Common sense approach…if the prosecution had had DNA that could have helped convict Mitchell they would not for one moment have entered into an agreement with the defence to exclude it.
Just a little bit of 'dumb and dumber' going on once more, perfect deflection tactic however, and very much in line with ? The only real relevance, as is highlighted in the post, is it does not take pages of a book to explain the case was circumstantial. My post was not about having evidence that could have convicted LM, you are living in the pages of waffle of thee book.
The point and the real relevance is the deception going on between these three 'craws?' That of why the agreement was made, does not quite have the same ring to it however, does it? Of an agreement was made to not include, non incriminating DNA of Mitchells, pointless time consuming exercise. When it is obvious that the reason for the agreement is being side lined to hide the fact, that there was not a scrap of forensic evidence pointing this murder to A another. Two donors, trace transferal, LM and SK. The discussion around SK's highlighting just how easily DNA can be present, from a bodily fluid substance that was not the murderer. And again, the presence of SK's DNA, which was shown without doubt, not to have been left at the time of the murder, from someone who was not the victims boyfriend. All just a tad contradictory would it not have been? To then attempt to show that the presence of LM's DNA, who was in an intimate relationship with the victim was left there from the murder? - Therefore, the ONLY DNA that needed explaining was from SK. That LM's was of absolutely no value to the Crowns case, thus circumstantial evidence only. No blood, no bumps, no scrapes found upon LM, his home and so forth.
Yet, and not surprisingly of course, those claims without the slightest proof, that LM had been wearing the same clothes from school that day, taken from him in the early hours of July the 1st. His mother stating every detail of those clothes. The DNA of Mitchells present, and naturally so upon the victims clothing. Yet nothing of Jodi, on those clothes? That top she just loved so much, her favourite LM claimed. The impression given that it was manky and unwashed, falling off his back type thing? - Yet nothing, even after their intimate time together at school. Or perhaps we just simply do not get to know of those test results, perhaps there is a lot more to that agreement, of 'innocent DNA' -
So yes, the point is the deception, the point is punting out this 'nothing, nada' as fact, applying it to stranger DNA, just a little ironic to say the least. But above all you are being spun a yarn and you are spinning more of it. But some realism, applying that which is realistic would serve better, would it not? For this complete OTT nonsense, that 'half a Mars bar' situ, that typical liar syndrome of 'black is white' which serves to produce comments of late, such as "If the police had did their Job properly, then DF would not have been able to ask people if they had murdered Jodi!" - This is the main support, the blind. Who churn this nonsense up, spit it back out with all sorts of nonsense. Or "The Jury should be ashamed of themselves finding someone guilty with no evidence" - And you, yourself are prime in this, with this "wafer thin case"
Where they are actually answering their own query, highlighting just how much of a yarn they are being spun. That any defence asking someone if they had been the culprit is NOT because they believe they are, but more so, that it is because of the honesty, and the thoroughness of the investigation side (SL blinded to, to a degree), that one was able to put that question to anyone. Full disclosure, transparency, investigating these individuals to the max - to close those doors from the defence, leaving them with every single thing found, to do with SK, JF, and GD. The police did not leave unanswered questions, and the Crown made sure there were none.
And enough with the contradictions? This 'no forensic tests were carried out unless to do with Mitchell' - What about that whopping big knife, boots and jacket, those gloves, condoms in caves and the list really is endless. This utter nonsense of 'no reportable results' Well we have seen the honesty laid bare with the denial of reason for that agreement. We know without a shadow of a doubt, that the actual truth is being hidden in this ultimate bias. Each point contradicting the other. Cherry picking areas of those results to push out, to manipulate them into something completely false. As with everything of course, only sounds the part for those who typically fall under "none so blind as those who will not see" Who pick up the inference rather than the wording.
So yes, this, whopping great big knife with no results, well it was blood, that is a result. But it really does not matter does it, the size of this knife, the jacket and boots, for what it was not, was the victims blood, and no it was not inconclusive, it was the only thing they were testing for. Which animal?, goodness knows, and who cares, it was not the blood of Jodi Jones. From this 'person of interest'. It's dramatic, one will give you that, really grabs the attention of those, who soak this up, churn it round and spit it back out with additives. The author may bank upon the wider public who know little of this case, also knows of course that people are not mute, are they? This 'person of interest' with that whopping big knife, does have a tongue!
