The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003

[Patti]

well we will have to ask the sccrc why they have ignored the resultsd of there own investigation

scottish courts are a law unto themselves.

It sounds to me that the vital evidence that exonerates him is being ignored Nugs. Why?

They admit that he had an unfair interview with no solicitor present which infringes his human rights...What's up with them? 

Its not fit for purpose is it? The whole system is a failure from the day it was set up....

[nugnug]

and in the mean time nobods concerned about who the real owner of the dna is.

[nugnug]

some stuff from other forums.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6284

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Luke_Mitchell_Appeal_and_Media_Links_about662.html

[nugnug]

The SCCRC is not in a position to apportion blame on anyone else, the samples didn't match Luke mitchell and therefore they were someone elses. Luke wasn't convicted on DNA evidence and as any investigation into the new samples would mean getting the case re opened then I doubt we will hear anything else happening.

so why did the order retesting then why test for dna evedence if it doesnt afect the result.

surely thats evedence the jury dident and should of done.

[nugnug]

vey relvant in this case i feel.

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/Laundry-sperm%20transfer.pdf

[nugnug]

well thats not going to happen im afraid.

if you really think its over why are you posting.

[lookout]

 The laws in Scotland don't allow polygraph tests to be carried out,yet both Luke and his mother were given such a test-------- and both passed it.Luke's can be seen on youtube.Like Jeremy,Luke had been asking for a test from day one,and such as it had been granted,it had also been disallowed under Scottish Law ??

[scipio_usmc]

Just a cursory look at this case reveals the prosecution didn't use DNA evidence because even the DNA results they had proved little.  For instance, the victim's DNA was found on Mitchell's pants.  This could have been through innocent contamination though there was no way to prove it ot there during the murders. 

It seems like some people want to ignore that her DNA was found on him but then to claim any DNA found on her items has to be from the killer.  The reality is that the same contamination possibility exists across the board, it was her sisters shirt so not surprising the DNA of her sister's boyfriend was found on the shirt.  Only DNA from semen inside the victim or blood based DNA would be highly reliable.

Mitchell was seen near the seen of the crime around the time of the murder, his own brother busted his alibi and he found the body though he should not have been able to see it from where he supposedly located it. I doesn't look good for him and then when you factor in some other things it looks like he is the killer. 

 

[nugnug]

none of his dna was found at the crimme scene.

there was no postive id of him the investigating officer admited that.

[marty]

I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.

[scipio_usmc]

I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.

He could have changed his clothes after the murders though. Experts testified the killer had a good chance of getting her blood on his clothing and if Mitchell did then he must have thrown them out.  It is believed he did so which is why the DNA on the pants wasn't played up more plus it could have come from innocent contamination.  Finding blood on his clothing would have been far more damning. 

[marty]

The sisters boyfriends blood was also found on the shirt as well as seamen and had been transferred through the washing machine apparently. I didn't think blood would stand up to that.

[scipio_usmc]

The sisters boyfriends blood was also found on the shirt as well as seamen and had been transferred through the washing machine apparently. I didn't think blood would stand up to that.

Not his blood, his DNA was found on the shirt and the shirt belonged to Jodi's sister, Jodi was just borrowing it. There was no way to establish his DNA wasn't already on the shirt before Jodi put it on.

[nugnug]

I thought the DNA found on his pants was from clothing removed from his home rather than what he had on that day.

her dna was found on trousers taken from his house.

when you consider he was her boyfriend thats hardly suprising.

not much was made becuse its hardly really evedence of anything.

[marty]

Yes his blood  was found also.