Author Topic: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC  (Read 18686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2015, 01:56:29 AM »
What's the latest?  Does anyone know?

Nothing really, I dont think the SCCRC will be making any further moves in this case any time soon.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 02:35:35 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Parky41

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2019, 10:53:11 AM »
Guessing here that nothing new was thrown up here? Perhaps more clarification that those ? strands of male DNA still showed the same as the laddies?! They didn't dissolve into nothing?

Offline Guiltyascharged

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2022, 01:25:14 PM »
With all this talk of dna recently , does anyone know what the sccrc results were after further testing was approved? Was the failed appeal report shared?

Offline Rusty

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2022, 02:39:18 PM »
With all this talk of dna recently , does anyone know what the sccrc results were after further testing was approved? Was the failed appeal report shared?


No, but i suspect Lean will have a copy, i also suspect the information in the report would clear up much of the nonsense that is getting branded about of late. If you had a hoax to sell, the last thing you would be doing is publishing a report that will go against the narrative. As they and much of their deluded followers keep preaching about the police, having something to hide, the same can be said of Lean & Forbes why are they hiding the report/statement of reasons from their followers? I think we know why.

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2022, 02:44:15 PM »

No, but i suspect Lean will have a copy, i also suspect the information in the report would clear up much of the nonsense that is getting branded about of late. If you had a hoax to sell, the last thing you would be doing is publishing a report that will go against the narrative. As they and much of their deluded followers keep preaching about the police, having something to hide, the same can be said of Lean & Forbes why are they hiding the report/statement of reasons from their followers? I think we know why.

Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?


The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean

as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist

Sandra Lean, the killer and his mothers PR campaign was, and is, a hoax from day one

Sandra Lean did not attend the killers trial and she did not hear all 42 days worth of evidence.

Although the Scottish criminal cases review commissions (SCCRC) statement of reasons will not have called out this innocence fraud, the reasons given by the SCCRC for dismissing the application will without doubt expose more of this fraud

« Last Edit: December 04, 2022, 03:00:38 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 Rusty

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2022, 02:57:35 PM »
Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?


The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean

as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist

Agreed. But it won't be by an English police force, they have very little jurisdiction in Scotland  8((()*/

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2022, 03:01:42 PM »
Agreed. But it won't be by an English police force, they have very little jurisdiction in Scotland  8((()*/

Will be interesting to see what 2023 has in store for this HOAX PR campaign 
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2022, 03:16:53 PM »
Sandra Lean (today)
I've seen lots of posts about holding "them" accountable for the recent revelations, but here's the difficulty we face in Scotland. First we have a single police force - who is going to investigate? I don't think anyone would be satisfied with them investigating themselves? Second, the Lord Advocate and PF's office are both implicated - there is no "Higher Power". So, what now?
Bring in an English Police Force to investigate? Or do what we've been asking all along and have a fully independent review, made up of panel members from every discipline (experts in their field, but not necessarily from Scotland) and let them do what has to be done?


The main person who needs to be investigated is Sandra Lean

as well as Stirling university and Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch and the Scottish centre for crime and justice research for funding this con-artist

Sandra Lean, the killer and his mothers PR campaign was, and is, a hoax from day one

Sandra Lean did not attend the killers trial and she did not hear all 42 days worth of evidence.

Although the Scottish criminal cases review commissions (SCCRC) statement of reasons will not have called out this innocence fraud, the reasons given by the SCCRC for dismissing the application will without doubt expose more of this fraud

In response to hoaxer Sandra Lean’s above Facebook post - Gordon Graham Aka gordo30 states

Gordon Graham
I’m guessing most of what we know now about the two essays and all the other evidence that was destroyed was part of the review of the SCCRC? We certainly knew about the essay about killing a girl in the woods prior to the application to the SCCRC so has the majority of the destroyed evidence already been reviewed by the SCCRC? If so why didn’t they refer the case back to the appeal courts? Do they still have the various reviews of sed evidence and if so is it really lost!

« Last Edit: December 04, 2022, 03:19:40 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 Mr Apples

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2022, 03:28:52 AM »
What actually were the findings from the SCCRC when they retested the DNA materials from this case between 2012-2014? My memory's a bit cloudy, but wasn't there another partial profile found on Jodi's trousers which had markers that were similar to those in LM's genetic makeup? And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2022, 04:26:18 PM »
What actually were the findings from the SCCRC when they retested the DNA materials from this case between 2012-2014? My memory's a bit cloudy, but wasn't there another partial profile found on Jodi's trousers which had markers that were similar to those in LM's genetic makeup? And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?

Yep and another reason why con-artist Sandra Lean knew she’d been duped by the killer and his mother

Some useful info and links to the killers DNA, the DNA agreement & the SCCRC can be found here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/05/police-scotland-is-satisfied-that-no-further-investigation-is-required-nobody-else-requires-to-be-traced-in-connection-with-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-pa/
« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 05:15:44 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: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2022, 04:38:23 PM »
And what was the source of this DNA (eg, semen, saliva, fingerprints, hair or skin cells)? And whilst on the subject of the DNA . . . . . . during the original investigation, between 2003-2004, what was the DNA source from LM found on Jodi's t-shirt and body that had shown multiple partial profiles containing markers similar to those in his genetic makeup? I've always assumed it was semen because SL metions in her book (IB) that there were traces of semen all over Jodi's body, face, arms and hair. Can someone clarify?

Don’t expect fraudster Sandra Lean to do that Mr Apples

It sounds like her second book is as bad as her first

Why didn’t Sandra Lean write about guilty killer Luke Mitchell’s other missing bike and about the questions the police would have asked him, his lying mother Corinne and lying brother Shane about this

Con-artists like Sandra Lean and killers and con-artists like Luke Mitchell are renowned for distraction and deflecting and for using selective attention in their innocence fraud PR campaigns

Although the killers other missing bike does not appear to have been found, it’s still extremely possible it was used by him on the 30th June 2003

How was killer Luke Mitchell getting to and from school most days?

And again what did the various witnesses say about his bikes?

Con-artist Sandra Lean only ever appears to have mentioned John [Name removed] and Gordon [Name removed] but what did everyone else say?

Sandra Lean 2017
Quote
The police were running around asking all and sundry what they knew about Luke and push bikes. In their earliest statements, JF and GD "volunteered" stories about Luke and various pushbikes.

Phoney criminologist Sandra Lean never ever mentioned the ‘loud’ and ‘larey shirt’ (in her first discredited book) guilty killer Simon Hall was wearing on the 15/16th December 2001

👇
Part 5 The Missing ‘Larey or Loud’ Top With ‘Red Splashes’
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/05/06/quite-a-hall-tale-part-5-%ef%b8%8f/
« Last Edit: December 05, 2022, 05:15:21 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 Mr Apples

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2022, 02:30:16 AM »
Yep and another reason why con-artist Sandra Lean knew she’d been duped by the killer and his mother

Some useful info and links to the killers DNA, the DNA agreement & the SCCRC can be found here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/05/police-scotland-is-satisfied-that-no-further-investigation-is-required-nobody-else-requires-to-be-traced-in-connection-with-factually-guilty-killer-luke-mitchells-murder-pa/

Thanks, Nicholas. Who wrote all of that? It's very interesting, though it doesn't seem like it's from an ''official source" (not that this is the be all and end all). An agreement wouldn't have been made had there been none of Luke Mitchell's DNA present at the locus? How so? I don't understand this part. Because of the amount of the victim's blood that was present at the locus, it was, imo, lucky they were able to obtain any results whatsoever -- inconclusive, non-reportable, or partials from LM or otherwise. Let's say, hypothetically, those DNA results in 2003/2004 showed absolutely nothing of LM's genetic makeup -- what then? What would have happened? Surely, they would have still tried to build a very robust strictly circumstantial case against LM without DNA evidence? After all, it was he -- and not another -- against the Crown? Why even mention an agreement having been -- or not having been -- made at the original trial? The crux of the matter is that no incriminating dna evidence was found from LM or a stranger (though a few partials matching LM's genetic makeup, & unidentified, inconclusive and non-reportable results were found; It depends on which side of the fence one sits on when interpreting these results). So, yes, the DNA results in this case matter not a jot. It was  -- and still is --completely futile discussing the DNA results in this case. In lieu of conclusive dna results, a completely circumstantial case was built against LM, and, imo, it succeeded. Succeeded beyond reasonable doubt -- although, I still think it's worthwhile to hang on to DNA materials for further testing . . .  just in case! I concede that this case is still complex and the initial crime scene on 01.07.03 should've been better managed (covering the body from the elements immediately after the photographer finished his work at the scene of the crime). Still, I think LM is as guilty as hell.

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2022, 03:04:15 PM »
Thanks, Nicholas. Who wrote all of that? It's very interesting, though it doesn't seem like it's from an ''official source"

Do you consider bogus ‘criminologist’ Sandra Lean and fantasist Scott Forbes “official sources” Mr Apples?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2022, 03:06:04 PM »
An agreement wouldn't have been made had there been none of Luke Mitchell's DNA present at the locus? How so? I don't understand this part.

Which part are you referring to ? can you be more specific
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Parky41

Re: New DNA tests ordered by the SCCRC
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2022, 04:02:19 PM »
It's confusing Mr Apples for the agreement was made around him. Ms Lean and "another source" had let the Mitchell's know of an agreement to not use DNA evidence. Nope, it was an agreement to not use DNA as evidence.

The main point of highlighting that agreement is purely to do with deception. Part of that explanation around those ludicrous questions placed such as 'How could it be to not discuss DNA evidence when it was discussed?' The whole basis of blanking the reason is for that purpose, to cause confusion and deflect into what was accepted to not do at trial.

Think of Kelly here, that one profile and the acceptance of trace/diffusion transferal of other parts found. The same applied to Mitchell, that acceptance of the same type of trace transferal. The acceptance that it was NOT stranger DNA, nothing found pointing this murder to 'a another'

Chris points out that each and every sample should be treated in its own merit. Yes, if going through it all piece by piece. Which is something they accepted not to do as it was NOT getting put forward as evidence in the case against Mitchell.

So, the only point in highlighting the technicalities of an agreement, was to say, if there had been nothing and no more of the same, then NO agreement need have been made. It is confusion because the person is actually blanking the actual reason for it. Soley to do with what had been accepted by both sides. And not and never to forget here, those team of bodies who dealt with such matters day in and out. Who would have had experts study the original tests and reports, in turn who gave their expertise around this.

Faith said once, who to trust here? Me or the media, a criminologist and someone who had access to defence papers (more than Joe public). Indeed, who do we trust here? The actual experts who dealt with this case or Joe public in the shape of Ms Lean!

The mangling and manipulation, of Joe public giving their opinion in areas far beyond their reach of understanding. Who claimed they were in a mess, that they could not match samples to reports. Who put a book to print stating the same thing, applied all sorts of conclusions around multiple giant IF's. But has everything of Mitchell's in ship shape fashion, executed perfectly!

The deception to manipulate. The "another source" was directly in front of Mitchell, explained without any doubt fully to him. There is no reason other than deception for NOT knowing the actual details of that agreement.