Apparently he had a Marilyn Manson CD in his bedroom but it was a freebie enclosed inside a music magazine purchased post-murders.
That's a lie. I am only a year younger than Luke and I got the "Golden Age of the Grotesque" around the same time Luke did in 2003. It did not come free with a magazine!
I should add that while listening to that music I would fantasise about killing and raping people. Because that's what a lot of his music is about.
https://youtu.be/UPvwM6DzF9Y?t=92
The freebie CD wasn't the Golden Age of the Grotesque album. It was a 2 track promotional DVD in a magazine bought after the murder. Luke never owned Golden Age of the Grotesque, it was Janine who owned that album - this was discussed in court.
There was no evidence whatsoever that Luke had ever seen the Dahlia paintings - all of the computers he might have had access to were checked, none of them accessed the paintings. Even the police officer who found them in 2003/4 said they were difficult to find (back then) and "You'd have to know what you were looking for."
The police had the receipt for the magazine - they could easily have "proven" that Luke had seen the paintings in a magazine by simply buying one (there's no record I've seen that documents the taking of the actual magazine from Luke's house, although the taking of the DVD is recorded). They didn't do that. Similarly, if those images had appeared on the torn-up calendar, they could have produced that as evidence. They didn't do that either.
They left open an inference, nothing more, that Luke had seen the paintings, with zero evidence to support that inference.
Prof Busuttil was clear in the Frontline documentary - there were major dissimilarities. So, who do we believe on this one, a Pathologist with decades of experience or David1819 who attempts to explain away the differences with no evidence to support his explanations?
The professor also said, in court, that although a knife similar to one believed to have been owned by Luke
could have inflicted the wounds on Jodi, he went on to demonstrate how difficult it would be and also pointed out that that weapon could not have inflicted the wound to her throat without causing damage to (a) Jodi's teeth and (b) the attacker's hand from Jodi's teeth.
The murder weapon was never found - there is nothing, anywhere, to say the injuries were caused by a small knife.
Jodis neck is cut because the killer had to kill her quickly. She is not cut in half because the killer did not have the means to do it.
He had to kill her quickly so he could risk spending however long, in broad daylight, stripping and mutilating her body afterwards? His chosen method of speed was 12 - 20 cuts to the neck area? He was able to almost decapitate her (apologies, I dislike discussing the more horrific aspects of Jodi's death) so in what way did he "not have the means" to cut her in half? Time clearly wasn't of any concern to him.
Whether there are similarities between the paintings and Jodi's murder or not, they mean nothing in connection with any claim that Luke was Jodi's murderer because, to make that connection, Luke would have to have
seen the paintings in order to have been influenced by them and there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest he had ever seen them.