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

[Chris_Halkides]

Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA.  Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result.  If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA.  Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).

Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid.  Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins.  The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen.  The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA.  Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result.  If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA.  Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).

Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid.  Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins.  The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen.  The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.

And there was semen and sperm of Jodi from two entirely separate males, neither of whom were Mitchell?  Has this actually been confirmed?

[Joe Blogs]

And there was semen and sperm of Jodi from two entirely separate males, neither of whom were Mitchell?  Has this actually been confirmed?

Well isn't that referring to Steven Kelly and the 'unknown male' who left semen on the trousers and naked body, Vertigo? Dont think i've heard of anyone else, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, or how about Kenmair, he is very knowledgeable on the LM case too!
Anyway, a podcaster made a good point recently regarding stocky man, asking why wasn't his DNA found at the crime scene if Jodi was killed in a wild frenzied attack? I mean its a good point, why wasn't his DNA on Jodie's clothes or body?
Scott Forbes maintains that Jodi was killed elsewhere and moved to the 'V', but even though, the killers DNA should still be on Jodi and her clothing, unless of course they were very carefull of course, but then this would point to a planned murder more akin to a serial killer rather than a sudden frenzied attack!
BUT!! Apparently we do have the killers DNA, Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the Campaign team have pointed out for years now that the semen found on Jodi's clothes and naked body 'must' have come from the killer, and this makes sense, how else could semen get all over Jodi's naked body? But more so onto the 'knot' binding Jodi's hands? Simply had to have come from the killer, surely? Meaning the killer produced that semen before moving Jodi's body and then tying her hands together!
So that takes us back to square one, and the obvious question, what action did the police take regarding the semen samples on Jodi and her clothing back in 2003 when they got the results back from the lab???
Surely they must have realized the semen belonged to the killer? Did they get any full profiles from them? They certainly got enough of a profile to rule out Luke anyway! Did they rule out anyone else? eg, stocky man? And if not, why not?
But lets just presume they tested all the suspects at the time against the semen samples, doesn't this point to an unknown visiting killer to the scene?
People often ask how the police ruled out the likes of Mark Kane and James Falconer years after the crime, but it stands to reason that this could easily be done if the police had the killers DNA to compare against theirs!
BUT! It just doesn't make sense for the police to charge Luke if they had DNA from the real killer, even if it was just a partial profile. And why did the police try to destroy all the DNA evidence rather than re-test the samples with more up to date technology to hopefully find the real killer? Their actions make no sense, do they??
No, it has to be said, if there really is/was DNA samples from the killer on Jodi and her clothing, then something very strange is going on with the LM case and has been ongoing since ever the police got the results of the semen samples back in 2003!
Lets just hope the new legal team can uncover the truth about the semen found on Jodi soon!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well isn't that referring to Steven Kelly and the 'unknown male' who left semen on the trousers and naked body, Vertigo? Dont think i've heard of anyone else, maybe Faith or Chris can confirm, or how about Kenmair, he is very knowledgeable on the LM case too!
Anyway, a podcaster made a good point recently regarding stocky man, asking why wasn't his DNA found at the crime scene if Jodi was killed in a wild frenzied attack? I mean its a good point, why wasn't his DNA on Jodie's clothes or body?
Scott Forbes maintains that Jodi was killed elsewhere and moved to the 'V', but even though, the killers DNA should still be on Jodi and her clothing, unless of course they were very carefull of course, but then this would point to a planned murder more akin to a serial killer rather than a sudden frenzied attack!
BUT!! Apparently we do have the killers DNA, Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the Campaign team have pointed out for years now that the semen found on Jodi's clothes and naked body 'must' have come from the killer, and this makes sense, how else could semen get all over Jodi's naked body? But more so onto the 'knot' binding Jodi's hands? Simply had to have come from the killer, surely? Meaning the killer produced that semen before moving Jodi's body and then tying her hands together!
So that takes us back to square one, and the obvious question, what action did the police take regarding the semen samples on Jodi and her clothing back in 2003 when they got the results back from the lab???
Surely they must have realized the semen belonged to the killer? Did they get any full profiles from them? They certainly got enough of a profile to rule out Luke anyway! Did they rule out anyone else? eg, stocky man? And if not, why not?
But lets just presume they tested all the suspects at the time against the semen samples, doesn't this point to an unknown visiting killer to the scene?
People often ask how the police ruled out the likes of Mark Kane and James Falconer years after the crime, but it stands to reason that this could easily be done if the police had the killers DNA to compare against theirs!
BUT! It just doesn't make sense for the police to charge Luke if they had DNA from the real killer, even if it was just a partial profile. And why did the police try to destroy all the DNA evidence rather than re-test the samples with more up to date technology to hopefully find the real killer? Their actions make no sense, do they??
No, it has to be said, if there really is/was DNA samples from the killer on Jodi and her clothing, then something very strange is going on with the LM case and has been ongoing since ever the police got the results of the semen samples back in 2003!
Lets just hope the new legal team can uncover the truth about the semen found on Jodi soon!

So how do those that you have been arguing with for years on this subject explain away the unknown DNA?

[Joe Blogs]

So how do those that you have been arguing with for years on this subject explain away the unknown DNA?

Well, over on twitter they more or less deny the existence of any untested samples, but as I said, the likes of Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents clearly referencing the semen samples and who they do or dont belong to!
BUT! Surely the new legal team can clarify exactly what samples there were, who they belonged to and what still remains! This will hopefully put an end to any speculation, Vertigo!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well, over on twitter they more or less deny the existence of any untested samples, but as I said, the likes of Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents clearly referencing the semen samples and who they do or dont belong to!
BUT! Surely the new legal team can clarify exactly what samples there were, who they belonged to and what still remains! This will hopefully put an end to any speculation, Vertigo!

Hmm, I see.  So what are these documents then?  Where did they originate from?

[Joe Blogs]

Hmm, I see.  So what are these documents then?  Where did they originate from?

Well, the likes of Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the campaign team have all had access to the original case files and statements.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well, the likes of Scott Forbes, Dr Lean and the campaign team have all had access to the original case files and statements.

Has anyone else actually laid eyes on them, or must we just take their word for it?

[Joe Blogs]

Has anyone else actually laid eyes on them, or must we just take their word for it?

I take it you're not a member of twitter then, Vertigo?
Both Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents there, Scott even posted photos of the crime scene.
BUT! As I keep saying, hopefully the new legal team will soon have access to everything too, and we will see exactly what the truth is regarding the semen samples.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I take it you're not a member of twitter then, Vertigo?
Both Scott Forbes and the campaign team have posted documents there, Scott even posted photos of the crime scene.
BUT! As I keep saying, hopefully the new legal team will soon have access to everything too, and we will see exactly what the truth is regarding the semen samples.

I steer clear of twitter, it’s too depressing, and I’m certainly not that invested in this case to follow the likes of Scott Forbes on there.

[Joe Blogs]

I steer clear of twitter, it’s too depressing, and I’m certainly not that invested in this case to follow the likes of Scott Forbes on there.

Well, you will find me under Joe Blogs there too, if you do venture in, Vertigo!
I have said myself that twitter is not for the faint hearted, there is no moderation there whatsoever!

[Joe Blogs]

Some general comments about the forensics of body fluids and DNA.  Body fluids are often identified in two stages, using a presumptive test then performing a confirmatory test only if the presumptive test gave a positive result.  If appropriate tests for a body fluid (typically semen, blood, or saliva) have been performed but DNA tests have not, then the samples are untested regarding DNA.  Since 2003 DNA techniques applied to the Y chromosome have improved, and there is at least new technique, which studies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which is distinct from the the older method, using short terminal repeats (STRs).

Sperm cells are not the same thing as seminal fluid.  Sperm cells are often detected using staining and microscopy, whereas seminal fluid may be detected by the presence of proteins such as Prostate Specific Antigen or other proteins.  The detection of prostatic acid phosphatase activity is a presumptive test for semen.  The detection of sperm cells is one confirmatory test for semen, but there are others, as indicated above.

Thanks Chris. So there's a good chance of getting a full profile from any remaining samples then?

[Chris_Halkides]

It is difficult to say with certainty, but I would say that it is reasonable to try.  Although it is difficult to say (given the limited amount of information available publicly) DNA testing, probably the Y chromosome, was highly probative in the Andrew Malkinson case, which was almost exactly contemporaneous with the present one.

[Joe Blogs]

It is difficult to say with certainty, but I would say that it is reasonable to try.  Although it is difficult to say (given the limited amount of information available publicly) DNA testing, probably of the Y chromosome, was highly probative in the Andrew Malkinson case, which was almost exactly contemporaneous with the present one.

OK, thanks Chris.