0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.
it well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.
Quote from: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:55:AMso how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratchi think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.Jodi never touched her attacker no matter how hard she allegedly fought. Scrapings from her finger nails provided only her own DNA.He probably had a second set of clothes all along thus why no forensics relating to Jodi were ever found on him. Its wonderful what you can get in a backpack!
so how would the rain wipehis DNA off and leave other peoples on there.40 minutes to commit a brutal murder clean yourself up get changed and get dirty again hardly likely.the pathologist said Jodi fought for her life but Luke Mitchell didn't have a mark on him not a scratchi think they said his ha dent not been washed for 3 days.do sent fit with someone cleaning themselves up.
a lot of probeblys here.
Quote from: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:49:AMit well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.There is no real proof of that either.The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.
Quote from: Janet on May 17, 2011, 11:53:AMQuote from: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 11:49:AMit well it was established by the police doctor that he hadn't washed.and all acounts say he was in the same clothes all day.There is no real proof of that either.The area may have been blood stained but it does not follow that the killer was covered in blood.theres concerete he hadent washed the police examined him.logically conclusion that the killer had bllood on him.
I find it interesting that one of Mitchell's potential witnesses is now a solicitor in Glasgow and works alongside his new lawyers.Do they not call that a conflict of interest?
Scott Forbes.
ive watch it i think hes already sued somone for saying that.
Mr Findlay said Mr Forbes had given a sworn statement last month and his claims were still being investigated.But John Beckett QC, for the Crown, revealed that police investigations cast doubt on what Mr Forbes had told solicitors and a BBC Frontline Scotland programme in May last year.
Mr Beckett also said Mr Forbes had told Mr Kane to co-operate "and we will get £50,000 from the newspapers".
all so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.
Quote from: nugnug on May 17, 2011, 12:16:PMall so this story comes from the police and the proscution very reliable.The jury and judges have believed what has been said from the begining.