Has anyone contacted the SCCRC re what they’ve allegedly written in their SoR to Luke Mitchell/Sandra Lean re ‘stocky man’
Email: info@sccrc.org.uk
It would be helpful to see those reports - they should of course, as with many other areas, namely the Mitchell statements and so forth - be part and parcel of any campaign. All I have heard re the reports is. That two new areas of profiling were found around the zip trousers. Gordo had asked me If I would like to know who it belonged to? Told him to best keep it under lock and key? - Fits well in with the 'Parky being sarky!' Love it ;-) That one should not be letting such 'vital evidence into the public domain' As we know of course that it really amounted to naff all - nothing new and of no importance. Or one would not be getting to know anything, would they. Much like Marty and the ID of stocky man carrying this girls coffin? - Really, when one was confronted with, that only employees from the funeral directors carried the coffin, did Ms Lean jump on board to say no-one had ever made claim to someone carrying a coffin. After Marty had claimed he was given this top secret information privately? - Marty is very like WW funnily enough? - someone who is in the loop of everything, has all this top secret information that tells us who the killer was - The SCCRC:
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #2667 on: July 14, 2014, 04:38:PM »
judicial review of the decision ors there's the echr.
or new submission could made possbly if more evedence was found.
theres now 2 new dna profiles and they dont belong to luke sonner or later they will be matched to somebody.
I believe the SCCRC only re-tested the trousers, and found further DNA (which was missed during the investigation) on the zipper and inside of the button hole. What the SCCRC does not appear to have sought is any sort of explanation for the dozens of tests which came back "inconclusive" or "no reportable result." Unless it is known what they were asked to report about it can never be known if there would have been reportable results for other factors - contrary to popular belief, the lab are not given samples and asked to "test for everything" - samples are sent with specific instructions.
All this what they do not appear to have sought? - So all guess work on Ms Leans part - we just do not know anything as we do not know what was asked for - yet we do know the wrong testing was asked for? (fingernails) And this "I believe the SCCRC only re-tested the trousers" What a tell tale sentence this is - Ms Lean would know what was tested - no believing about it. She has the report - Again these get out clauses. One would imagine that they were testing for everything akin to the actual murder, evidence in any format. She mentions this massive knife in her book, and of blood on clothing and shoes of a 'person of interest' - no reportable result. Not Jodi's blood then. But we do not know, do we, as we do not know what tests were asked for - what a shambles. Not the DNA results but the continuous squirming to state clearly - There was no reportable results - pointing this murder to An another/stranger murder.
And of Nug Nug - Two "new" dna profiles, not Luke's and one day they will match to someone - really? So he is stating that this was not anyone that Jodi knew, of these close 'others' - But then we have Gordo, who claims he knows who they belong to, as he asked me "Do you want to know whose they were?" - what a mess, and these are two main campaigners for the innocence camp.
What we do know with certainty, is that the SCCRC did not agree with Ms Leans many theories. That they did do advanced DNA testing not available in 2003. - That this did not reveal anything of worth. That they did scour every inch of this investigation and found nothing other than prove Ms Lean wrong. Those calls, the statements - not in her defence files. MK and the parka? - what parka?
All this contrary to common belief - No funding, no witness's, wrong testing but not knowing what was asked for? the list is endless. No ID of stocky man and most certainly no confession tying the two together - Ms Mitchell was lying. She was not mistaken she was lying. Of these joint theories and scrap merchants - telling the truth and was Ms Lean lying?, point plank when she claimed no such theories took place? -these two top headers of this campaign? Of CM of the call from LM before heading into the Abbey - Ms Lean is now saying the call was after LM got wasted, that he had come back out of the Abbey to make this call. That he was stoned and time was therefore perhaps distorted - Lies to cover more lies, to cover up the continuation of stories that change dramatically to fit around any new narrative given?
