None of JJ’s DNA found on LM’s bomber jacket?

[Fairplay1]

You just proved my point "accept/ignore/denial"

If this is the level of intellect, that has Mitchell's back. Then he truly has no hope.

And you just proved my point , don't answer logical questions instead move to belittling rude replies, name calling , your some hoot Dave and so predictable

What about that answer you have that I'm not getting relating to the forensic analysis , maybe don't bother as it seems my intellect is not a match for yours. Bye then nice chat

[Davie2]

What about that answer you have that I'm not getting relating to the forensic analysis

You have already been told, it is a circumstantial case.

[Fairplay1]

You have already been told, it is a circumstantial case.

Okay then that makes it a lot clearer , yeah your right to hell with any scientific advancement technology that is used and gives clear definitive answers and absolute non disputable evidence to who commits a crime we have a log of Luke calling the talking clock that far out weighs the genetic footprint left by the murderer on the murder victim.

You trust the circumstantial case that fair enough , I simply don't too many unanswered questions that's not right not in a murder case.

[guest29835]

You have already been told, it is a circumstantial case.

In case you are not already aware, an important general point to understand is that circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence are not opposites.  It seems to be very common for people to think they are, but they aren't.  Forensic evidence can be direct or can support a circumstantial case. 

A case based on circumstantial evidence alone - i.e. without any direct evidence - will always be inferior and prompt residual doubts and questions where the convicted person protests his innocence on some credible basis. That said, in general principle, I have no problem with a conviction based on a circumstantial case, especially as nowadays it is expected that such a case would be supported by forensic evidence - including forensic evidence that, one would hope, eliminates other probable suspects.

This brings me to the central problem we have in discussions here: without key case papers such as the pathology report, DNA evidence and so on, it is difficult to truly assess the weight of the case against Luke.  We're scratching around in the dark.