This is the first time I have posted to this part of the Forum. I have read summaries of the prosecution and defence arguments, and I must say, based on what I have read so far, I am rather underwhelmed by the case against Luke Mitchell and quite surprised he was convicted.
Unfortunately, this may be another one of those cases where there is nothing that can conclusively prove his guilt, and conversely, at one and the same time (and partly for that reason) he cannot produce anything that will exculpate him. I fear the only way this can be resolved is if either he confesses or strong and convincing evidence is found that points to an alternative suspect.
Is there anybody on here who actually thinks he was rightly convicted? If so, what is the single most important piece of evidence that convinces you?
Iam amazed at how Luke was convicted. I find lack of DNA, strange in an horrendous crime like this. How come forensics wasnt taken from other suspects crucial to the case. In which several are mentioned elsewhere. Ifind it odd to comprehend what this man is still going through, though i have my self, but am out and have platforms to use to speak up. This man is limited to forums and i just hope justice prevails in the near future for him. In what is an absolute travesty of justice
