to including them as a contributor.  I can find no evidence that the software that helps in interpretation of mixtures of moderate complexity existed circa 2005.  As the number of contributors increases, the problem gets worse.

Offline Parky41

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2022, 11:31:05 AM »
Chris, I understand fully what you are saying;

That acceptance and agreement from those better placed with the full intact picture of "everything" answers most of it.

Tomato/tomahto Chris? - I have been saying this all along when applied to something being used as evidence. The very essence of that agreement, was to not waste time on something that was not being used as evidence. The pointless, futile task of doing what would have had to be done, such as going through it one by one, each interpreted independently in it's own right.

The infamous pair of trousers and bra strap (not the everything), and any work around what tests may or not have been carried out with the latter around mixed profiles. Again, not being put forward as connected to the murder. Introduced around LM as it had to be for the agreement to then take place, to leave aside that which was not going to be used as evidence to do with the actual murder.

We can keep applying the same in different formats, it means the same. Evidence of the presence of LM's DNA upon his girlfriend but no DNA evidence connecting him to the murder, directly to him being present at the scene of the murder whilst it was taken place, nor anyone else's.
 
Such is the desire and actual interest in the truth, people fail continuously to actually read wording over inference nor to check. There should be questions placed here around that agreement, not this nonsense acceptance of it being made, to 'not discuss DNA/forensics in general' Such is the reason given by LM according to the author? What should be getting asked?

Who is this source that made LM aware of that agreement? - The source is direct, present when it was made at his trial. The source being the Crown and defence.

Therefore, why is it applied as "another source" and not who the actual source was? Because, when we apply it was directly made in his presence, then we apply the actual reason, the truth of why it was made. - Such is that wonderful language of deception, is it not?

Never ceases to amaze me that acceptance of having half the male population of Midlothian with DNA upon this girl/clothing, but not her own boyfriend? But there you have it, exactly what is being claimed in that attempt to have everything applied to stranger DNA.

But as you say, you do not know the details of said agreement, nor it would seem question the rather vague knowledge around LM of it and source? Instead opting for multiple reasons and choosing option ? That it may have been made in favour of the Crown to silence the defence? From introducing all this wonderful stranger DNA? And again, without placing DF upon some pedestal, one certainly has to apply the notion of him having his hands tied so firmly behind his back, they appear to have caught fast that zip one has placed up it? (Not you) If we go continuously along with Joe Blogs, do we not?

Offline Mr Apples

Re: Luke's DNA
« Reply #65 on: August 03, 2022, 02:43:29 AM »
Did the forensic team that was deployed to this case also scour the woodland areas behind the gate where LM was spotted by LF & RW? Did they find any blood trails there? Also, at the locus, were there any traces of blood to the east of the V? Or were all the traces obtained found strictly to the west of the V, contained within that 16.3 metres west of the V where Jodi's body was found? Were there any traces of blood further down west of the woodland strip on the Roan's Dyke Path?