24/10/2023
Condoms found at the scene & the DNA Database
A LOOK AT CONDOMS FOUND AT AND NEAR THE SCENE, AND WHAT THE INVESTIGATION DID
WITH THIS INFORMATION.
A condom was found around 20 metres (according to original reports), from Jodi’s body.
This description later changed to ‘within a 20-metre radius’. The condom contained a full DNA profile, with fresh semen - but police were unable to trace its owner, at the time.
Three years later, a match was discovered, when the owner of the condom’s DNA was entered into the DNA database for an unrelated crime. JaF, who lived locally, did not provide an explanation for not coming forward sooner but did give an explanation to police for the discarded condom.
He told police that due to having no privacy at home (he shared a bedroom with his brother), he had gone into the woods to ma******te. It was daylight until after 10pm on 30 June 2003, and JaF’s statement described entering the woods and walking along the strip behind the wall when it was ‘grey dark’ - he reckoned that it was around 8 or 9 p.m. He said that he did not see Jodi’s body.
Considering that the police had pinned Jodi’s time of death at around 5.15pm, it is extremely unlikely, that if JaF had taken the route he described, behind the wall, that he would not have seen Jodi’s body.
Given that this statement was provided 3 years after the murder, it is possible that JaF did not accurately remember the route that he had taken. He did, however, also tell police that he had gone back to ma******te again the next day, behind a tree near the scene, the day after the murder – inside the area that was claimed to be cordoned off by police.
JaF said that he had borrowed the condom from a friend – this was later proven to be untrue, that friend having been asked, directly, by the police. When asked why he had told
police that he had borrowed it from a friend, records show that he responded with “I had to say something”.
Unfortunately, during tests, something went wrong with swabbing on the outside of the condom and no results were able to be determined.
Police said that there was no obligation for them to pursue JaF’s account, as the case was already closed.
A condom with a full profile was also found in a cave near the murder site. A vagrant who had been staying in the cave was later traced and eliminated from the investigation. There
is no identifiable DNA profile of the vagrant available in the defence files.
How the database works – and how it worked in 2003
The DNA database facility holds DNA from criminals, which can be compared against bloodstains, saliva, hair and other materials found at a crime scene.
In Scotland, the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Dundee (PFSLD), was opened in 1989. The DNA database opened in 1996. Funded by 3 police forces – along with three other forensic laboratories in Scotland, the PFSLD regularly provided analysis for all of Scotland's
(then) 8 police forces.
There were, however, seven different labs used to analyse samples from Jodi's case – each with their own labelling systems.
In 2003, the Scottish and English databases were separate. Currently, however, the PFSLD do share data with the National DNA Database (NDNAD). In 2003, if someone had been
entered into the Scottish database, but committed a crime in England, their DNA would not flag on the English system. The requirement for the number of markers which determined a
full DNA profile, also changed after 2003, increasing from six markers to ten.
That meant, therefore, that any 6 marker DNA profiles in the existing system would not provide a “match” to any new, ten marker sample of the profile, because, with only six markers, those
earlier profiles would only be considered as “partial matches” in the new system. However, anyone whose DNA was already in the system (even if under the old six-marker system) would not be obliged to provide a new sample to be recorded as a ten-marker profile.
There were three other unidentified profiles connected to the scene. They remain
unidentified.
After Luke’s conviction – and before the condom owners had been traced - SIO CD, who was in charge of the investigation, stated in the press: "When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer."
We now know that this information was not correct and that the police were indeed aware of this at the time.
OTHERS IN THE AREA THAT EVENING WHO SAID THEY DID NOT SEE THE BODY
The Moped belonging to GD and JF (Jodi’s cousin) was seen at the v break in the wall at 5.15pm (around the supposed time of death), the witness did not see the boys, just the moped, leaning against the V break. The boys said that they saw nothing, but took 5 days to come forward to the police. Later in the evening, GD’s dad was walking his 8 spaniels through the woodland. He also said that he did not see the body and that the dogs had not reacted to anything. His shoe tested positive for the presence of blood, but no further results were provided. The moped was not forensically tested.