The article certainly puts a slightly different slant on things when we hear that no traces of DNA were found on Luke, the problem I have is that the article stopped short of what the DNA was extacted from, what I mean is if Luke had blood on himself from Jodi then the forensic pathologist and the prosecution would have made more of this sample. It would certainly have looked far more sinister as oppossed to say a strand of hair or cellular extraction.
Is there anyway of knowing what the sample consisted of? were you at the trial lithium?
The partial DNA samples remain and have always been accepted by us as having existed but as to their use and whether they could ever have stood up in court as you have seen D.F basicly shot them down as was right.
I have missed something regarding Luke describing Jodi's clothes though as I don't see it anywhere? Jodi almost certainly had changed clothing, just how much should have been realised once the clothing had been brought together at the crime scene and was only mentioned by Judy that she had went up to change after school.
The problem is that the t-shirt was borrowed a number of days before and not simply the night before, would Jodi have worn a dirty t-shirt? well I suppose if the semen stains were microscopic or undetectable by the human eye but SL has told us that there were larger stains at the armpits of the t-shirt that were clearly visable. The t-shirt being a few days old(im sure this was stated by Janine at court that she had two of the same and one was worn lately but that she couldn't find the other for a certain number of days) then the t-shirt would have been more apparent in its state of unwash. We also have the the pathologists at the crime scene stating that the t-shirt had a strong smell of detergent on it pointing to it having been washed recently.
Its a strong point for me personally that if the t-shirt had been washed then no full profile could have been extracted and I have had that verified to me by someone who works with DNA on a regular basis.
We have a positive match to samples of DNA to SK then is it possible to conclude that every sample of semen on the clothes found at the murder scene were deposited by SK, or are we saying that more samples of semen were deposited during the murder? the problem with this is that there were samples of semen and or sperm heads found all over numerous items of clothing including the bra,shoes and outer garments. These samples then don't tie in with SK's sample alibi surely!
Is it reasonable to think that if semen exists and a full profile exists matched to an individual that all semen samples belong to that individual? I think its a reasonable course of thought.
If you feel its not then that would suggest that the crime was very much sexually motivated and the prosecution would have taken up that mantal, as fresh semen must have originated at the scene. This would make it harder for Luke being the murderer as well as obliterate the motive of the killing being that they had had an arguement,unless of course the sex was non concensual and by that then we have to add on vast amounts of time as well as explain again how someone can be intimate and not have DNA on themself.
In case's of rape or consensual sex their is an increased chance that DNA from the perpetraitor is deposited on the victim and when we add murder into this then how can anyone explain away the lack of DNA of Lukes anywhere where it should have been. How do we also factor this into the time scale I keep going on about also.
