I agree about the retrial, I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it. Most other "suspects" have alibi's, no motive whatsover, all behaved as expected at the time. Luke stood out for a reason, and his alibi turned out to be an absolute shambles.
FWG, you agreed with Janet that "There is enough reasonable doubt to get at least a retrial for Mitchell" You then go on to say whilst agreeing that there is enough reasonable doubt to at least get a retrial that "I believe one day it will all come out that Luke really did it".
Should it not have "all come out" in his original trial? Should that courtroom at his original trial not have been swimming in evidence against the accused, and I mean real evidence, not the scraping the barrel nonsense they called circumstantial evidence?
Are you suggesting that if there was ever a retrial that there would be evidence to prove his guilt which would be presented to the jury? Evidence that was not available at his original trial "that Luke really did it"? You cant be serious. They had nothing concrete then, and even less now. Are you also suggesting that Luke had a motive? If you are, could you share with me what his motive was?