There were several areas on the T shirt which tested positive for the presence of semen. Many of these contained sperm heads. The one found on the back underside of the left sleeve was noted as a "large stain" which suggests that it was visible. I will be out all day, but will look out the DNA reports this evening and confirm the actual number of areas.
There were several white stains on the hoodie which were visible to the naked eye - what they consist of has never been ascertained. There was an "extensive" area of blood-staining around the underarm of the left sleeve of the hoodie - there is no wound on Jodi's body which corresponds to that staining.
Jodi's T shirt was not taken off "over her head" - it was cut and ripped up the sides, across one side of the back, and through the neckline. The sleeves remained attached to the front piece.
The semen on the bra was found on the outside of the right and left cups, and in the padding of the left cup. The "transfer" theory does not explain how semen and sperm heads soaked through the surface of the bra into the padding below. The rainwater transfer (which was the prosecution's contention- the rain had diluted the semen on the t shirt, soaking it through to the bra, and also to other areas of the t-shirt) does not hold when one realises that after the clothes were stripped off, they were not thrown/dropped in the same place -the bra, cut bra strap, and two t-shirt parts were all found in different places. It did not rain that evening until after Jodi was claimed to have been murdered, stripped and mutilated, so any rain water transfer could only have happened after the clothes were removed from the body.
Also, Jodi left home wearing a hoodie, but there is no corresponding "transfer" of semen from the T-shirt to the inside of the hoodie, which would have been at least as likely as transfer to the bra. In an attempt to explain this away, the police began to question people about whether Jodi wore her hoodie tied around her waist. Not one person could be found who had ever known Jodi to wear her hoodie like that, so that line of enquiry was dropped.
Several of the mixed male and female profiles returned either "no reportable result" or "Jodi Jones and unidentified male" - the manner in which the DNA results were labelled and logged was confusing, at best, and downright misleading at worst. For example, (and this is just one of many), one label logged a sample found on one of the trainers as "no semen detected." The results, however, show an unknown profile, in semen, from the same sample on the same trainer.
I cannot post copies of the DNA results online, as that would be an offence in Scotland. I have explained this many times - I have posted information from the results, as it appears in the reports, but that is as far as I can go. The labels I have posted are the exact wordings which appear on the results - I am not responsible for how those labels were worded, although some people seem quite keen to shoot the messenger!
As someone else has pointed out, the stories about the whereabouts of the sister's boyfriend changed to provide him with what appeared to be a watertight alibi - however, other statements raise doubts about where he was and who he was with. He finally claimed to be with the sister at his father's house - to date, I have never seen a statement from the father to confirm this. Initially, he said he visited the sister in the morning, stayed for a short time, and then left. By the final statement, he visited the sister in the morning, stayed all day, went with her to his father's and returned with her to the grandmother's.
Whilst I accept that people in shock may not remember important details, that should apply across the board - this discrepancy did not warrant further investigation (nor did a "mistaken" statement by the mother's boyfriend that the sister had actually been in the mother's house at the time she was claimed to be elsewhere with her boyfriend). Yet any tiny discrepancies in the Mitchell family statements were jumped on as "suspicious" and "deliberate falsehoods."
Interestingly, other people in the grandmother's house that morning do not mention him being there. None of this, of course, tells us that the boyfriend was in any way implicated. What it does tell us (and what I have been banging on about for over 9 years) is that the investigation was an absolute disgrace. If it had been done properly, we would not be having these discussions all these years later, because the questions would have been answered satisfactorily, and we could all be certain that the convicted person, whoever he had turned out to be as a result of a properly conducted, thorough and professional investigation, was the real killer.
As it stands, there are so many unanswered questions, so many inexplicable omissions, apparent errors, failures to follow through, etc, that no-one can rest easy that the conviction of Luke Mitchell is "safe" - far from it.
Lithium's attempts to provide innocent explanations for the sister's boyfriend's DNA on the T shirt Jodi was wearing demonstrate my point. Had that presence been fully investigated and properly eliminated, Lithium would have no need to argue the point (just as others would have no need to argue that the presence of his DNA raises many questions). It was not properly eliminated - the police appear to have handed them the "borrowed t shirt" explanation, the other samples on the t shirt remain unidentified, the rainwater transfer theory does not hold, and there is no proof, aside from the word of Jodi's sister, that two identical t shirts ever belonged to the sister. Six black t-shirts were recovered from Jodi's clothing - it is entirely possible that Jodi owned a black t-shirt identical to one owned by her sister.
Just to answer Lithium's question about confirmation, the sample is confirmed as a full match to SK. I have always been careful to point out that partial samples cannot be safely attributed to anyone, and would never claim that a partial "could be" any one person - the furthest I would go is to say it could be any one of several potential contributors. As a general rule, I avoid such discussion, as it is pointless, and dangerous.
As I have explained, I cannot provide the sort of proof Lithium would like, as to do so, I would have to reproduce the result from the DNA report, which I am prohibited from doing in Scotland.
