Killer Luke Mitchell's mum begs public for cash donations to fund new appeal.

[Joe Blogs]

Who does the DNA belong to?

Good question, Vertigo!
I may be wrong, but I believe it allegedly belongs to an unknown person, whether it is a complete profile I am not sure, but it doesn't belong to LM, he has been ruled out.
BUT!! I may have got this wrong, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, they know far more about the case than I do.
I can always enquire over on twitter.

[Joe Blogs]

Good question, Vertigo!
I may be wrong, but I believe it allegedly belongs to an unknown person, whether it is a complete profile I am not sure, but it doesn't belong to LM, he has been ruled out.
BUT!! I may have got this wrong, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, they know far more about the case than I do.
I can always enquire over on twitter.

Yes, it says 'unidentified male DNA [semen] found on the trousers and several places on Jodi's body.
If this is correct, doesn't that rule out any of the known suspects? And if true, why was LM ever charged in the first place?

[Chris_Halkides]

Another question is why did the police not believe that the crime was sexually motivated.

[Joe Blogs]

Another question is why did the police not believe that the crime was sexually motivated.

Yes, Scott Forbes has pointed that out many times, Chris.

[faithlilly]

A retrial might find him not guilty or his guilt not proven but proving his innocence is a bit much to hope for imo.  What is the killer piece of evidence that will exonerate him?

What was the killer piece of evidence that convicted him?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, it says 'unidentified male DNA [semen] found on the trousers and several places on Jodi's body.
If this is correct, doesn't that rule out any of the known suspects? And if true, why was LM ever charged in the first place?

Where does the information about the male DNA come from and why wasn’t it flagged in court by the defence or at subsequent appeals?

[Vertigo Swirl]

What was the killer piece of evidence that convicted him?

As I understand it, it was an accumulation of mostly circumstantial evidence, none of which was definitive proof.  My question however was about the evidence that will (according to Joe) definitively prove his innocence. 

[Joe Blogs]

Where does the information about the male DNA come from and why wasn’t it flagged in court by the defence or at subsequent appeals?

Not sure if the defence knew about it in court, Vertigo, but the sccrc requested samples around 2013 for testing but the Crown refused to hand them over, then of course many of the productions were destroyed after 'murder in a small town' was shown on TV.
Obviously the Crown wouldn't destroy any evidence earlier than it should have been if it pointed to LM as the killer, surely they would have wanted to re-test any forensic evidence with up to date technology to silence the LM supporters for once and for all? Not so, they tried to destroy the lot, and the only reason some may remain is because a police whistleblower with a conscience informed Scott Forbes what was happening.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not sure if the defence knew about it in court, Vertigo, but the sccrc requested samples around 2013 for testing but the Crown refused to hand them over, then of course many of the productions were destroyed after 'murder in a small town' was shown on TV.
Obviously the Crown wouldn't destroy any evidence earlier than it should have been if it pointed to LM as the killer, surely they would have wanted to re-test any forensic evidence with up to date technology to silence the LM supporters for once and for all? Not so, they tried to destroy the lot, and the only reason some may remain is because a police whistleblower with a conscience informed Scott Forbes what was happening.

I don’t really understand.  If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?

[Joe Blogs]

I don’t really understand.  If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?

Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's clothing, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's clothing, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.

I see.  And was this not used as part of the defence strategy at Mitchell's trial?

[Joe Blogs]

I don’t really understand.  If the court has refused to turn over samples for testing how is it now known that these samples will exonerate Mitchell? I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the DNA had been linked to Jodi’s sister’s boyfriend and explained by the fact that Jodi was wearing an item of her sister’s on the day of her murder?

Yes, Steven Kelly's DNA was found on Jodi's  t-shirt, but the DNA on the trousers and Jodi's body belong to an as yet unidentified male as far as I can gather, Vertigo. They were tested, and that is why LM was ruled out, there are documents showing this.

[Joe Blogs]

I see.  And was this not used as part of the defence strategy at Mitchell's trial?

What? The unknown DNA? Couldn't have been surely, as this would have surely ruled out LM at the time?
No, I dont understand it either, Vertigo, maybe the police just took it for granted that the DNA found on Jodi's trousers and naked body would belong to LM, and when, to their surprise it didn't, they must have just ignored it?
BUT!! That would mean we have to accept that the police did indeed conspire to frame LM for the murder. But why?
Is it possible that the police did find out back in 2003 who the unknown DNA belonged to but didn't question them for some reason?
I really dont know. BUT!! Hopefully the new legal team will get to work soon and find out what is indeed fact and what is fiction.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What? The unknown DNA? Couldn't have been surely, as this would have surely ruled out LM at the time?
No, I dont understand it either, Vertigo, maybe the police just took it for granted that the DNA found on Jodi's trousers and naked body would belong to LM, and when, to their surprise it didn't, they must have just ignored it?
BUT!! That would mean we have to accept that the police did indeed conspire to frame LM for the murder. But why?
Is it possible that the police did find out back in 2003 who the unknown DNA belonged to but didn't question them for some reason?
I really dont know. BUT!! Hopefully the new legal team will get to work soon and find out what is indeed fact and what is fiction.

It says on the fundraising page “ Unexamined Forensic Evidence: Body fluid samples, including semen and sperm, remain in police custody but have never undergone modern DNA testing. ”  If it’s never been examined then a) how do they know it’s semen and b) how do they know it doesn’t belong to Mitchell?  Also, odd to differentiate between semen and sperm in the wording, semen includes sperm, surely?

[Joe Blogs]

It says on the fundraising page “ Unexamined Forensic Evidence: Body fluid samples, including semen and sperm, remain in police custody but have never undergone modern DNA testing. ”  If it’s never been examined then a) how do they know it’s semen and b) how do they know it doesn’t belong to Mitchell?  Also, odd to differentiate between semen and sperm in the wording, semen includes sperm, surely?

Yes, the semen samples have certainly been tested, but as you point out modern techniques may extract full profiles, Vertigo.
I think it would be small amounts of semen, sometimes just sperm heads as they talk about, hence the different terminology.
BUT! I am no medical expert whatsoever.
Again, hopefully we will soon know what samples remain when the new team start investigating.
And hopefully the police/crown will hand them over for testing when funding allows.