Comments on: DNA casts doubt on Luke Mitchell’s guilt http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/08/04/dna_casts_doubt_on_luke_mitchells_guilt Politics, tech and media issues from a Muslim perspective Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: FleaStiff http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/08/04/dna_casts_doubt_on_luke_mitchells_guilt#comment-18259 FleaStiff Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:40:29 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/?p=2023#comment-18259 I've become concerned about the forensics report concerning dna findings relating to one of the two men you referred to, an art student known to have been in the area at the time and known to have had a scratched face for which he gave several contradictory explanations. My concern about the dna is that it has been reported as "not a match" and such a statement is inherently misleading. That is one reason the word 'match' is avoided in forensic work. I know the defendant was charged with a rather gory crime but had no dna of the victim on his person or clothing. I know the victim had dna from two then unidentified males on her person. The question is how many markers were derived from the blood spot on the victim that was later determined to have been sourced to the artist and why did the lawyers not raise this issue at trial? I’ve become concerned about the forensics report concerning dna findings relating to one of the two men you referred to, an art student known to have been in the area at the time and known to have had a scratched face for which he gave several contradictory explanations. My concern about the dna is that it has been reported as “not a match” and such a statement is inherently misleading. That is one reason the word ‘match’ is avoided in forensic work.

I know the defendant was charged with a rather gory crime but had no dna of the victim on his person or clothing. I know the victim had dna from two then unidentified males on her person. The question is how many markers were derived from the blood spot on the victim that was later determined to have been sourced to the artist and why did the lawyers not raise this issue at trial?

]]>