Luke Mitchell trial transcript/case discussion

  Claims have been made that semen samples recovered from the body of murder victim Jodi Jones, were not tested and that convicted Luke Mitchell's defence team were not made aware.  Sandra Lean stated in an interview (Sept 2023) https://www.youtube.com/live/bnp05EIlOYg : "One thing I think people find almost unbelievable, when I tell them this, is the vast majority of the male DNA from semen or sperm heads came back 'no reportable result'...and that's why we wanted to get some of these items re-tested. It seems unusual that there are so many tests that turned up nothing." The spokesperson for Luke Mitchell's campaign goes on to say that 10 semen deposits found on Jodi's body were only tested as far as identifying the samples as semen. She claims they were not tested any further for DNA or to find out who the owner was (sometimes known as individualisation). "There was a file that was marked 'not on main inventory', 'forensics, not on m

Claims are often made that Jodi Jones did not die at the locus where she was found. This has been conveyed by campaign leaders, online and in books and videos, and the same claims and theories have been carried through by campaigners and even moderators of support groups for Luke Mitchell. The assertion is usually related to the alleged lack of blood at the scene in the area where Jodi's body was found and has resulted in various conspiracy theories. Blood spray was found low down on the wall, meters from the disposition site where Jodi's body was discovered on the evening of June 30th 2003, by Luke Mitchell and members of her family. It has been claimed that this blood spray on the wall was NOT arterial spray and that the evidence points to Jodi being killed elsewhere and then her body being left behind the wall at Roan's Dyke path.  However, this does not correlate whatsoever, with the professional opinions of either the pathologist, Anthony Busuttil, or forensics officer

  Page 125 of Innocents Betrayed:  Mrs Bryson picked out Luke’s photo as “very like” the person she saw on the afternoon of June 30th, even though she was clear that she did not see the face of that person. What do the transcripts say? This same statement appears to be read out during page 183 of Mrs Bryson's evidence:  "Image 4 is very, very like the male I saw at the top of the path". The witness also goes on to say (and this is not mentioned in Innocents Betrayed) In regards to the photograph - " It looked like a person who was there that day, yes" She is questioned regarding pointing out the photograph showed to her by Police And did you point that photograph out to Police? - I did, yes And why did you point that person out to the Police, who did, do you think the person was? - I took it to be the person I saw that day She also said " I'm sure as I can be that it is the same male"   https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/andr

  Page 227&228  Innocents Betrayed "The second was the claim that the crime was not sexual in that Jodi was not raped or sexually assaulted. It comes as something of a surprise, then, to discover that on 26th October 2004 (about a month before the trial got properly underway), a report was made by a professor of forensic medicine regarding both of these points (*Black Dahlia and sexual assault ). This report stated that there were “no forensically significant similarities between the injury patterns in these two victims” ( *Elizabeth Short and Jodi Jones ) aside from the fact that they were “both apparently sexually motivated homicides of young women with post-mortem mutilations of the body with a sharp instrument." Continued..."This report added another piece of significant information regarding the sexual element of the crime. The whole police and prosecution approach was based on an understanding that proof of a sexual element would, of necessity, be what most of