If the knife was actually tested - what about the other samples?

-

 


To be clear, the point of this blog is not to suggest that the other samples have indeed been tested, or that there is any deceit at play. I do however, think it's completely reasonable to ask these questions after some of the information that has recently come to light. 

In November 2022, the story broke that Police had been in the process of destroying the productions from Luke Mitchell's case.  

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9846975/cops-destroyed-evidence-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/

It was claimed that 300 samples remained - including untested semen samples taken from Jodi's body.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-prisoner-luke-mitchells-lawyer-27593040

"After the show aired, Mr Forbes applied for access to evidence and material gathered by police ahead only to learn it was in the process of being destroyed. It was halted by the Lord Advocate, but only 300 samples are said to remain.

Private Eye states that these include 10 samples taken from Jodi's body containing semen deposits, which the report claims were not tested for DNA at the time of Mitchell's trial in 2005.

Mr Forbes told the magazine: "Over 3,000 items were destroyed. You must ask, what did the police so suddenly want to hide? I have no doubt Luke is innocent – failed by the police, a hostile press and a poor defence at the time."

The Scottish Sun also reported on the untested samples:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9846975/cops-destroyed-evidence-jodi-jones-luke-mitchell/

According to Mr Forbes on Twitter, included in the list of untested productions, were swabs from a knife found in a skip, close to the murder site - but the swabs from the knife had never been tested. 


On YouTube channel Premeditated patter on 01/01/23, Mr Forbes states:

"Recently we've found that they took swabs from that knife, but never tested it":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo&t=284s

A freedom of information request however, confirmed that the knife had been tested:

https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-knife-in-skip-at-home-farm-was.html


Now that we know the knife was tested after being told otherwise - how do we know that the other 'untested' productions, are actually really untested? To reiterate - I am not suggesting that this is the case, but how do we really know? 

There has been no professional acknowledgement from campaign leaders, of the freedom of information response, despite the original story of the hidden and and untested skip knife being considered big enough to break in a national newspaper. 

How can we trust the people providing the information, when some of it is provably incorrect - and furthermore, it's just swept under the carpet?

With fundraising in place - and talk of fundraising seeming to pertain to securing money for the testing of the samples - how do we know that 1. The samples are untested and 2. The samples will be released?



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Luke Mitchell campaign - how have things deteriorated to this?

-
Image
  There was a time when campaigners fighting the claimed wrongful conviction of Luke Mitchell raged against the vilification of a 14 year old boy, who they shouted, had not been proven to have committed the crime. Their fight fueled by the abhorrent public denigration of an individual, by a media who cared not for facts, only sensationalism. While the campaign has evolved from the 2021 documentary, in to a petition and protests - recent online presence from campaign leaders, one in particular, seems to be well represented in the screen shots below.  This online torrent of personal attacks appears to come as a response to campaigners highlighting discrepancies between newly released transcripts, and freedom of information responses - and 'case facts' provided by the two main campaign leaders.  Some of the people asking questions are individuals who have dedicated the past few years of their lives to fighting for the truth and believing that a miscarriage of justi...
Read more

Transcript comparisons

-
Image
   A comparison is made between the information in the transcripts from Luke Mitchell's trial - and information out there in the public domain - particularly books written about the case such as Innocents Betrayed, by Sandra Lean. The purpose of this is not to argue guilt or innocence but to compare information and highlight misinformation. (IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean) Luke's other girlfriend - Page 169 IB "The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl" Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264 P2263 :   Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at...
Read more

The knife in the skip at Home farm WAS forensically examined and documented

-
Image
An article in the Scottish sun 20/11/22, titled 'I found a knife in a skip near where school girl Jodi Jones was murdered - before it vanished', states: " Lawyer Scott Forbes, part of Mitchell’s legal team, said: This is the real missing knife."  “Like so much of the evidence, it was either destroyed or went missing if it didn’t fit the police narrative.” A car mechanic from the Garage also said  “When I learned it wasn’t documented, it raised my suspicions the police may have tried to conceal the discovery.” Article Link:   https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9795271/knife-skip-jodi-jones-murdered/ Scott Forbes discusses the knife in the skip in an interview on YouTube channel Premeditated patter, 01/01/23. He says:  "Recently we've found that they took swabs from that knife, but never tested it" Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Qkg7e7Noo&t=284s (24.54) But the knife WAS documented and tested. Below are two Freedom of information response...
Read more