Sorry I couldnt get back on to post sooner - my internet connection at home has been down since Monday morning. As I'm not at home, though, I don't have access to the papers, so please bear with me!
I have already explained that I cannot post the actual documents which provide the sort of "proof" Lithium is asking for, but to deal with some of the points which have come up since I've been offline:
Judith mentioned Joseph's illness in court, during her evidence, so that information is in the public domain. The background to that evidence is not public nowledge, however, but there have been discussions about it on several inernet sites. So no,, he was not just a regular, healthy guy, sadly, he had a mental illness which had been, according to Judy herself, "difficult" for the family to deal with. I have seen the statements which make reference to these matters, and they confirm the extent of the illness - I can't, obviously, quote from the medical reports, as that would be both unlawful and completely inappropriate.
Those of us who try to highlight the various points in this case are continually hampered by the ridiculous state of afairs in Scotland whereby we can't simply post the documents and be done, but that is the way of it.
Joseph's illness does not make him a murderer, and no-one on WAP has ever made such a claim. The questions raised by his illness, and the behaviours that illness had previously manifested, are what concern me - why were they not properly checked out?
Hypothetically, if you're investigating a brutal and violent murder with a bladed weapon, an attacker who apparently switches from "frenzied" to so calm as to be almost unconcerned about being caught, the potential that there was a sexual element or motivation to the attack, and a victim found in a place where the family claim she would only go with someone she knew, if someone crosses the radar with a mental illness which causes sudden violent outbursts, those outbursts sometimes involving bladed instruments, a sexual theme or element running through that illness, and that someone is related to the victim, should that, or should it not, be a matter for closer investigation?
The claims that I have "accused" everyone connected to Jodi's family is nonsense - I have never accused anyone, and never would. I have always stated that my concerns are with the manner in which the investigation was carried out, and anywhere glaring anomalies exist, I have done my best to highlight them, because they undermine the safety of Lue's conviction.
The DNA "from Jodi" on Luke's trousers, I will double check the DNA reports when I get home, and try to post tomorrow - I'm not prepared to comment from memory (although I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this).
Interestingly, a full DNA profile from blood was found on a T shirt taken from Luke Mitchell's home. The "summary report" regarding this full profile simply lists items of Luke's on which full profiles for blood were found. There were never used in evidence. Seems strange doesn't it? If full DNA profiles for blood were found on items of Luke's clothing, you'd have thought the prosecution would have been screaming it from the rooftops. It took me several days to hunt down the samples from which these profiles were obtained (there are many, many pages of DNA evidence). That's when I realised just how misleading the "summary report" was - the DNA was Luke's own!
Luke describing Jodi's clothing "that night" - be careful when quoting from newspaper articles! Again, I will post the exact wording of both the question preceding the description, and Luke's exact words in response tomorrow. I'm sorry I can't do it today, but I had no way of knowing what had come up in discussion while my internet was down, so couldn't have known what papers would be needed.
As for Joseph threatening me, I understand why Jodi's family are upset by what I do, and I always have done. I have offered to meet with Judy, and I offered to show Joseph the DNA results the day he was at my door, because I believe Jodi's family have been horribly misled and manipulated which is disgusting - lying to a grieving family, convincing them of something the police had no evidence to support, and so on is unforgivable. Of course Jodi's family have to believe Luke is guilty - the alternative is unthinkable for them.
But that does not extend to accepting the family lying about events, as Judith has now been proven to have done. She publicly accused me of lying about Joseph threatening me, claiming, instead, that he had "visited" me to talk to me about the website, and that no threat of any description had been made. What she and Joseph did not know was that I was not alone in the house that day, but had an independent witness, who had been visiting me when Joseph arrived at the door, standing directly behind the door, out of sight of Joseph, who heard every word. Joseph later admitted threatening me, yet Judy's accusation came after that admission.
The multiple semen samples on the various articles of clothing - none of them provided full profiles (obviously) but one of the biggest outstanding questions in this case is, if those samples were re-tested, would that still be the case? Similarly, the "no reportable results" samples - would they come back the same with more sensitive testing?
No matter whether you are in the "guilty" camp or the "innocent" camp, don't you think it's just too risky to have no confirmation, one way or the other, about all those DNA profiles remaining "unidentified?"
I have to go now - I will try to post at some point tomorrow.
