Re: The murder of Jodi Jones

[marty]

Ah so Luke done it. And where did he gather the skills to partially train a dog to track. Google it? back in the 2002/3?

By the way, google was 21 years old this week😉

[sandra L]

For example, from Pro 146:

P11 of 39: "A small area of semen staining was found on the inside back of the left sleeve."

Either it was visible semen staining or it was detected by AP - the only two options available at the time.

P13 of 39: "Semen was found on the outside of the left cup. Three sperm heads and many cells were found in this stain.

P13 of 39: "Reactions indicating the presence of semen were obtained from the edge of the right cup, however, no sperm heads were found."

P13 of 39: "an area on the right cup was also examined and 2 sperm heads found".

So it's absolutely clear, they were able to differentiate between semen and sperm heads. So how did they identify the semen if the AP test would not detect it after laundering?

One more:

P15 of 39: "Semen: A single sperm head and many cells were found in a white stain on the lower front of the right leg" (Jodi's trousers).

We have one full profile from Steven Kelly on the t-shirt and a number of partials which the prosecution claimed occurred as a result of rainwater transfer. Those partials labelled semen could not have been a result of washing machine transfer because laundering would have left only sperm heads - semen would not have been identifiable.

So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?

[David1819]

For example, from Pro 146:

P11 of 39: "A small area of semen staining was found on the inside back of the left sleeve."

Either it was visible semen staining or it was detected by AP - the only two options available at the time.

P13 of 39: "Semen was found on the outside of the left cup. Three sperm heads and many cells were found in this stain.

P13 of 39: "Reactions indicating the presence of semen were obtained from the edge of the right cup, however, no sperm heads were found."

P13 of 39: "an area on the right cup was also examined and 2 sperm heads found".

So it's absolutely clear, they were able to differentiate between semen and sperm heads. So how did they identify the semen if the AP test would not detect it after laundering?

One more:

P15 of 39: "Semen: A single sperm head and many cells were found in a white stain on the lower front of the right leg" (Jodi's trousers).

We have one full profile from Steven Kelly on the t-shirt and a number of partials which the prosecution claimed occurred as a result of rainwater transfer. Those partials labelled semen could not have been a result of washing machine transfer because laundering would have left only sperm heads - semen would not have been identifiable.

So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?

The scarcity of the sperm heads rule out any direct ejaculation period.

You have shown me just six sentences out of a 39 page report. How do you expect me to answer your questions when you don't show the whole story. Photocopy and upload all 39 pages. And don't say you cant because nothing stopped you revealing those six sentences of it 

[David1819]

But if semen is not detectable by AP testing after laundering……..??

AP is a presumptive test not a confirmatory test. It can produce false positives.

Considering the lack of sperm heads and results "found on the inside back of the left sleeve". Who would ejaculate inside someones sleeve? Leave semen but no sperm heads?

I can safely infer that any AP test showing semen is a false positive. AP is not only present in semen it is also present in food products. It is a natural enzyme present in raw meat.

[nugnug]

The scarcity of the sperm heads rule out any direct ejaculation period.

You have shown me just six sentences out of a 39 page report. How do you expect me to answer your questions when you don't show the whole story. Photocopy and upload all 39 pages. And don't say you cant because nothing stopped you revealing those six sentences of it 

well considring had been left uncovered in rain that cantbe said for certan.

[David1819]

well considring had been left uncovered in rain that canbe said for ceran.

I cant see how one spell of rain can wash away hundreds of millions of sperm heads stuck to the fabric of a t-shirt and a bra.

If the killer ejaculated over her clothes it would be saturated with his DNA along with millions of sperm heads stuck to the fabric.

[sandra L]

It was human, male DNA, not raw meat. It was AP testing which would not have given a result for semen after laundering but it was recorded as semen. Sperm heads were present.

They were able to differentiate between whites stains labelled semen and white stains labelled saliva. They were able to differentiate between semen stains containing sperm heads and semen stains not containing sperm heads. All returning positive, male human DNA results.

The number of sperm heads recovered/deposited are (a) not the same thing and (b) dependent on a number of factors, for example, low sperm count.

I didn't suggest the killer ejaculated directly onto clothing - in fact, in the early days, I said it was possible that the killer intended rape but his body "let him down" and it was that which triggered the murderous rage.

The bottom line is, they didn't have the knowledge or the technology in 2003 to decide, conclusively, that Kelly's DNA got onto the clothing by washing machine transfer and was then re-transferred by rainwater (something, according to forensic experts I've spoken with, that would not have been possible in the circumstances described).

That's my argument, always has been. In order to continue to pursue Luke, DNA from other males had to be explained away, but the science did not adequately support that "explaining away" and still, to this day, doesn't.

[Parky41]

Ms Lean from the ISF.

Firstly, thanks to the posters who have clarified the possible (probable?) explanation about the DNA results reporting that sperm and semen samples appeared female in origin. That's very helpful to know - it's been something that's baffled me (as a non-expert) for a very long time.

Why has this baffled Ms Lean for such a long time?
The wonders of Google alone - more so at it 21st Birthday stage (Marty)
What does the above comment, really tell us?
When I first used good old google, to study some areas of sperm/semen DNA,
the "female in origin" clearly stuck out.
Yet Ms Lean claims to have spoken to experts around the DNA results from the evening of this murder, for many years.
So much so that she did not even realise the basics.
When speaking to 'her' forensic experts (perhaps Gordo30 sister?/friend)

something, according to forensic experts I've spoken with, that would not have been possible in the circumstances described).

The above being around the transferral through washing and rainwater.
These "circumstance described" would not simply be her own explanation, surely not of course.
They would have had access to full reports - much the same as both the prosecution and defence.
Before this Jury, and accepted for what it was.
That there were miniscule amounts of staining and sperm heads.
That there had been a relationship between Kelly and this girls sister.
That this girl was in the habit of wearing her sisters clothing.
Luke certainly knew this.
That it appears that not only was this girl wearing her sisters t-shirt,
she was also wearing her trousers.
That modern day technology only goes to strengthen,
what was already known in 2003 by whatever means were used then.
That the likelihood is, that most if not all of this transferral took place,
in a washing cycle.
The areas of transferral only show this more.
So rather than contradict itself it wipes away more so,
these silly little points of not knowing when the clothing was in contact-
on that evening at the points of when it rained.
So hell bent really - that DNA makes a murderer - simply because,
no full DNA profiles of Luke were obtained.
He can't possibly be the killer because of this, and this alone.
As all of the 'other' evidence clearly shows he is.

Like the evidence against Luke - which has never, been able to be disproven,
over this period of nearly two decades.
The evidence for Kelly and of this innocent presence, only grows stronger -
with modern day technology.

Of course Ms Lean, Ms Mitchel and these experts don't believe it was deposited  that night -
they have bigger fish to fry.
They have a theory - of the duo, of the mystery man, of the confession and so forth.
None of which involve the DNA of Mr Kelly.
Or the DNA of the duo or said Mystery man either.

It's good to take these different times, with different areas, with different people with just about anything,
as long as it digresses away from Luke.
Of his evidence, of his account that led the police to pursue him for the murder of this school girl - his girlfriend.
His account being so far fetched - he fed the investigating team continuously.
It was not the police, the Judge and the Jury  who caused this girls death or led to his conviction.
It was by his own means - from when he first opened his mouth.

That's my argument, always has been. In order to continue to pursue Luke, DNA from other males had to be explained away, but the science did not adequately support that "explaining away" and still, to this day, doesn't.

"in order to continue to pursue Luke" that ship has sailed. Pursued and convicted.
Of course the science for most - clearly shows in modern technology that science certainly does support 'away' the presence of Kelly's DNA.
It explains 'away' the non presence of the sisters DNA as sweat is easily washed out.
That modern technology or the technology of 2003 could not show that ejaculation was from that evening.
That even the most basics on ejaculation show the unlikelihood of this happening on that evening.

[Parky41]

So what we'd have to be arguing here is that directly deposited sperm heads and semen on the night of the murder could not yield a full profile, but twice transferred DNA, initially transferred at an unknown time in a washing machine could. Really?

Modern day technology does indeed back up this washing machine transfer and or rainwater transferral.
Whatever testing may have been done, originally in 2003 backed up this also.
Does not matter the amount of slant that is put on it - or the ludicrous suggestion that DF did not oppose this due to finances to prove otherwise.
Whatever points that are put forth to try and disprove this transferral - are the same points against the technology used.
The technology used at the time could not disprove that this transferral did not happen as above.
They did not determine semen from saliva out of guesswork.
They determined this via the testing available at the time.
The testing worked - hey presto, we have semen, sperm and saliva.
It most certainly could not be proven in 2003 that this minute amount of sperm heads and staining of semen - was from the time of this murder.
Quite the opposite.
This rape attempt gone wrong - doesn't result in a partial ejaculation or full in a widespread area over this woodland.
It does not alter the fact of the amount of staining and sperm head present on this clothing in odd areas.
The oddity of these areas themselves screams out transferral from a washing cycle/ and/or subsequent rain transferral.
The points of clothing not being together for this have to have happened.
Rather silly really - how can you possibly argue a point of air?
This , but we don't know when they were in contact - clothes all over the place, did they contact here, there or here?
Easy really - chuck them in a washing machine - dilute them so much that they leave minisucle amounts.
What is clearly shown also is that modern day technology only goes to prove this more so.
It doesn't spin off in another direction.
The reality being of course - that this dude had absolutely nothing to do with this girls murder.
The reality being of course - that no technology can prove otherwise,

[Parky41]

The above is, indeed, a quote from No Smoke, from 2007. I didn't, until yesterday, have a copy of No Smoke to be able to check.

The reference to Stephen Kelly is clearly a typo, since the sentence goes on to describe him as "a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall."

Eight pages before this paragraph, it says, "others...described a mystery man following Jodi towards the Easthouses entrance to the path."

I apologise for any confusion - No Smoke was published more than 12 years ago, before I had access to all of the case papers and I haven't read it/referenced it for many years. The book was based largely on court transcripts, which were all I had at the time. I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn.

I would like to stress that it was not, and never has been, my intention to mislead. The two errors cited here are simply that - errors which were not picked up at the editing stage.

I accept that it is more accurate to say, "Since gaining access to the case papers, my stance has always been that no-one, ever, saw Jodi walk into the entrance to the path," - until I had access to the papers, I could not have known that to be factually correct.

No Smoke doesn't address the reconstruction because I didn't know the full facts surrounding it until I saw the case papers - at pages 98 and 108, I stated that there had been "no confirmed sightings of Jodi" that evening - we now know that there were confirmed sightings of her at 5.05pm, on the Easthouses Road, fully 15 minutes after it was claimed, at trial, that she left her home.

It's a strange old typo? from Ms Lean.  A typo that appears to have spelled his name incorrectly too.
So not just the full change from Leonard to Steven but to Stephen.
A typo, none the less in whatever format - has no doubt sullied this guys name over time.
From a person - whom admits,  they had not all at hand.
Clearly going on court transcripts. And the word of both Luke and Corrine Mitchell of course.
Court transcripts that would not have had any mystery man in them.
Silly really, she surely didn't go on media reports - those nasty journalists are us.
I wonder how many people who read no-smoke, then went on to have conversations,
with their family and friends and so forth - then theirs onto theirs.
With 'arms and legs and puppy dogs tails' added on.
That dude with the sperm all over this victim was on the path around the TOD.

2013
iiHEARTy0u wrote: »
The semen was found on her underwear. He was also one of a few people seen walking on the path.
D2BD wrote: »
Hi iiHEARTyOu, I havent read this before, are you sure SK was seen walking the path? GD and JoF were on the path, as were other people but I'm sure I haven't read or been told before that Kelly was. :confused:
iiHEARTy0u wrote: » This is an extract from Chapter Six by Sandra Lean

Not everyone who may have read this book - would go on to read another, or onto forums,
to bother too much about it being an 'error'
The damage is done:
Many people have, most certainly over time - believed that there was a male who followed this girl onto this path.
This being no typo - no excuse really:
Blatant misrepresentation of the facts:
These are Ms Leans facts - from when she first became involved - that got her deeper and deeper into this case.
So heavily set in opinion,  therefore heavily biased with mis-information,
who sought to dig deeper for more.
Already blinded so heavily - impossible to regain sight.
Liken this to the DNA results which has been pushed out time after time:
Mis-leading people to believe that there were multiple sperm donors - around 10?
I, myself posted extracts from several studies a few weeks back around sperm transfer and so forth.
Amongst this it had shown - the female link to male DNA found in this -
that only by further testing can these be separated.
Ms Lean has known about these DNA results for many years.
Yet, when someone posted on the ISF forum about this female DNA :
Her response was in thanking them - that they had answered something,
that had been bugging her for many years.
It took me less than an hour of reading to know this - through links I searched.
This clearly shows how blinded this truth has been -
There has been no reason  to look for innocence in Kelly,
to hell with proof, with how DNA reports works -
Simply putting out that they were all mixed up, that they didn't make sense.
They made sense to people, like myself within an hour of reading.

[nugnug]

Ms Lean from the ISF.

Why has this baffled Ms Lean for such a long time?
The wonders of Google alone - more so at it 21st Birthday stage (Marty)
What does the above comment, really tell us?
When I first used good old google, to study some areas of sperm/semen DNA,
the "female in origin" clearly stuck out.
Yet Ms Lean claims to have spoken to experts around the DNA results from the evening of this murder, for many years.
So much so that she did not even realise the basics.
When speaking to 'her' forensic experts (perhaps Gordo30 sister?/friend)

The above being around the transferral through washing and rainwater.
These "circumstance described" would not simply be her own explanation, surely not of course.
They would have had access to full reports - much the same as both the prosecution and defence.
Before this Jury, and accepted for what it was.
That there were miniscule amounts of staining and sperm heads.
That there had been a relationship between Kelly and this girls sister.
That this girl was in the habit of wearing her sisters clothing.
Luke certainly knew this.
That it appears that not only was this girl wearing her sisters t-shirt,
she was also wearing her trousers.
That modern day technology only goes to strengthen,
what was already known in 2003 by whatever means were used then.
That the likelihood is, that most if not all of this transferral took place,
in a washing cycle.
The areas of transferral only show this more.
So rather than contradict itself it wipes away more so,
these silly little points of not knowing when the clothing was in contact-
on that evening at the points of when it rained.
So hell bent really - that DNA makes a murderer - simply because,
no full DNA profiles of Luke were obtained.
He can't possibly be the killer because of this, and this alone.
As all of the 'other' evidence clearly shows he is.

Like the evidence against Luke - which has never, been able to be disproven,
over this period of nearly two decades.
The evidence for Kelly and of this innocent presence, only grows stronger -
with modern day technology.

Of course Ms Lean, Ms Mitchel and these experts don't believe it was deposited  that night -
they have bigger fish to fry.
They have a theory - of the duo, of the mystery man, of the confession and so forth.
None of which involve the DNA of Mr Kelly.
Or the DNA of the duo or said Mystery man either.

It's good to take these different times, with different areas, with different people with just about anything,
as long as it digresses away from Luke.
Of his evidence, of his account that led the police to pursue him for the murder of this school girl - his girlfriend.
His account being so far fetched - he fed the investigating team continuously.
It was not the police, the Judge and the Jury  who caused this girls death or led to his conviction.
It was by his own means - from when he first opened his mouth.


"in order to continue to pursue Luke" that ship has sailed. Pursued and convicted.
Of course the science for most - clearly shows in modern technology that science certainly does support 'away' the presence of Kelly's DNA.
It explains 'away' the non presence of the sisters DNA as sweat is easily washed out.
That modern technology or the technology of 2003 could not show that ejaculation was from that evening.
That even the most basics on ejaculation show the unlikelihood of this happening on that evening.

and your source for your cliams is what.

[nugnug]

lookout is comletly correct dogs can smell cancer.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/dogs-can-smell-cancer-blood-14253189?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR0oJip_Cl6nI69zDBjgRkLCNZiQEnxCK95G3RpsDFe4MFtEue7aIS-wvm8

[David1819]

It's a strange old typo? from Ms Lean.  A typo that appears to have spelled his name incorrectly too.
So not just the full change from Leonard to Steven but to Stephen.
A typo, none the less in whatever format - has no doubt sullied this guys name over time.
From a person - whom admits,  they had not all at hand.
Clearly going on court transcripts. And the word of both Luke and Corrine Mitchell of course.
Court transcripts that would not have had any mystery man in them.
Silly really, she surely didn't go on media reports - those nasty journalists are us.
I wonder how many people who read no-smoke, then went on to have conversations,
with their family and friends and so forth - then theirs onto theirs.
With 'arms and legs and puppy dogs tails' added on.
That dude with the sperm all over this victim was on the path around the TOD.





Not everyone who may have read this book - would go on to read another, or onto forums,
to bother too much about it being an 'error'
The damage is done:
Many people have, most certainly over time - believed that there was a male who followed this girl onto this path.
This being no typo - no excuse really:
Blatant misrepresentation of the facts:
These are Ms Leans facts - from when she first became involved - that got her deeper and deeper into this case.
So heavily set in opinion,  therefore heavily biased with mis-information,
who sought to dig deeper for more.
Already blinded so heavily - impossible to regain sight.
Liken this to the DNA results which has been pushed out time after time:
Mis-leading people to believe that there were multiple sperm donors - around 10?
I, myself posted extracts from several studies a few weeks back around sperm transfer and so forth.
Amongst this it had shown - the female link to male DNA found in this -
that only by further testing can these be separated.
Ms Lean has known about these DNA results for many years.
Yet, when someone posted on the ISF forum about this female DNA :
Her response was in thanking them - that they had answered something,
that had been bugging her for many years.
It took me less than an hour of reading to know this - through links I searched.
This clearly shows how blinded this truth has been -
There has been no reason  to look for innocence in Kelly,
to hell with proof, with how DNA reports works -
Simply putting out that they were all mixed up, that they didn't make sense.
They made sense to people, like myself within an hour of reading.

I agree.

[Caroline]

lookout is comletly correct dogs can smell cancer.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/dogs-can-smell-cancer-blood-14253189?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR0oJip_Cl6nI69zDBjgRkLCNZiQEnxCK95G3RpsDFe4MFtEue7aIS-wvm8

That's one study, using 4 dogs (including one that didn't take part), all of the same breed trained with a clicker. But that means we can generalise those findings to the worlds dog population - does it?

[ngb1066]

I am concerned that this thread - and in fact the entire board related to this case - is degenerating into personal attacks on one person.  That is not acceptable.